Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 11-19-2013 - 5c
1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 19, 2013 Action Agenda Item No. 5-c SUBJECT: Eno Economic Development District (EDD) Access Management Plan (No Additional Comments Accepted) DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Y ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Comprehensive Plan/Future Land Use Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Map and Unified Development Planner, 245-2567 Ordinance (UDO) Amendment Outline Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Form (Other-2013-01) Supervisor, 245-2579 2. Draft Eno EDD Access Management Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 245-2592 Plan 3. Petition and Petition Map 4. Excerpt from Draft Minutes — September 9, 2013 Quarterly Public Hearing 5. Excerpt from Draft Minutes — October 2, 2013 Planning Board Meeting 6. Draft Minutes — October 16, 2013 OUTBoard Meeting 7. Resolution Approving the Eno EDD Access Management Plan PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board's and OUTBoard's recommendations, close the public hearing, and make a decision by considering a resolution approving the proposed Eno EDD Access Management Plan. As a reminder, the reconvening of this hearing is solely to receive the Planning Board and OUTBoard recommendations and any additional written evidence submitted since the September 9, 2013 Quarterly Public Hearing. This hearing is not intended to solicit additional input from the public. While the BOCC may ask staff questions related to the review of a given item, comments from the public shall not be solicited. BACKGROUND: What is an Access Management Plan and Why is it Important? Access management is the proactive management of vehicular access utilizing a set of techniques available to state and local governments to control access to highways, major arterials, and other roadways. Access management provides an important means of maintaining traffic flow, capacity and safety as properties are developed over time. It calls for effective ingress and egress to a facility, interconnectivity, efficient spacing and design to preserve the functional integrity, and overall operational viability of road systems. 2 Access management is achieved through the application of planning, regulatory, and design strategies such as: • Controlled access to roads by spacing potential North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)-approved driveway access points. • Provisions for shared driveways and common access off major roads. • Use of medians to enhance traffic safety. • Use of frontage roads. • Connectivity of roads in new development to approved access points. • Preliminary ideas on extension of new roads to adjacent areas for future access. The Eno EDD Access Management Plan is generalized. It is not intended to be overly detailed or property specific. It will be applied to develop more specific access management guidelines in the review of future development proposals. When specific projects are submitted they will be examined for consistency with overall Plan criteria and in some cases traffic studies may be required that may identify the need for transportation improvements. In addition, formally adopted transportation plans are necessary to procure federal and state funding for projects, enhance collaboration with regional transportation organizations such as the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO), and to require developer action consistent with the plan. Attachment 1 is the Amendment outline form, approved by the BOCC on May 7, 2013, outlining the rationale, process, and implications of the development and adoption of the EDD Access Management Plan. It contains additional information and analysis on the proposed plan, as well as details regarding the timeframe for the process. Attachment 2 is the Draft Eno EDD Access Management Plan for consideration. The Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan Recommendations (adopted June 24, 2008; amended February 3, 2009) — Information about the implementation of Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan recommendations is provided in the Amendment outline form (Attachment 1). Public Outreach: In an effort to better inform interested persons in an informal setting, a Public Information Meeting/Open House was held on September 4, 2013 at the Shared Visions Retreat Center (historic Murphey School). Eleven (11) members of the public plus Commissioners Barry Jacobs and Renee Price were in attendance. Generally, there was support for access management in the area, yet some concerns were expressed about truck traffic and speed limits along Old NC Highway 10, and impacts on the residential neighborhood associated with nonresidential development. September 9, 2013 Quarterly Public Hearing Comments: Information about comments from the Quarterly Public Hearing is provided in the Amendment outline form (Attachment 1). Attachment 3 is the petition submitted at the Quarterly Public Hearing, with a staff-prepared map of those persons signing the petition. Attachment 4 provides an excerpt from the draft minutes of the September 9, 2013 joint public hearing on this item. 3 October 2, 2013 Planning Board Meeting and Recommendation: Information about the Planning Board's review and recommendation of the Plan is provided in the Amendment outline form (Attachment 1 ). Attachment 5 includes an excerpt from the draft minutes of the October 2, 2013 Planning Board Meeting for this item. October 16, 2013 Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard Meeting and Recommendation: Information about the OUTBoard's review and recommendation of the Plan is provided in the Amendment outline form (Attachment 1). Attachment 6 includes draft minutes of the October 16, 2013 OUTBoard Meeting. Staff Recommendations for Plan Revisions: In response to discussions and comments at the Quarterly Public Hearing, the Planning Board meeting, and the OUTBoard meeting, staff developed recommendations for the following revisions to the Plan: 1 . Page 4, Item 9, and page 21 — Rephrase language regarding bike lanes to state that NCDOT has striped the pavement two feet from the shoulder of Old NC Hwy 10 to enhance safety for bicyclists. 2. Page 12, Functional Classification of Roads within the Eno Economic Development District (EDD) — Add the following paragraph at the end of this subsection and renumber pages accordingly: `Future cross-sections of roads within the Eno EDD are anticipated as follows: 1) US 70 is anticipated to have a minimum width of 100 feet (to allow for medians and turn lanes), with greater widths likely in proximity to the 1-85 interchange; 2) Mt. Herman Church Road is anticipated to have a width of 70 feet (to allow for turn lanes); 3) Old NC Hwy 10 is anticipated to have a width of 70 feet (to allow for turn lanes at some locations, bike lanes, and a sidewalk); and 4) Future frontage and interior roads are anticipated to have widths ranging from 60 to 70 feet, depending on land use and traffic flows. 3. Page 26, Eno EDD Access Management Concept Map a. Remove symbol for possible commuter rail transit stop from the map and legend; and b. Revise the legend for signalized intersections to `existing signalized intersection'. 4. Page 25, Access Management Criteria — Add a new criteria No. 14 stating that `required future cross-sections for roads shall be subject to NCDOT and Orange County review and approval, and included in the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP).' Links to Additional Materials: The Eno EDD Access Management Plan, with the revisions recommended by staff, is also available on the Orange County Planning Department website at: http://orangecountync.gov/planning/documents/RevisedDraftEnoAreaAccessManagementPlan 1119 2013.pdf Review of Protection Options for Old NC Hwy 10: Based on prior discussions at the September 9, 2013 Quarterly Public Hearing, OUTBoard and public comments, Staff recommends that they be authorized to research protection options for Old NC Hwy 10 and report back, as detailed in the Resolution (Attachment 7). 4 FINANCIAL IMPACT: Other than staff time, there is no financial impact associated with this item. Following review and adoption, Plan implementation will be performed by staff and coordinated with the City of Durham and NCDOT as warranted. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Interim Manager recommends the Board: 1 . Receive the Planning Board's and OUTBoard's recommendations of approval; 2. Close the public hearing; and 3. Consider approving and authorizing the Chair to sign the Resolution (Attachment 7) adopting the Eno Economic Development District (EDD) Access Management Plan (detailed in Attachment 2), which incorporates the Plan revisions recommended by staff and included in the Planning Board's and OUTBoard's recommendations of approval. ATTACHMENT 1 5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) AMENDMENT OUTLINE Other-2013-01 Eno Economic Development District (EDD) Access Management Plan A. AMENDMENT TYPE Map Amendments Land Use Element Map: From: To: Zoning Map: From: To: Other: Text Amendments Comprehensive Plan Text: I.Section(s): UDO Text: UDO General Text Changes UDO Development Standards UDO Development Approval Processes Section(s): X Other: Eno Economic Development District (EDD) Access Management Plan B. RATIONALE 1. Purpose/Mission The Eno Economic Development District (EDD) Area Small Area Plan (June 24, 2008; Amended February 3, 2009) recommended the preparation of an access management program for US 70 and Old Highway 10 (as described in the Plan) to provide better transportation systems and capacities as development proceeds in the area. 1 ATTACHMENT 1 6 2. Implementation of Related Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan Recommendations Since adoption, Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan recommendations have been implemented in preparation for economic development in the Eno EDD area including: • Land Use Plan Map amendments • Pre-zoning of land • Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) amendments for EDD districts • An inter-local utility service agreement with Durham • Work has begun on a public water and sewer master plan • Planning for a cross-county bus route • Striping two feet from the shoulders of Old NC Hwy.10 to enhance bicyclists safety • I-85/US 70 interchange concept plan was drafted by NCDOT • 1-85 widening project and US 70 interchange project have been entered in the State's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for implementation in a post development program. 3. Analysis The study area for the Draft Eno EDD Access Management Plan comprises approximately 980 acres of land in the vicinity of US Highway 70 and Old NC Highway 10 (near Durham County). As properties are developed for non-residential land uses within the Eno EDD, transportation interconnectivity and access will become increasingly important, enhancing the importance of a formally adopted access management plan for the area. The proposed access management plan examines the US 70 and Old NC Hwy. 10 corridors and recommends an access management concept to best meet local conditions while maintaining the functionality of these important arterial facilities for current and future traffic. The improvement of the functionality of these arterials to serve both commuting and travelling traffic together with serving the businesses and residences along these routes is of high local and strategic importance as future development proceeds in the Eno EDD. Indicators of the area's future development potential include previously adopted changes to the existing zoning and future land use designations. The scope of the Plan does not include any revisions to the area's zoning or future land use designations, but does review what was previously adopted by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). 4. Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives) Transportation Goal 3: Integrated land use planning and transportation planning that serves existing development supports future development, and is consistent with the County's land use plans which include provisions for preserving the natural environment and community character. Transportation Policy Statement: The intent was that the access management policy framework of the Orange Grove Road Project (2003) be applied in other areas of the County. 5. New Statutes and Rules N/A 2 ATTACHMENT 1 7 C. PROCESS 1. TIMEFRAME/MILESTONES/DEADLINES a. BOCC Authorization to Proceed May 7, 2013 b. BOCC Public Hearing September 9, 2013 (quarterly public hearing) This item was heard at the September 9, 2013 joint (BOCC and Planning Board) quarterly public hearing. Some residents appearing voiced their overall concerns to previously approved development plans (i.e., zoning, future land use map). They submitted a petition (Attachment 3) in opposition to the Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan (which was adopted in 2008, and amended in 2009). Although the petition does not directly address the Draft Eno EDD Access Management Plan, the BOCC recognized that the residents were expressing concerns about potential future impacts on their residences and the rural road character of Old NC Hwy 10. In response, the BOCC requested that staff research protections that could be put into place to preserve the character of Old NC Hwy 10. Staff has provided a map of those persons signing the petition, which is also included in Attachment 3. Another comment at the hearing addressed the correct terminology for the two- foot striped area from the shoulders of Old NC Hwy 10 that was done by NCDOT to improve safety for bicyclists, but is not considered to be a bicycle lane per se. November 19, 2013 (adoption consideration) c. BOCC Updates/Checkpoints d. Other 2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM Mission/Scope: Public involvement from all stakeholders helps to ensure that decisions are made in consideration of the view and concerns on issues pertaining to transportation access needs in the Eno EDD. a. Planning Board Review: October 2, 2013 The Planning Board considered the Plan at its October 2nd meeting and unanimously recommended that the BOCC adopt the Eno EDD Access Management Plan to include revisions as proposed by staff and direct staff to: 3 ATTACHMENT 1 8 1) Continue its review of protections that may be put in place to preserve the character of Old NC Hwy 10; and 2) Report its conclusions back to the BOCC. The Planning Board specifically discussed and supported working with NCDOT to develop a signage plan to restrict truck traffic on Old NC Hwy 10 and to find ways to inform truck drivers of the low overpass heights along the road. Additionally, the Board supported reviewing and recommending restrictions on the speed limit along Old NC Hwy 10 through the study area. b. Advisory Boards: OUTBoard — September 18, 2013 At its September 18th meeting the OUTBoard received a brief introduction to the Draft Eno EDD Access Management Plan in preparation for its full review and recommendation at its October 16th meeting. At its October 16th meeting, the OUTBoard unanimously recommended that the BOCC adopt the Eno EDD Access Management Plan to include revisions as proposed by staff and direct staff to: 1) Continue its review of protection options that may be put in place to preserve t the character of Old NC Hwy 10 (listed below); 2) Report its conclusions back to the BOCC; and 3) Keep the OUTBoard informed as to progress on the Eno EDD Access Management Plan and the research and/or development of protection options for Old NC Hwy 10. c. Staff Recommendations for Plan Revisions In response to discussions and comments at the Quarterly Public Hearing, the Planning Board meeting, and the OUTBoard meeting, staff developed recommendations for the following revisions to the Plan: 1 . Page 4, Item 9, and page 21 — Rephrase language regarding bike lanes to state that NCDOT has striped the pavement two feet from the shoulder of Old NC Hwy 10 to enhance bicyclists safety. 2. Page 26, Eno EDD Access Management Concept Map — a. Remove symbol for possible commuter rail transit stop from the map and legend; and b. Revise the legend for signalized intersections to `existing signalized intersection'. 3. Page 25, Access Management Criteria —Add a new criteria No. 14 stating that `required future cross-sections for roads shall be subject to NCDOT and Orange County review and approval, and included in the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP).' d. Local Government Review: 4 ATTACHMENT 1 9 e. Notice Requirements This item was included in the Quarterly Public Hearing legal ad which was published on August 28 and September 4, 2013 f. Outreach: ® General Public: Public Information Meeting September 4, 2013 ❑ Small Area Plan Workgroup: ❑ Other: 3. FISCAL IMPACT Other than staff time, there is no financial impact associated with this item. Following review and adoption, Plan implementation will be performed by staff and coordinated with the City of Durham and NCDOT as warranted. The required legal ad will be paid with Departmental funds already budgeted for this purpose. D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS The Eno Economic Development District (EDD) Access Management Plan will implement a recommendation from the Eno EDD Small Area Plan, adopted by the BOCC in 2008. An adopted access management program will provide for improved transportation systems and capacities as development proceeds in the area. Formally adopted transportation access management plans are necessary to procure federal and state funding for projects, and to require developer compliance with the plan. Adopted access management plans can also be incorporated into regional transportation plans, which will enhance the County's collaboration with the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO). E. POST-AMENDMENT REVIEW OF PROTECTION OPTIONS FOR OLD NC HWY10 Based on BOCC, Planning Board, OUTBoard and public comments, Staff recommends that they be authorized to research the following protection options for Old NC Hwy 10: • Previous protections pursued for St. Mary's Road; • Secondary view shed regulations; • Scenic corridor overlay regulations; • Scenic byway regulations; • Scenic conservation easements; • Discuss with NCDOT the need for a signage plan to provide improved signage with the goal of limiting truck traffic on Old NC Hwy 10; • Review methodologies for informing truck drivers of the low overpass heights along Old NC Hwy 10; • Discuss with NCDOT the speed limit along Old NC Hwy 10 through the study area, and the possibility of it being reduced; 5 ATTACHMENT 1 10 F. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE See Attachment 2 for the Draft Eno Economic Development (EDD) Access Management Plan. Primary Staff Contact: Abigaile Pittman, AICP Planning Department (919) 245-2567 abpittman @orangecountync.gov 6 11 'E) .._ i 24"r- ORANGE COUNTY , , ,111J _�1 ..,_ 52 1 - ° ��� ENO ECONOMIC `r4 F ati°�, DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (EDD) ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN Draft November 19, 2013 -411/1Min- warm ,,,irt—:- o � I � i .1 '1,/,, '.;111. ---, 1:4110....., :, ,,,,‘„,...410. , . 1 ms,.4_ ik i ipsoW opv,,,,,,\ 411L �T III4W.„ 1.1 if 111 4% .4-. ----'Aril r o --MCU �` -' — – 4 __— — *,k".". -- Kt — -d i 85,—___-. —. E G V A6. gabs-R'-s, —� - 4110 q�0 R�VJC- o o it 5 q q .. .fRNEs ` ri-211/11111.1114111 w. o jb M L[7c'Y`-4 i �• z It–hO' 'II.p 1 y` oac o I— i r% 4,,,. ___ M '1 IscHEL(' 12 Table of Contents I. Introduction 1 II. Existing Zoning and Land Use 6 III. Future Land Use Designations .... 8 IV. Environmental Considerations for Access Management in the Study Area.. 10 Topography 10 Floodplains 10 Wetlands 10 Environmental Benefit of Access Management 10 V. Existing Transportation Conditions 12 VI. Functional Classification of Roads 12 Medians 13 Signalized/Unsignalized Intersections 13 Traffic Counts 15 Traffic Level of Service (LOS) 17 High Frequency Crash Locations 19 Interstate Interchange 21 Rail 21 Pedestrians and Bicycles 22 Bus, Car/Van Pool, and Park-and-Ride Lots 22 VII. Access Management Strategies 24 VIII. Eno EDD —Access Management Concept Map and Criteria 25 IX. Access Management Criteria —A Guide to Interpreting and Implementing the Eno EDD Access Management Map 26 X. Implementation 28 Coordination 28 Role/Responsibility of the NCDOT 28 Role/Responsibility of Orange County 28 Role/Responsibility of the Developer/Property Owner/Applicant 29 XI. Appendix 29 Goals, Transportation Objectives and Recommendations of the Eno Economic Development District (EDD) Area Small Area Plan, 200831 Eno EDD Transportation Access Management Concept Plan 200832 List of Maps Eno EDD — Vicinity Map 2 Eno EDD —Access Management Plan Study Area 3 Eno EDD — Zoning 7 Eno EDD — Future Land Use Map 9 Eno EDD — Environmental Map 11 Eno EDD — NCDOT Road Functional Classification 14 Eno EDD and Surrounding Area —AADT Traffic Counts 16 Eno EDD and Surrounding Area — High Frequency Crash Locations 20 Eno EDD — NCDOT Draft Interchange Concept 23 Eno EDD —Access Management Concept Map 27 Eno EDD Transportation Access Management Concept Plan 2008 32 13 Draft 11-19-2013 Eno Economic Development District (EDD) Access Management Plan Introduction The Study Area for the Draft Eno EDD Access Management Plan is the area depicted as Economic Development Transition on the Orange County Future Land Use Map. The Study area contains approximately 980 acres and is primarily bounded by the NCRR /Norfolk Southern (NS) Railway to the south, 1-85 to the north, US 70 to the northwest, and properties in the vicinity of Mt. Herman Church Road to the west. The I- 85/US 70 interchange is located within the north/central part of the Study Area. The Whispering Pines residential subdivision, comprising approximately 67 acres, is included in the Study Area and is designated as a 10-year Transition Area on the Future Land Use Map. Maps of the Study Area follow on pages 2 and 3. The majority of the area has been designated as an urban growth area since 1981 because of its proximity to 1-85, US 70, the interchange of the two, and the NCRR/Norfolk Southern (NS) Railway. The future of the area for urban growth was originally defined by the 1981 Orange County Land Use Plan, and reinforced by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (2008), and economic development land use and zoning amendments for the majority of the area in 1994. Envisioned land uses included non-residential commercial, office and industrial, with some higher density housing. In 2006 the Orange County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approved the formation of a citizen Task Force to work with Economic Development and Planning Staff in developing a plan for the Eno EDD. The Eno Economic Development District (EDD) Area Small Area Plan was developed over the next two years as a collaborative effort by community representatives, elected officials, and staff of the Orange County Planning Department, and Durham City/County Planning Department. The Small Area Plan (adopted June 24, 2008; amended February 3, 2009) contains numerous recommendations in the following topic areas: • Water and Sewer • Intergovernmental Issues • Land Use and Zoning • Other Recommendations, • Transportation including: • Housing o Potential Strategic Growth • Parks, Recreation, and Open and Rural Conservation Space (SGRC Program • Communications o Plan Updates o Implementation The analysis within the Eno EDD Small Area Plan explains and supports the importance of this general area for higher intensity activity while preserving environmental and cultural resources of the Eno River to the north and Stoney Creek Basin to the west. 1 IPage Eno EDD - Vicinity Map 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 49 1 157 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 ‘--- "N\• I ® I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 i 1 1 I 1 1 i jag__,soo,, ED 1 1 i lik3 1 I 1 :V' I \Vol A3110 613 1 l 1 , , 1 _ ____________________ 1 I 1 1 86 U i I 1 1 1 I 1 i 1 i I 1 1 1 m i II 1 ' i i' 54 "14 1 1■ ii i 1 \ I 1 I 15 501 Study Area - - - - - - - JI - - ---I,- City Limits N i��� r 1 in=3 miles ETJ o , a,•.,.. Miles Township Boundary Orange County Planning and Inspections Department GIS Map Prepared by Brian Carson.8/23/2013 , Eno EDD - Access Management Plan Study Area 15 ,....._��1 BRIGAD �� 9p ��CH LN��I RE\N°R 11111 G an ii -gilli lirtA ,__ __n__.. .#Alf_31-6 011.1 %/ 4r nr o O pLCOUCLi ' iliiiikoi L \ROWAN , o, ♦ -� RED v, �WALK I�.RTzcc,4O ' 2�0 O ` ,A W r di �� '� I O ILI MI r Q� . iii:*1 I:c N O ,�ti„ \ k I 4 STATIONRO �, • ��1�e � / z _P .ov_ It,,o EAF S LE Y S T w m�O�# 9♦ MoaI4 . /�� ��44- �CRES � :------D M o 5) g_NC io '�_ l O i 0 :_______ .,_ 8 I o Iii 0 BYRD RD iir # `qO O 00` Q wit: tc2��4 )-��� e0O R� 4_ FRO ar���� ��� it(Di o 0 , H I K o� O gi r3 in < ..1-ko\j �P.PAttA 1�4 il? BeA�� w IbOR/ ATT T/* -iiir /O o�I IP . 1, � 18 ii - 1.10LE,IF.,, , ,1� 1% ELIDOO I YN<, RIDGE DR2 U Q p' N 7/I U , •��RR � LSBpUGH��� ���-, 1�IOm A MAt RD a � � � , � ODF. r o ' I. W�o' co = ► LamQ \ I�_Ij� \ Q .O ' iir i ---.. ____ Ei.,. .3 ! —IllikbasilrE �,4.4-RD MOUNTAIN 11111, 0 ----. 1 inch=0.33 miles . i___�County Boundary O h {® 1 500 1,000 '� Study Area m "1 J Y ®Feet y JRo;lA -1 . Orange County Planning and Inspections Parcels v N Arilinallit\L4MIS �'■\. Brian Carson(8/22/2013) 16 Draft 11-19-2013 Since adoption, several Eno EDD Small Area Plan recommendations have been implemented including: 1 . Land Use Plan Map amendments designating the development potential categories of the Eno EDD (which was included in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, and amended through September, 2012); 2. The `pre-zoning' of land to promote the economic development land use program (current zoning adopted in September, 2012); 3. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) amendments for the creation and regulation of uses and development standards for the Eno EDD (which was included in the UDO adopted in 2011 , and amended through January, 2013). The purpose of these amendments was to more strongly encourage quality, non-residential development in the EDD while balancing any adverse impacts to adjacent properties and the environment; 4. Development of a long range Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for all economic development zones; 5. The continued development of Orange County's Economic Development program; 6. There has been progress with the Plan's water and sewer recommendations: • An inter-local utility service agreement with the City of Durham was adopted in January, 2012 to further the area's economic development potential; and • A consultant (CDM Smith) is currently working on a preliminary engineering study for a public water and sewer master plan for the area; 7. The County is working cooperatively with Triangle Transit Authority to plan for options for a new bus services outlined in the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan, including a possible cross-county route through the Eno Study Area; 8. Triangle Transit Authority has evaluated the best location for a future commuter rail transit stop within the Eno EDD area; 9. Bike lanes approximatcly two foot in width havc bccn striped along Old NC 10 NCDOT has striped the pavement two feet from the shoulder of Old NC Hwy 10 to enhance safety for bicyclists; 10. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) prepared a draft concept plan for the re-design of the I-85/US 70 interchange in 2009; and 11 . Projects for the widening of 1-85 from 1-40 to the Durham County line, including the re-design of the US 70 interchange, have been entered in the State's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for implementation in the future developmental program (post 2020); however, the State's new project prioritization process (currently under development) may allow the project to be funded sooner. 4 IPage 17 Draft 11-19-2013 These initiatives are in preparation for economic development in the Eno EDD area. Land development in the EDD is intended to occur through coordination between Orange County and the City of Durham, who will be the service provider of public water and sewer. Properties will be annexed by the City if/when served public water/sewer. The purpose of adopted amendments accomplished in 2012 was to align Orange County land use and zoning classifications with the City of Durham's Urban Growth Area located within Orange County. Additionally, NCDOT is currently proceeding with the closing of a private rail crossing closure on Greenbriar Drive that will re-route the access of properties on Greenbriar Drive north of the NCRR/Norfolk Southern (NS) Railway through the Whispering Pines Subdivision. The adopted objective of the Eno EDD Small Area Plan was the provision of an efficient, multi-modal transportation system. The first recommendation for the implementation of this objective is the approval of an access management program for US 70 and Old Highway 10 to provide better transportation systems and capacities as development proceeds in the area. As properties are developed for non-residential land uses within the Eno EDD, transportation interconnectivity and access will become increasingly important, enhancing the importance of a formally adopted access management plan for the area. Formally adopted transportation plans are necessary to procure federal and state funding for projects and to require developer action and contribution in providing transportation infrastructure consistent with a master plan. Adopted access management plans can also be incorporated into regional transportation plans, which will enhance Orange County's collaboration with the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO). This report examines the US 70 and Old Highway 10 corridors within the area of the Eno EDD and recommends an access management concept to best meet local conditions and the needs of businesses and residents while maintaining the functionality of these important arterial facilities for current and future traffic. The improvement of the functionality of these arterials to both serve commuting and travelling traffic together with serving the businesses and residences along these routes is of high local and strategic importance as future development proceeds in the Eno EDD. 5 IPage 18 Draft 11-19-2013 Existing Zoning and Land Use Existing Land Use The Study Area contains a variety of residential uses ranging from mobile home parks to modest single family homes on smaller lots, to large single family homes located on several acres of land. Additionally, the Study Area contains numerous commercial and industrial uses along Highway 70 and Mt. Herman Church Road. Five (5) parcels of land within the Focus Area are in the Agricultural Use Value program. Existing Zoning The existing zoning for the Study Area, derived from the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) is depicted on the Eno EDD - Zoning Map on page 7. The Study Area is currently zoned EDD-1 (Economic Development Eno Lower Intensity) and EDE-2 (Economic Development Eno Higher Intensity). The Whispering Pines subdivision is currently zoned R2 (Low and Medium Intensity Residential). Remaining areas of the Study Area are currently zoned R1 (Rural Residential). Additionally, the Study Area is within the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) zoning overlay district. The MTC, which measures approximately 1 ,250 feet from the edge of 1-85 and US 70, requires higher developments standards for setbacks, buffering and landscaping within the district. The following table describes the existing zoning districts found in the Study Area: Existing Zoning District Description EDE-1 The purpose of the EDE-1 District is to provide locations for Economic Development a range of lower intensity non-residential uses in the Eno Lower Intensity designated Eno Economic Development District. EDE-2 The purpose of the EDE-2 District is to provide locations for Economic Development a range of light industrial, distribution, retail, office, and Eno Higher Intensity service uses in the designated Eno Economic Development District. R-1 The purpose of the R-1 District is to provide locations for Rural Residential rural non-farm residential development, at very low intensities, in areas where the short and long-term solutions to domestic water supply and sewage disposal shall be individual wells and ground absorption system. R-2 The purpose of the R-2 District is to provide locations for low Low Intensity Residential intensity residential development and supporting recreational community service and educational uses in areas where urban services are available or are to be provided as part of the development process. MTC The intent of the MTC Overlay District is to protect and Major Transportation enhance important natural and environmental features Corridor through the provision of special controls of development along major transportation corridors. 6IPage Eno EDD - Zoning 19 ir lop 411111rir __. ..__________ __--.6m-Au _7„,),4,7 • 17, ,,c. • My e� ° co. I • a • •, 1I �i.. _ ,,,,- ■ 1 1/111 ‘,.)11 0 ■IP 4",441 N''''0,06 z, — '40' 1 . 0„,..______. 4w4f •� = 5P z z __:itz 00,, ..., , l�0Rs R, .., .., oo, z_ .A. , -,,,,, 4rAi ih, . -, ,.- .i III . ea , . n,„ tiwmig( „,. ,_ . .. ,,,,,..7: P ii �O r�� • �, O-s j 4V'*4,y/ - • !�, J� lib•_• WE Ste_ _*•p..4 I it 0 1 1 r ---________ _________ • 7 _ 7 O • � 1` lib'� yOW r4 • • MOBILE `/ • • ••■ • 40■ 9cRES 11 �prp0 o ■�is,,,, �:F�t��•t• � r. L • w� ;�� � p � p0 ,° 11/ saw ■w cc o 111110,--A‘ANE- v-i o■ DNC 10 .; A, �� WELON • ■ � ":01;14,1071'� ,�F GRD II !1 !1!•O ■ i I� OLD -0i- ORO�IIII-- �■w ■C RIDGE DR = Lii 7m 414...# till :rrt._--"1:11 7. li • ,c, 0 0 ai,..„ .,-)" ,---,_ • (2 z 4i.' ji "LEAF ��aill r-- /PSCNPLL pR Streams I I AR = EDE-1 I 1 PI D Overlay Major Transportation Corridor ry 1 inch=0.25 miles wit„...), Study Area City Limits EDE-2 R1 1=1 Overlay Watershed '' mFeet Parcels EC5 �� PDHR4 R2 �J Overlay Stoney Creek Basin M� Orange County Planning and Inspections Y Y � Brian Carson(8/22/2013) 20 Draft 11-19-2013 Future Land Use Designations Future development of properties within the Study Area will be guided by the Eno EDD - Future Land Use Map of the 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan, depicted on page 9. As a component of the Comprehensive Plan, the Future Land Use Map provides the framework for long-range decision-making regarding the area's growth and development. The following table describes the adopted future land use categories found in the Study Area: Future Land Use Description Designation Economic Land in areas of the County which has been specifically Development Activity targeted for economic development activity consisting of light Node industrial, distribution, office, service/retail uses, and flex space (typically one-story buildings designed, constructed, and marketed as suitable for use as offices but able to accommodate other uses such as a warehouse, showroom, manufacturing assembly, or similar operations.) Such areas are located adjacent to interstate and major arterial highways, and subject to special design criteria and performance standards. 10-Year Transition Land located in areas that are in the process of changing from rural to urban densities and/or intensities, that are suitable for higher densities and/or intensities and could be provided with public utilities and services within the first 10 year phase of the Plan update, or where such utilities and services are already present or planned. Non-residential uses implemented in accordance with small area plans and/or overlay districts may be appropriate. Resource Protection Designated Primary Conservation Areas which contain sensitive Area environmental resources, historically significant sites, and features considered unbuildable because of their limitations or unsuitability for development. Includes wetlands and floodplains along drainage tributaries, steep slope areas (15% or greater), natural areas, wildlife habitats and corridors, and significant historic and archaeological sites. 8 IPage Eno EDD - Future Land Use Map 21 of the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan )1%- _ • „.... so /*- 111 "Ak / IllelefarAlmmgel time%,,,gass iirth.. ii 0.0.0 ,, 4Sfb , ig lifiZ 1 411 101119r ali/ )01101111111W / ° all _ '`*���N ,-..7 /.,111.11 ■ it 3 4 I la Itie 4 ! 7 7 ni glik I\ .dill► J -V4 Ag, /11: IOR 011 W i t j,,•� kji■ *It i, _ep, 414- I . . lip_ �.. r\ \ P M # 3 - gerra ,,: Airop. .' j!• 6. _--___._ gtai r:=1.- IIII, *sr MrillIvetviimilill ral i 1 r��� ■����I err►�Qp��f. ��� 0 1 i ga. , Nor�X11 ,411/111 ■ ' R� ���rpvd�r (� a, ,,.., • 41, ... • „ri. , i, N .....„ ii I ; 16644 41w]�_ell II Adoption Date:Nov 18,2008 ' / _ , Amended through September 2012 /' Orange County and Planning and Inspections Department. r \ This copy printed August 26,2013. ' 1= I Map is for reference use only. A 11 141/1 Al ra_ 4 I I ISM:1 ill I Contact Planning staff for verification of data. 10 Year Transition NM Agricultural Residential Activity Nodes N Water Supply Watersheds '+^• t 1 in=2,000 feet Rural Neighborhood I 0 1,000 1 Rural Residential r City Limits t Feet Q OC/CH/CA Joint Planning Area -∎ r Rural Buffer Economic Development Transition • Orange County Planning and Inspections Brian Carson(8/26/2013) J I \ / c > ■ ■ I Y \N 22 Draft 11-19-2013 Environmental Considerations for Access Management in the Study Area The Eno EDD — Environmental Map on page 11 depicts the topography, floodplains, and wetlands in the Study Area. These environmental considerations will in some locations provide challenges to the development of access management strategies recommended in the Study Area. Topography The Study Area has gradual changes in topography except in the northwest and northeast portions. Elevation with the Study Area ranges from 340 feet above sea level to 550 feet above sea level. Slopes are not particularly steep even in the vicinity of drainageways except in the previously noted portions. Floodplains Floodplains are located within the Study Area predominantly along Rhodes Creek. Floodplains indicate areas of past and potential future flooding. Wetlands Potential wetlands have also been identified throughout the Study Area by using the presence of Bottom land Hardwood Forest vegetation as an indicator for the presence of wetlands. Wetlands are generally unsuitable for development and normally require additional regulatory oversight and permitting by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Environmental Benefit of Access Management From an environmental perspective, improved traffic flow afforded through an access management plan for the Eno EDD area could also translate into greater fuel efficiency and reduced vehicular emissions along the 1-85, US 70 and Old NC 10 corridors. 101 Page Eno EDD - Environmental Map 23 rir, ____- li • '' ,. " IrM ar9A1 )4 ,wiw,9„, vir,.... ,...„1_v. i V ; 4 ' t ''.6 • _ _,. i /II ' • A Id c,-c' 4 ‘ i' t 4 or, e ) i a,- o r° 111.z i 4,4,`..,..44 tip_ i ihrirt;040.if. , 6,4 7,, I, IF , , . 1 , __ ;z; • . atir rkr. \ , ...--11:,1, ,z, \-1, :....el/' .. ■ i7 461PAKAIr / 2'' —- - - .4//‘ Ar.-4,4riviliLAVAr.r 1 -,,,, 4 4-- . 11"'---, -...---- ,,l $ . f ,........- 1 „,-, !, X60��' x'46 0/ II 1 ��� ,� I Lt L- de ;_,J---' .pe' c, 4 7:0/5� 520 �� 1� 1 0. w m -' � �� o 510 /�� �,A°R �•, "iiiihk. It°, 6 ° ��► °�'t10 IO 1�� OG \ �4j •. � 5^A U__��� —_ 'I� �� �, ° � i� do s j i /��_—' 7-00�,/�450 _ 500 ,. 480��\._�1\r?� � ��.I 1 I`/ R1 _ 4111A0814, � ro° r��� –.t 450 ;� 0 85 ■�� � 420 �A��RESpj_� 450 -' `'t-"&�`�V o C, 0 t° * ': ��� `�pFi� i �/ GR'C NOS 7���� reti 0,1 -ii ❑ tI ��� w �R T �@_ANA J II���, R /�1 itritpwc,,„,k71� ri L A lk !� 1 r� 2! ❑S _�`"� fis ., 40 , p 4 �--- % Alktike �����.� 470 `` 4 fil 7- RO A iJ r o ME DON It� i AS, 0'�►�1 R< Sq O •��� ■1� U G N w� 2,, �� a r . I /0 I�� la O LDa . >mo RIDGE_DR-2kU I� ft•I . /�I; O L H �S,�I,■�I�■ Y+, D tki ' ► m M/M o ot1,-;y1 ,-AIL. c4, „...,„... b C �� G 1 rte o e°OW Mr DA TRH , o illii■lkif.ftlip■....- ill111111 .1 o e� �r — 10'Contours(NCDOT) —Streams 1. U' v� LL ® NWI Wetlands County Boundary ■ > P PS C H A ® 100 Year Floodplain Study Area Q rig [�jQg� N 1 inch=0'500 miles r • ►` ) `j Feet ▪ 100 Year Floodway Parcels CO U cy a M�OUNTAIN Orange County Planning and Inspections ▪Water Bodies �\ �� + I Brian Carson(8/22/2013) _________ 24 Draft 11-19-2013 Existing Transportation Conditions Functional Classification of Roads within the Eno Economic Development District (EDD) Roads within the Eno EDD have been classified using a road classification system refined from the NC Department of Transportation's classification system. Category General Description Interstate Major traffic-carrying facilities that are part of the Federal Interstate Highway system; trip length characteristics are predominantly long-distance intra- and inter-state. Right-of-way width is a minimum of 230-feet and can increase to over 300- feet, depending on the number of lanes. Arterial The primary traffic-carrying facilities in the county; trip length and travel density characteristics of substantial inter-county travel or of serving urban-type development; typically would include rural freeways. Right-of-way width is typically 70- to 110-feet, depending on the number of lanes and whether bicycle lanes are provided. Collector Facilities that generally service intra-county travel. Provides the network connection between local roads and the arterial system. Shorter lengths, lower volumes, and more land access than the arterial system. Right-of-way width is typically 60- to 100-feet, depending on the number of lanes and whether bicycle lanes are provided. Local Primarily serves as access to adjacent land use. Any traffic is local in nature; therefore volumes and length are relatively low. Local roads comprise all remaining public roads not classified as a higher function. Right-of-way width is typically 60- to 80-feet. The Eno EDD — NCDOT Road Functional Classification Map on page 13 depicts the following road classifications in the Eno EDD. The Map also provides sub- classifications of the primary classifications listed above. • 1-85 through the Study Area is classified as an Interstate. • US 70 is classified as a Minor Arterial through the Study Area. • Old NC 10 is a two-lane Major Collector road west of Mt. Herman Church Road. Mt. Herman Church Road and Pleasant Green Road area also two-lane Major Collector road. • Old NC 10 east of Mt. Herman Church Road, the US 70 frontage road, and several surrounding streets area classified as Local roads. Future cross-sections of roads within the Eno EDD are anticipated as follows: 1 . US 70 is anticipated to have a minimum width of 100 feet (to allow for medians and turn lanes), with greater widths likely in proximity to the 1-85 interchange; 2. Mt. Herman Church Road is anticipated to have a width of 70 feet (to allow for turn lanes); and 12 IPage 25 Draft 11-19-2013 3. Old NC Hwy 10 is anticipated to have a width of 70 feet (to allow for turn lanes at some locations, bike lanes, and a sidewalk); and 4. Future frontage and interior roads are anticipated to have widths ranging from 60 to 70 feet, depending on land use and traffic flows. Medians - There are existing medians in the vicinity of the I-85/US 70 interchange. Signalized/Unsignalized Intersections — The majority of the intersections in the Study Area are currently unsignalized. There are three existing signalized intersections: 1 . US 70/NC 751; 2. US 70/Mr. Herman Church Road; and 3. Old NC 10/Mr. Herman Church Road. 131 Page Eno EDD - NCDOT Road Functional Classification 26 p-Tw _-iii \<F T♦ �1,7 Teo J.r 4 1 t li / W ii iby ., i �O SPA I �I ('-p Vpjuit _, 7 me, tc,,p ti Q! vi,_ s ,I . e4 _ P ! . 4- _______ _ ,7z-°/*' 4.0-1.1L4.',1v I`/ 4/ \_ ` pF Ra ��aI , _, _1 1 _,_ O'Z' \� 85 ■ v Ai Air 44,44 I C . 11p,Rp� p 7,,ftiatialft U. ti-- , —11 k‘li __ Lc/ ' •,010 111,„,____________ -U F R�° 9•,'''I�� pUGH OLD - T S - ���� a �/�/I- 0 bog 111_0 I-ill -55°R Ei ■im 2 ir ,w gi ei, , Wit` r � Pi' _a„,,,.. We _ J W NEW LEgF `•' I c) �� � h,,,,, w PASpHA — � i • N 1 inch=0.25 miles Study Area NCDOT Functional Classes Major Collector d t i___:1 County Boundary Interstate — Local L CO 500 I I Parcels Minor Arterial Orange County Planning and Inspections I I Brian Carson(8/22/2013) J I 1 '111... //.0 �I �\I 1\ 27 Draft 11-19-2013 Traffic Counts The table below shows the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) counts collected by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) in 2011 and 2012. NCDOT does not collect traffic count data at every collection site every year. Years for which no data was collected at a specific point do not have a value in the chart showing the count. The Eno EDD and Surrounding Area — AADT Traffic Counts Map on page 15 depicts the points at the corresponding ID numbers provided in the table. Annual Average Daily Traffic Counts 2011-2012 ID Location 2011 2012 AADT AADT A US 70 west of Seven Springs Road 12,000 12,000 B I-85 east of the NC 86 interchange and west of 36,000 39,000 the US interchange C Old NC 10 between New Hope Church Road 2,400 and University Station Road D University Station Road at Windy Hill Road 960 E Old NC 10 between University Station Road 2,400 and Mt. Hermon Church Road F Mt. Herman Church Road between I-85 and 2,300 US 70 G Pleasant Green Road north of US 70 3,500 H Old Hillsborough Road between Hemlock 2,200 Drive and NC 751 I US 70 between I-85 and NC 751 6,800 J NC 751 south of US 70 4,800 K US 70 between NC 751 and the Durham 8,500 County line L Sparger Road immediately north of US 70 6,000 Zvi Sparger Road west of Cole Mill Road 4,200 N I-85 in Durham County east of Sparger Road 45,000 49,000 O US 70 east of the Durham County line 8,600 P NC 751 east of the Durham County line 2,100 151 Page Eno EDD and Surrounding Area - AADT Traffic Counts 28 Sr;1/4 /%MaIr N NNW SHADY DENWCDO _ - DR �/l/ z GLEN lb ----.. .. ce_ � C,REEN DR Q P� O II A, o ■� ,R\,__\GP.0® ?� ;BN I rillirkle g ^M. 1. ril WIL•I�TT Rp a:,a- I, ■ N- R Qv lqo I o �� i isibb r ..• noMI ; If � Z NB. titi�o Ii o. i seDR�� I' .J'1101111111 F' w CO ; 1 HO x /##/ * 4 ‘ a .... ..1, LI --*"--Alimulaiiiiiiii,___ _ iiirt VN WEB' 4.°.16,.-�i I co N 41.2ir\S._ .. 41P 3.1' . lib III loll II - --41,11_ .Q' far Ai „4„,.......„,_ z OLp,, _O NC"`10 _ UGH*R • y� � T 0 81 al II .1.- 1111.-"11111:. ,�� i iT- 1.111 11111 '' Iva Illio 41100 WO .LEAFL�� ,,,y ALL�DR i D pR �GN I. RIGSBEE RD, ,_ Cy Q........, N . Rp — Q �I,, i /111111 Sri:7, pa,..ii I I / 1* i*1"/"POIA iv it lipprdia r?' prof NV _ ; P P 2 y�sCHOOL�RD �c©R : Study Area Parcels O�Q� N/q`` NCDOT AADT Stations �Q �SRp II e- Traffic Lights ; N 1 in=2,200 feet C 2011 Traffic Counts �, I J County Boundary Feet•C 2012 Traffic Counts - - r IF Railroad �� Orange County Planning and Inspections Brian Carson(8/23/2013) 29 Draft 11-19-2013 Traffic Level of Service (LOS) Average Daily Traffic relates directly to a concept called "Level of Service" (LOS). LOS is a measure used by traffic engineers to determine the effectiveness of elements of transportation infrastructure. LOS is most commonly used to analyze highways by categorizing traffic flow with corresponding safe driving conditions. LOS calculations attempt to describe the traffic conditions of a given roadway as it relates to the carrying capacity of the road. The following are descriptions of LOS: Level of Service Description of Operating Condition A Free flow. Individual users are virtually unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream. Freedom to select desired speeds and maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely high (< 10.0 second delay per vehicle). B Stable flow but the presence of other users in the traffic stream begins to be noticed. Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream (10.0-15.0 second delay per vehicle). C Stable flow but marks the beginning of the range in flow in which the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream. Selection of speed affected and maneuvering within the traffic stream requires substantial vigilance on the part of the user (15.1-25.0 second delay per vehicle). D High-density but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted. Small increases in traffic flow will generally cause operational problems at this level (25.1 to 35.0 second delay per vehicle). E Operating conditions at or near the capacity level. Speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform level. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely difficult (35.1 to 20.0 second delay per vehicle). F Forced or breakdown flow. In the extreme, speed can be reduced to zero (Delay in excess of 50.0 seconds per vehicle). Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010. For reference, many municipal governments adopt policies requiring that new development not decrease LOS below level C or D. Whether Level C or D is chosen depends upon the individual policy decision of the local government and/or the jurisdiction having maintenance control. In North Carolina, municipalities maintain roads but counties, such as Orange, do not. Determining the LOS for a given roadway involves complex calculations taking into account factors such as roadway grades and lane width. However, generalized tables have been developed to serve as a guide in determining LOS using Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts. 171 Page 30 Draft 11-19-2013 The following table depicts the information relevant to the planning area: Average Daily Traffic and Generalized Level of Service Total Number of A B C D E Lanes Freeways in Urbanizing Areas 4 23,500 38,700 52,500 62,200 69,100 6 36,400 59,800 81 ,100 96,000 106,700 8 49,100 80,900 109,600 129,800 144,400 State Two-Way Arterials (Less than 2 signalized intersections per mile) 2, Undivided 4,000 13,100 15,500 16,300 State Two-Way Arterials (2 to 4.5 si nalized intersections per mile) 2, Undivided * * 10,500 14,500 15,300 Major County Roadways 2, Undivided * * 7,000 13,600 14,600 Signalized Intersections on Major County Roadways 2, Undivided * * 4,400 9,400 12,000 * - Not Determined Source: Eno Economic Development District(EDD)Area Small Area Plan (2008) The Orange County/North Carolina DOT road classifications that correspond to the categories shown above are as follows: Interstate: Freeways in Urbanizing Areas Arterial: State Two-Way Arterials Collector: Major County Roadways Local: (not addressed) Comparison of Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Counts and Generalized Level of Service shows that all roadways within the Focus Area are operating at Level of Service (LOS) C or better. ID Points B, N, K and I are the areas with LOS at or just slightly better than «C „ 181 Page 31 Draft 11-19-2013 High Frequency Crash Locations High frequency crash locations within the Study Area from 2007-2011 are depicted on the Eno EDD and Surrounding Area — High Frequency Crash Locations Map on page 19. The data was obtained from the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and is meant to provide a broad overview of existing accident rates for sections of roadway and intersections within the Study Area. Crashes have been grouped by number in the following five categories, identified on the map in different colors: 1 . 4-9 2. 10-19 3. 20-29 4. 40-49 5. 50 and above The categories identify both intersections and sections of roadways. The highest number of crashes, 50 and above, were on the sections of 1-85 west and east of the US 70 interchange, dropping in number across the Durham County line to the east to between 40-49 crashes. A section of US 70, between University Station Road and Linden Road, had between 20-29 crashes, with these two intersections and the adjacent sections of US 70 having between 10-19 crashes. Pleasant Green Road north of US 70 and NC 751 south of US 70 also had between 20-29 crashes. Old NC 10 west of Mt. Herman Church Road, NC 751 across the county line to the east, and US 70 west of Ameshia Drive has between 4-9 crashes. The purpose of the North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is to provide a continuous and systematic process that identifies, reviews and addresses specific traffic safety concerns, including crash data. The analysis of crash data is used to identify where, when, and why crashes are occurring, which can then lead to mitigation of the crash issues through a determination of potential access management countermeasures including the following: • Installation/adjustment of auxiliary lanes (left turn, right turn, etc.) • Installation or removal of a traffic signal • Adjustment of signal phasing, timing, and/or system • Installation or widening of shoulders • Installation of median islands, leftovers, etc. 191 Page Eno EDD and Surrounding Area - High Frequency Crash Locations 32 ...m■grirmii SHADY m"� �N NDR SIIIIIIIIitatiirra. z 1- GREENG�oN¢pR - Qom_ P- . I� Nor p,� /'� BR1GPpp � BIQ'�'N�R � c; v E FRENI�R 1/4 ffi j; 11111.11, 5 R �� WO 444 'WIN " WILLETT R r 44,=-„p Rp Q" 'I0 z , 4 ,t,/ \v• .441,6 v . :&. ** ® �`Ilt ��oR S,TAT /,�� O , o``� ` w _, r O Q �� O l0 6 I �jl�,-.� CU�;�S\BA��� �gTR I �J � F 4Vz ll pLD I�� RRO NEM�O� lil O \ C 1,0 Fn p J l �il� W : IL•� ORpuGH'RD � j "V* IF- valliir-451.--- vi...r . .-.:,, i, O� H SB, 0 �r �W 751 j; rr NEW'LEAFL�' GHP��DR e ,lid I RIGSBEE RDA /� 5 Q` ■ , 16111 N WINt yNILL3� Q ,1411100,11,41111■1 Ar cri' itierkw o a .PNY SCNpp��Q X \NCO ' /1 Study Area Intersections(2007-2011) Sections(2007-2011) 4 to 9 Ry/NALL/SR. II �� 10 to 19 10 to 19 II t 1 in=2,200 feet Parcels 40 to 49 N 20 to 29 20 to 29 l County Boundary • 50 and above I II Feet.4 i r �F Railroad I Orange County Planning and Inspections _ Brian Carson(8/22/2013) 33 Draft 11-19-2013 Interstate Interchange The I-85/US 70 interchange is located within the north/central part of the Study Area. Because interchanges invite development and traffic, it is essential to have requirements in place that address issues of compatibility and function. Access management plans and regulations help to preserve the safety and efficiency of interchange areas as development occurs. NCDOT has long range plans to redesign the I-85/US 70 interchange and designed a concept plan for the redesign in 2009. The conceptual design will impact access management concepts for the Eno EDD area, particularly the potential location of frontage roads and the spacing of access points from interchange ramps. The redesign of the interchange is currently included with a multi-phase project for the widening of I- 85 from 1-40 to the Durham County line. The projects have been entered in the State's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for implementation in the future developmental program (post 2020); however, the State's new project Strategic Mobility Formula prioritization process may allow the project to be funded sooner. The Eno EDD — NCDOT Draft Interchange Concept Map follows on page 22. Rail Although rail traffic has decreased considerably in North Carolina, the NCRR/Norfolk Southern (NS) Railway, which is the southerly boundary of the Study Area, is still used for general rail transport and intrastate commuter service provided by Amtrak. Additionally, there is a rail spur line to Chapel Hill in the western portion of the Study Area, east of University Station Road that is still used for deliveries to the UNC campus. There is also a rail spur that is in private use, east of Herman Church Road. The North Carolina Railroad's (NCRR) Long Range Capital Plan identifies a corridor beginning east of Old NC Highway 10 stretching until approximately University Station Road to be double tracked to increase freight capacities. This is currently an unfunded project. The Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) completed final plans for Phase 1 of its regional commuter rail service in the Triangle and attempted to procure Federal funding to implement Phase 1 service that would link Raleigh, Cary and Durham. However, due to changes in federal cost-effectiveness guidelines, the project has been shelved for the near future. At this time, the future of Triangle commuter rail service is uncertain due to funding considerations. Historically, University Station was located near the spur rail line that reaches to Chapel Hill. UNC students, faculty, and visitors would have used University Station in their travels to and from campus and other areas. If the Region pursues commuter rail in the future, the spur line to Chapel Hill would likely become an important connector within the rail network. Triangle Transit Authority has identified a recommended location for a future passenger rail stop within the Study Area (west of Greenbriar Drive). 211 Page 34 Draft 11-19-2013 Pedestrians and Bicycles Approximate two-foot bike lanes have been striped along Old NC 10 and Old Hillsborough Road. These bicycle facilities are consistent with the rural expressway character of the roads. A bike lane project is proposed on NC 751 at the eastern edge of the Study Area. The project is included in the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). This bike lane would provide connectivity with the lanes along Old NC 10 and Old Hillsborough Road. Many of the arterials and collector roadways in the Eno EDD area do not currently have continuous pedestrian or bicycle facilities. As these existing rural areas transition to urbanized areas, pedestrian and bicycle facilities will be encouraged for the surrounding arterial and collector streets. Bus, Car/Van Pool, and Park-and-Ride Lots General bus services do not serve the Eno EDD area at this time. However, Orange Public Transit (OPT) provides social service transit service for area senior citizens and low income residents who can arrange for transportation to and from medical appointments through OPT. OPT and Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) are currently in a planning phase for new bus services included in the adopted Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (OCBRIP). A cross-county route, with stops along the way, is one of the initial regional routes being planned. This route will cross through the Eno EDD area on its way to Durham. Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) operates a ridesharing matching service for commuters who are interested in carpooling. In addition, TTA operates vanpools that are made up of at least seven commuters who live and work near each other and who share approximately the same work hours. One leg of the vanpool's trip must begin or end in Wake, Durham, or Orange County. TTA provides the van, pays for gas and insurance; and arranges, oversees, and pays for all maintenance. Riders pay a monthly fare based on the average daily round-trip mileage. Commuters who are interested in joining a vanpool may contact TTA to inquire about joining an existing vanpool or starting a new vanpool. At the present time, there are no official park-and-ride lots located in the Eno EDD area. 22 IPage Eno EDD - NCDOT Draft Interchange Concept (3/13/2009) 35 CM(EST CC§Inkl T1LW �=_ -. MPIV •.. _ - _-_ _ -_ -_ _ �� �.a. —` l ....or :-..,... ..• . . "&\,. IJ \ CD at,.t•- disilliwo<\•• o r. RCMP c,m 1re < .4 . t\ N-- i ,CRABTREE BANE CCC r'r l'7 -•N �• •- moral ` +G dill u `i � `^ w Y � 1 STATE • -"��` �.. 5es�, u �~�47P'r •. £� 7 \. i ` �`�°"'-•e ar KFMFm'�:� -..--.-._ _ - - - _ - --- `"' e—set _ a'= // \��, • y =J �. - ' ?tea ;` - ---�-- . .Q. U , - a _ `..--6ABTREE lit ir,t,�i E cr �i , LRAdTREE: LLB . 4 ,' N 4 { i „E � ,d''� ]� 5 t1lgSeoPU IUTIIT a FAL a - ''.:,..N...,.• ` :` \_M1 _�l • I S ZA,fi OO.F .A , T l r6� \ .-...--.y - [.town.LWP�A NHS -� ,. i /� PAM NoxeaQ c r tiJ I. PAM WNW,c sm �` V , ' , ' 1 • 'SSA,,,4 ; 6B era Fitt ti:f = 1 r - M,;v _ \ , �y , -�• �-� �;jL•�'- '-1� 1 CVEtC c., / ..�- - ice�'-a.—_—. . i-_—_— �. r 'l/O•l �_ '.,'? ..` k• r� ./ TD BON*sirsoN PI MBN x '} �1 iF ,� , ./-4,/ r1 -�Q> At- -----,-,,:z-,4 7 •a l 7----., J as i :. �; BON*r(Am7pC0.S ,/ - ��� '/ roinmos CONSrAMrq 1.. '' ] �p - Al C-�'�EAxOLI A e:.x:ros':c•K• �1`LIr�1,j 1TOF , ��, v 9 4 _- _ �....,,,,,,..„,„.., ,'73 9Ai011N 4FLQA LRACE Tw r ` O t _-ti ,...... 05141.8�ou�TT Ate . ,,� '� Y 4. ��� - -- . p r 6' IONAIA CC.6RILMIP WC'-1-.D.R A m NOSP1TALMI PIC�T. ,-A. '� �O Ce P.�a ` � Hi CAPrni , �.. ® EATYA oarwo Fur ,.RrO�-N, iiC T 'r, ■ \NV'S**, "d ■ M 100 YR Floodplain I :::dies rr 4141 N 1 in=550 feet - Parcels YR Floodway ®. 'Al ° * i met 111.1 r Parcels p0/�' Orange County Planning and Inspections ' ., lir 7. N14 Brian Carson(8/22/2013) 36 Draft 11-19-2013 Access Management Strategies Access management is the systematic control of the location, spacing, design and operation of driveways, median openings, interchanges and street connections to a roadway. The chief goal of access management planning is to reduce the number and severity of conflicts between through moving traffic and traffic attempting to turn. Successfully managing these conflicts can result in fewer automobile and pedestrian accidents, reduced congestion and preservation of public investment in the road network. Access management strategies attempt to reduce and combine access points along major roadways while still encouraging complete circulation systems. The result is a street system that functions safer and more efficiently. As development grows along a roadway, there must be an effective plan to manage street access to increase public safety, extend the life of the roadway, reduce congestion, and support alternative modes of transportation, and improve the overall appearance of the roadway. Better mobility expands the market reach of businesses and enhances the efficient movement of people and goods. With the absence of access management, arterial roadways can deteriorate functionally and aesthetically as well as affect economic, physical, social and environmental characteristics in the following ways: • Increased vehicular accidents • Collisions involving pedestrians and cyclists • Reduction in roadway efficiency • Unattractive strip non-residential development • Decay of scenic views • Dispersion of higher traffic volumes on adjacent lower class (local) streets • Increase in commute times, fuel consumption, emissions, area of paved surfaces Some of the specific ways that the functionality of roadways can be improved in the Study Area is through the application of planning, regulatory, and design strategies relating to access management. The following strategies are excerpted from the Access Management Program adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on November 15, 2011: • Policies, guidelines and regulations issued by state and local agencies having permit authority on development and roadway infrastructure improvements; • State and county regulations, codes, plans and guidelines that are enforceable; • Land development regulations by state and local jurisdictions that address property access and related issues; • Understanding of access implications by property owners, developers, and businesses; • The spacing and location of driveways; • Driveway consolidation; • Driveway width; • Guidelines for adequate sight distance; • Protection of the functional area of intersections and interchanges; • The redesign of poorly functioning intersections and interchanges; 24I Page 37 Draft 11-19-2013 • Intersection spacing and traffic signal spacing; • Construction of right and left turn lanes; • The development of strategically placed raised medians; • The control of median openings; • Median U-turn treatments or directional crossover to control turning movements • Strategic connectivity to other roadways; • The development of auxiliary lanes such as frontage roads; and • The long-term development of multi-modal options; Eno EDD -Access Management Concept Map and Criteria The Eno EDD — Access Management Concept Map has been prepared utilizing land use, zoning, environmental, transportation data, and evaluating the desired access management strategies for the area. The map provides a concept for future locations and public street connections for properties and streets within the Study Area. The intent of the map is to guide the design of site-access driveways and internal circulation routes for properties located within the management area that are likely to be developed at some point in the future. For those properties that may not be redeveloped by the time the I-85/US-70 interchange is redesigned, the Plan will also be useful for evaluating how access to those sites should continue to be served. Given that development proposals may be years in the future and the details of their layout is unknown, the conceptual access management map focuses on depicting criteria for development of the future transportation network within the Study Area. Accompanying the Eno EDD — Access Management Concept Map is a set of written access management criteria to guide interpretation and implementation of the map. The Map follows the policies on page 25. The Eno EDD Access Management Concept Map has been revised to reflect the following changes: • The symbol for the possible commuter rail transit stop has been removed from the map and legend; and • The legend for `signalized intersection' has been revised to `existing signalized intersection'. 25I Page 38 Draft 11-19-2013 Access Management Criteria - A Guide to Interpreting and Implementing the Eno EDD Access Management Map Through the following criteria the Eno EDD — Access Management Concept Map supports transportation and land use objectives articulated in adopted plans: 1. Restrict access where possible from the functional area of intersections and the I-85/US 70 interchange. 2. Control turning movements at entrances: a. Where recommended by a traffic study, right-in/right-out entrance design prevents left ingress and egress turning movements. b. Limit access to a defined point of ingress and egress through the development of an entrance that prevent vehicles from backing up on to the highway and enhances on- site circulation. 3. Space intersections and driveway access points to plan for reduced traffic conflict points as traffic congestion increases: a. Align major intersections. b. Align minor entrances with positive offset(s) to increase safety. c. Provide a limited number of strategically located median crossovers on US 70. d. Add exclusive turn lanes where required by NCDOT. 4. Provide adequate separation between traffic signals to expand road's traffic capacity and simplify signal synchronization. [Note: the Access Management Concept Map depicts existing signalized (and unsignalized) intersections. As development progresses, some unsignalized intersections may be required to be signalized by the NCDOT.] 5. Where feasible along arterials and collectors, share joint entrance(s) with adjoining property owner(s) through the recordation of joint access easements with maintenance provisions with adjoining property owner(s). 6. Where feasible along arterials, provide vehicular and pedestrian connections between adjoining properties through the recordation of access easement(s) with maintenance provisions, and construct connection(s) to the boundary with adjoining undeveloped parcel(s). 7. As properties develop, establish connectivity between the US 70 Frontage Road and future non-residential development to the south. 8. Provide frontage roads with non-residential development/redevelopment to increase safety on arterials and collector roads, and promote non-residential development for economic benefit. 9. Provide an interconnected street network in the Study Area as generally indicated on the map. 10. Provide an interior access network from identified primary access points along arterial and collector roads. 11. There shall be no access by non-residential development through the 10-year Transition Area until the area commences a transition in urban densities and/or intensities that are suitable for higher densities and/or intensities. 12. Accommodate transit, bicyclists and pedestrians on roadways in the Study Area. 13. Limit perennial stream crossings, and impacts to wetlands and steep topographical areas. 14. Required future cross-sections for roads shall be subject to NCDOT and Orange County review and approval, and included in the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP). 26 I Page Eno EDD - Access Management Concept Map 39 �� �,�7 Q `" ���������� — -z_ 7 ° IN r T�F/ Ørn!!�� toll, ,CPC/ /c„). ., 0�2 I V. : i.,_ -, 4' - ' - - ' . // , ., o_. , . ..„:, / t 1 I■/ - lf / ' '� I / `Q -. � / //, . . , ./ // v � 7�.. ■ �? - r ----K7______ v _A ,,, / ______ _ , / A■ A i- -% HOWES.T I-r 1 T/ pNE'RD /ld:, K. , - , ■ 1 ) --------:-.---,. . ■ .// • 'I i _4.4. 4?0 Al ry,:))7 k , os ,4..,, „I : 0 li, \\ ti'2': 4: _L_Li_ • li CI ELDONrRIDGE �S ¢" TR<.� OR - �J l �I DR QI��OL'D. �� I a , ' ��. F Rp I N /0 1 m w „ �. �GUGII ,° 7, : r/ �� . \ • OLD ���� ���Lif�.. �:.� I - -III � \ ��� ^a� o ��� ��� �� I, ..°U / / � I `��� :per. �' O alai alla _I�O IIIN J1 e , ' I `� .����� ® I, auk .. �.�g _ fJY I ■ Railroad Crossing Closure Frontage Road I=I=I= Railroad j// 100 Year Floodplain 7 1 Possible NCDOT Future Road et•i4k Merging Interchange Lanes Streams 100 Year Floodway I Direction of Turning Movements Existing Signalized Intersection County Boundary Parcels N O ch, t 1 in=1,250 feet Internal Connectivity �, Unsignalized Intersection Study Area ` —Feet 1-85/U570 Intersection Limited Access Zone •! Orange County Planning and Inspections Brian Carson(11/5/2013) •_,.,– ii ri .. — / �v�. • -cm■ 40 Draft 11-19-2013 Implementation Coordination The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) lacks authority over the land development process, and Orange County lacks authority over access permitting decisions on state highways. Together, these factors make coordination essential and to create consistent standards and procedures in the Study Area. Coordination between NCDOT and the County must consider the effects of its decisions on the entire Eno EDD Study Area if the partnership is to work efficiently. Because each agency has authority over a different part of the process, they can achieve far more through mutual cooperation than either agency can achieve alone. Coordination is also beneficial to the public and the developer or property owner whose financial investment is at stake. Role/Responsibility of the NCDOT The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is responsible for regulating the location, design, construction, and maintenance of street and driveway connections on the State Highway system. The NCDOT recognizes landowners have certain reasonable rights of access consistent with their needs. However, access connections are a major contributor to traffic congestion and poor roadway facility operations that can result in decreased highway capacity, and increased safety hazards. Early NCDOT review of development proposals help ensure conformance with access management requirements and provides NCDOT an opportunity to suggest changes prior to local plat approval, which may occur well in advance of a request for a driveway permit. The NCDOT Access Management Group (of the Congestion Management Section of the Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch) examines the potential safety and capacity impacts that new or expanding traffic generations may have on the state roadway system and provides recommendations based on the analysis. This process typically requires the completion of a Traffic Impact Study by the Developer/ Property Owner/Applicant. Other recommendations may range from denying access, to requiring the developer to construct additional travel or turn lanes, access restrictions, internal traffic pattern operations or installing new traffic signals to minimize the traffic im pact. Role/Responsibility of Orange County Several sections of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) (adopted 2011) will assist with implementation of the Eno EDD Access Management Plan. The UDO requires site plans to comply with County adopted access management, transportation and/or connectivity plans and denote the location of future roadways(s) and access easements, whether public or private, and to ensure and encourage future connectivity. The UDO also provides additional requirements for Economic Development Districts as well as the Major Transportation Corridor Overlay District (MTC), to ensure that a development proposal complies with EDD and MTC policies, procedures and regulations. 28 I Page 41 Draft 11-19-2013 An important implementation tool for access management is the UDO requirement of a traffic impact study for all special use permits, subdivisions, conditional zoning applications, and site plans that exceed 800 trips per day, or 80 or more dwelling units for residential development. Additionally, a traffic impact study may be required when a road capacity or safety issue exists. The purpose of the traffic impact analysis is to insure that proposed developments do not adversely affect the highway network and to identify any traffic problems associated with access from the site to the existing transportation network. The objective of the traffic impact study is to identify solutions to potential problems and to present improvements to be incorporated into the proposed development. As individual developments occur in the Eno EDD Study Area, permits can be issued that conform to the access management plan, or permits outlining conditions (whether through conditional or special use zoning, or site plans) can be issued so that the development will ultimately be in conformance. NCDOT representatives encourage this process by providing technical assistance and support. Orange County can assist the NCDOT by attaching conditions to development approvals to require actions from the developer that support access management. This may include conditions that require unified access and circulations systems, alternative access roads, or joint and cross access. Continued intergovernmental coordination with the City of Durham will be important to realizing desired development and access management within the Study Area since the City will be the service provider of public water and sanitary sewer. Parcels within the area are within the City's future annexation area and will be annexed if/when served by public water/sewer. Role/Responsibility of the Developer/Property Owner/Applicant A development applicant, such as the property owner and/or developer, is required to coordinate with Orange County and the NCDOT to identify possible conflicts with local, state or federal regulations and plans, including an adopted Eno EDD Access Management Plan. A traffic impact study may be required to be prepared by the applicant's engineer, to determine any traffic problems associated with access from the site to the existing transportation network, and identify solutions to potential problems to be incorporated into the proposed development. Additionally, prior to beginning any development work, the applicant is responsible for obtaining all applicable permits required for construction within the highway right-of-way resulting from development, including but not limited to, a Street and Driveway Access Permit issued by the NCDOT District Engineer, and all applicable environmental permits (i.e., erosion control, water quality, and wetlands). In the event that other new developments are in the vicinity of the proposed development, the applicant is required to coordinate with any other involved agencies, including other local governments to identify conflicting or overlapping access issues. 29 I Page 42 Draft 11-19-2013 APPENDIX 30I Page 43 Draft 11-19-2013 Goals, Transportation Objective and Recommendations of the Eno Economic Development District (EDD) Area Small Area Plan, 2008 SAP Goal: In the future, the Focus Area should be well served by reliable infrastructure to accommodate orderly, planned growth. An efficient multi-modal transportation system will operate in the area and commercial and light industrial uses will provide job opportunities to area and County residents. Transportation Objective: Provision of an efficient, multi-modal transportation system. The vehicular transportation system in the planning area generally functions well, but there are some concerns, especially regarding motorized vehicle flows during peak traffic hours. However, some peak hour congestion is also to be expected in an urban or suburban area. The key is managing the transportation system such that it can function as safely and efficiently as possible. Sidewalks and bicycles lanes do not exist anywhere in the Focus area. The shoulders along Highway 70 are paved 1 to 2 feet beyond the automobile travel lane and people use these paved shoulders as informal bicycle lanes. Broadening transportation alternatives beyond the passenger car is important. "Alternative" transportation modes such as pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit are part of an intermodal transportation system. The following are recommendations pertaining to transportation: 1 . Approve an access management program for US 70 and Old Highway 10 as shown on Map 23. This will provide better transportation systems and capacities as development proceeds in the area. (See Appendix B for an explanation of access management techniques). 2. Support the proposed future improvements by NCDOT that will redesign the I- 85/US 70 interchange. Limited access near the interchange will prompt an enhanced service road and access system to ensure equitable access to defined full access intersections. NCDOT should be strongly encouraged to incorporate bridge designs that allow wildlife to cross safely under the bridge and that allow pedestrian passage along any existing or planned trail-system connectors. 3. Evaluate the feasibility of providing bicycle lanes along Old NC 10. 4. Evaluate the feasibility and need to provide sidewalks along Highway 70 as the area develops. 5. The ability to have a commuter train station in the future should be explored. A station could serve the existing Amtrak service or a station could be incorporated into the future Triangle commuter rail system. 6. The county should work cooperatively with Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) to provide bus service in the area. 311 Page 44 Eno EDD Transportation Access Management Concept Plan , ■' : V .[ +j t+ ..- ygyF,{ . G y• •G '! ...i Y • l, t y , \4,.._, • 4:11'.' ......,'“C ,...1., • -.c....„1.1t.e.r---,.. ; , ' ..Ala '' • ill...11k. ., Y 'x :1 p-Vet ?,� jay . 1i � 5 �.___I _ SS 5 _- Wl.',/ ir__[ `•• .. .. r ti`�I y }�+ . ' is 1 • STONEGATE MOSILE HOME PARK •.i. �� 4)-.„'- -. -t �'' • f �� / }may r4, _A. "..ec ' .'- ' 4AP e-tr-i.4,, Ayr. s, . „IL"' .,.4. 0 ---'• - ' • .=-' 1— --'- gler2 1 ' j. 1_,I '-- o• � 1 .r'z+._ ire.; : g1��l'", �1fl 4V'.F ' Ji�S_Jila�lF'�4 .;:r_.ri. [ • r•, ��'_ firla,tilif., ,. From the Eno Economic Development District (EDD) Area Small Area Plan,Adopted June 24, 2008 Legend 0 500 1,000 2,000 ' Eno EDD Areas Feet 1 I-851US70 Intersection Limited Access Zone Area 1 •186 acres Area 4 -115 arms N Frontage Area 2a- 40 acres Area 5 -106 acres Orange county Plaminy and hnp.clians G.parnnm[ Area Internal Connectivity Area 3 • 52 acres Area 6 7 acres 045 WO Prep/041n M.am C4rema+.April W.2008 $ Primary Intersections "�°`°oawm"-`Ho„;;m'exa"°;as;"`° iJ I\) W Attachment 3 45 Petition in Opposition to the Eno Economic Development District(EDD)Area Small Area Plan We,the undersigned, oppose the Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan as it will result in the destruction of our surrounding wooded areas, our wildlife,creeks and other valued characteristics of our community. Additionally,the local environment would be significantly degraded by the increase in noise and light pollution, levels of litter and traffic problems. Therefore,we the undersigned do respectfully request that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners reject the proposed plan as wholly inappropriate for this area. Name Address / Signature 'Z,- i�A� -L.r' r..1 y 7, , � «' '= ;1,i e" ?/tt%?:✓a 4: mac.,tea W Cam:/2 %), ,,/, r ,, C. INIMINOMINM / `,9.. - :-:ice- rti -,maizzcV-vpizi.tiy4 (--kv .,s, 4/(0.6,- ,,,i,- ..p.._,J.4..‘ ). r .4,','a.,--- 4.14-Af i— l i- L j , ;J C ,-,fr tt` °- ..Je..,," tucLi, 1L0A- - n 1 \e Ct l ' p c\A c 0 ()i I,Q - t 1 kif. , - 1v U h' f3( ^r<it,`l / r°rr cl 9.., 5 e: 4- ,a. %i b eta %f'=n ,E /e-- .-4, . MTAIIMMEIMMINEESINIIIISIPMENIIMMIENE , ? -- ( i —re:21\i' a' —i ? E ,..._t I ,Llli i' r 7 7- 71 C( ,i JC. 4f'e -1-v--1,1 uP\i;),-- I = r^— 11 /J 1 riiiiMiffiliallEMEMEMBEYK-A. /0 C__ e...27a lift :„__ c__-:C=2 s IIRMIERMINIMEM :o 1 -Mc., >.) u 5 n i/". i r: f 0:) FriMWANNIM DIMIIMMEISMIIINELNIMIERNIAWAIIMINIZIPMFAMAPANFAI W' 7 /- IINIZEININIVIIMEMZEZEZWAIIMINEN Itr.M ..° . , / e. f -41 , '''- al,,,,,410.21M .„ yF y . ems L I, ri xr.L ■ MIMI War ' C Id ifilliiiinriirMii f k- ,/ A.bo'1- , a i- "'/ r.....cmgarn Vii, . Attachment 3 46 Petition in Opposition to the Eno Economic Development District(EDD)Area Small Area Plan We,the undersigned,oppose the Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan as it will result in the destruction of our surrounding wooded areas, our wildlife,creeks and other valued characteristics of our community. Additionally,the local environment would be significantly degraded by the increase in noise and light pollution, levels of litter and traffic problems. Therefore, we the undersigned do respectfully request that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners reject the proposed plan as wholly inappropriate for this area. Name Address Signature /....0 _ .r te. 0 . ♦e°a` e. .'' r�r _��- , ':" e � ;7 ,, „... _, Csl 5-‘- V.-- ,..547x= Gefttc n I fitke ( ,- k-ii t�1-,e,\r-r .. ee,-, i ce , , C. t�` _ �F`� -1)'(:),43-.1)(e 1). rya -�, j �j��r'�U�; ��E�i n �fiJ f � _ -�/� � � ;..L ��-. r f II�" �. C~°' e(! (.L � C- a _1'r ,--/ L, C__. 'OE1 .., =JA-_ J �g3 C b.-464-e_.> Q---g--2--(1-1,----2 .� l 1 ci _.,' . --`"y.- 10:_,. .,_ a.E, c�4,_c i i-L,„ kw (� (-1 72. e ,r I p, 0 4A F1 t kh ,. , .- ...-,� c- r (-i •-- e..4- . ? !e, i-t- .:.!L . (love .....•- /— r_ ,/,"4_ /-4/,,,,/-0,,, _-_,-vz.25.1 -Ni7:51 Ai((,,,-,--1 iic, -4,ii. - 4, 111 "C) °` ' c1 b 'c3--L' .....,/, : ICAil c": 'o C ()c,--c: I 7 fir% L? c ' i i., rt : . I fJ -. 0 1/c L, 7�vf t C` ' 0-,,Cie‘Cif. -4.- ` � C S_� r?''4 '":� / / (/, 7i"' r; 4 id o 2 I' ' i� )&'� /�A' .err, �` - c Gu C ,C -' 2_ / _... ----6 ' f- f r r +�- ..—.v' . r t �ri 6 ! f Li—LL � (Ari.4-Lt' r i'0 'Fa9 I-1 'c,.:W()Cy ° 3 C 0 fei €f! /f5i,(, .c.0 f✓' ':. � Jr' U iC .0 6 t t , =-A r }( --. t l i-? �C,r'',I Y ,'v • ),' ,-,,,,W '�, ¢¢ p 41- .1X / .2:2-44:'A. '')ack ei,Lq_,A.ba,,,,-, 1,--)/(Z,if - ).;;,--,,,....., „.........X.4 _ f / �:rte— � .� �. , -�a._ a. r j,,,° e A ..F 41 °''..--- '21144('' d e,e,/All f'7.C/`"..4 d' i f G<-- ;•6 - 4 4-0,-- % Attachment 3 47 Petition in Opposition to the Eno Economic Development District(EDD)Area Small Area Plan We,the undersigned,oppose the Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan as it will result in the destruction of our surrounding wooded areas,our wildlife,creeks and other valued characteristics of our community. Additionally,the local environment would be significantly degraded by the increase in noise and light pollution, levels of litter and traffic problems. Therefore, we the undersigned do respectfully request that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners reject the proposed plan as wholly inappropriate for this area. Name Address _ 4--- C 3 '''�� / Y�~. ��~�� h �� o �JWi*. rzl \ '}[ `"� L /�,� �� ^-� / �� / � � � ��w� /'u �� y��� »�� �\ _ -�� - ` Attachment 3 Addresses of Citizens Signing Petition Submitted at the Quarterly Public Hearing on 48 September 9, 2013 for the Eno EDD Access Management Plan <c aiik',,'.4' • j I, _/yam- .� .. r t_ o - N pE NJOOD x (59500 PAPER e"P 1 p_ 4, . . .. ..,:_ , N:. RIGA�GG . r? 2 r /. a ,e i t . t ,�w • DSO'' ------STATION/?0 `\ Q- s'� �� 85 ,... `xo ',.^• Qg�� gl'iO O� '� RG �`Z ,t 0 r_( 02 BANS' • 5. ,� t, , �'� GK - �i �, Map - I qa LO N�10 �,� CF G�OFRp o,. piN v Sq�O �.. Eue 410 0 , -> a- y EeTR R C t •re ORGUGH RG i� I '14 `s 0 2 0 o HILLSBr, Z W O l4 Y - 1, r Z a U .. C Petitioners y a \ 0 `pa R. County Boundary <..' f 1 in=2000 feet v,.,, . _,. ,. F�, Feet Eno EDD Access Management �' r Plan Study Area Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan adopted June 24,2008 '' Orange County Planning and Inspections/ y /� Brian Carson(10/1/2013) ' 49 Attachment 4 EXCERPT FROM THE DRAFT MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING September 9, 2013 7:00 P.M. The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, September 9, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS Offices, Hillsborough Commons, Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin, Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: James Bryan (Staff Attorney) COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Pete Hallenbeck, and Planning Board members, Maxecine Mitchell, Johnny Randall, Lisa Stuckey, Stephanie O'Rouke, Paul Guthrie, and Herman Staats PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Tony Blake, Andrea Rohrbacher, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, James Lea and H.T. "Buddy" Hartley 4. Eno Economic Development District Access Management Plan - To review a proposed access management plan for the Eno EDD (Economic Development District). The proposed access management plan involves approximately 550 acres of land in the vicinity of US Highway 70 and Old Highway 10 (near Durham County). Abigaile Pittman reviewed the purpose as follows: To hold a public hearing on the Draft Eno EDD Access Management Plan for establishing transportation connectivity as the study area develops in the future. She reviewed the following PowerPoint Slides: BACKGROUND • Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan adopted in 2008, amended in 2009. • Plan recommended an access management plan for US 70 and Old Highway 10 to provide better transportation systems and capacities as development proceeds in the area. WHAT HAS BEEN DONE SINCE 2009? • Land Use Plan Map amendments. 50 Attachment 4 • Pre-zoning of land. • Utility service agreement with Durham. • Public water & sewer master plan. • Cross-county bus route planning. • Striping of 2-ft. bike lanes on Old NC 10. • I-85/US 70 interchange concept plan. • Project for 1-85 widening and US 70 interchange in State plans. Eno EDD- Access Management Plan Study Area (map) Importance of a formally adopted access management plan: • Enhancing Interconnectivity and access as properties are developed for non- residential land uses; • Developer/property owner compliance in providing transportation infrastructure consistent with the Plan; • Enhanced collaboration with the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization; and • Procurement of federal and state funding for projects. • The Plan examines the US 70 and Old NC 10 corridors and recommends access management criteria and a concept map. WHAT DOES THE ENO EDD ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN DO? The plan examines the US 70 and Old NC 10 corridors and recommends access management criteria and a concept map. WHY EXAMINE THESE CORRIDORS? • The improvement of the functionality of these corridors to both serve the area's traffic along these routes is of high local and strategic importance as future development proceeds in the Eno EDD. THE PLAN EXAMINES EXISTING CONDITIONS: • Zoning and land use o EDE-1; EDE-2; R-1 ; R-2; MTC • Environmental Considerations o Topography; Floodplains; Wetlands • Future Land Use Plan designations o Economic Development Activity Node o 10-Year Transition o Resource Protection Area THE PLAN EXAMINES EXISTING CONDITIONS: • Existing Transportation Conditions o Functional classification of roads o Medians o Traffic signals 51 Attachment 4 o Traffic counts o Traffic level of service (LOS) o High frequency crash locations o I-85/US 70 interchange redesign concept o Rail o Pedestrians and bicycles o Transit (bus, park-and-rides, etc.) THE PLAN REVIEWS ACCESS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES • An Access Management Concept Map was prepared to guide the design of site access and internal circulations routes for properties in the area. • Written access management criteria were developed to guide interpretation and implementation of the Map. • Public Outreach A Public Informational Meeting/Open House was held on September 4, 2013 from 4:30- 6:30 p.m. at the Shared Visions Retreat Center (historic Murphey School). Legal ads for this public hearing were published in the Herald Sun on Aug. 28 & Sept. 4, 2013. The Eno EDD AMP was also made available on the Planning Dept.'s website at http://orangecountync.gov/planning/SpecialProjects.asp Recommendations The Planning Director recommends the Board: 1 . Refer the matter to the OUTBoard and the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned in time for the 11-19-2013 BOCC meeting. 2. Adjourn the public hearing until 11-19-2013 in order to receive and accept the OUTBoard's and Planning Board's recommendations, and any submitted comments. Abigaile Pittman said implementation of the plan will require coordination between the NCDOT, the County, the City of Durham, developers and property owners. She said the public outreach meeting had revealed some community concerns regarding truck traffic and speed limits along Highway 10 and the potential impacts to residential neighborhoods. Chair Jacobs said some of the concerns regarding highway 10 relate to rural character. He said there is a plan for Saint Mary's Road, which is a scenic corridor. He suggested a review of those criteria, which address some of the issues that people have raised regarding highway 10. He said this could be used as a blueprint. Commissioner Gordon asked about the functional specifications on pages 19 and 20 of the abstract. She asked for clarification on the road classification system and how it meshes with these two pages. 52 Attachment 4 Abigaile Pittman said arterial collector and local categories are broad categories, but NCDOT has some subcategories. She said the categories are taken directly from NCDOT's website. She said she is aware that NCDOT is currently undertaking a review of the entire functional classification program. She said this will be well under way by December. She said comments from local jurisdictions regarding classification changes will be welcomed. She suggested that NC 10 and the continuation onto Old Hillsborough are not consistent yet. She said NCDOT should examine this. Commissioner Gordon said that the current classification is being used with subcategories. She clarified that changes will be dealt with as they come. She said the classifications take a long time. Abigaile Pittman said there is an opportunity to participate in the process through comments. Commissioner Price asked about signal lights. She asked what the next phase is for the intersections. Abigaile Pittman said the map identifies existing signal intersections, and she has not indentified any future signal lights. She said this may change as development proceeds. Commissioner Price said she was referring to connectivity. She asked if the road would be widened if it is not made a scenic road. Abigaile Pittman said there is no known proposal to widen Old Highway 10. She said there is a proposal to straighten some of the curves in the future. Commissioner Price said she was just trying to figure out where the circled areas are connected to the plan. Abigaile Pittman said this is just the existing road system. Commissioner McKee said there are two rail crossings that complicate any possible widening. Planning Board Member Johnny Randall asked how much bicycle traffic exists on highway 10. He asked if there are bike lanes. Abigaile Pittman said there is a striped lane for bikes but no official bike lanes. Commissioner McKee said a 2 foot addition is simply a paved shoulder and not a bike lane. This adds a little separation. He said the widening of 86 North includes a 4 foot paved shoulder wherever possible. He said a true bike lane is 5 feet wide. PUBLIC COMMENT: Gina Andrews lives in the study area. She has spoken to 88 people in the neighboring area, and 85 of those people signed a petition. She said she took the maps provided at the Murphy school. She read the petition, which expressed opposition to the Eno EDD Small Area Plan due to potential destruction of surrounding wooded areas, and degradation of the local environment due to noise and other pollution. She asked for a rejection of this plan. She said that Old NC 10 welcomes people to Orange County and is favored by cyclists due to the beauty and safety of the area. She feels there is another plan that could work for this area. Commissioner Gordon asked if the petition is against the Eno Economic Development Access Management Plan or the small area plan. Gina Andrews said it is against the access management plan. 53 Attachment 4 Jon Arvik said he came to ask for help. He said Chair Jacobs comment regarding classification of Old NC 10 as a scenic area provided hope for the help. He said he moved here 7 years ago for the rural neighborhood, clean air, quiet, and claims on the County website. He said neighbors are still great, but the difficulty is air contamination and heavy truck traffic with noise. He said his history is in environmental science and airborne particulates and their health effects. He said Weldon Ridge is in close proximity to NC 10 and there is heavy traffic going at high speeds, spewing diesel exhaust, which is a human carcinogen. He said he moved here voluntarily, but he did not want to see these trucks going down these smaller roads. He said his concern is the health of his neighbors. Joseph Henderson lives at 5316 Old Hillsborough Road. He said he hopes everyone can come to an agreement to develop and maintain the landscape, while creating jobs and business opportunities. He says there is only one piece of paper, and he said there should be 3 that can be discussed. He said Old NC 10 is a beautiful drive and a wonderful place for bicyclists and joggers. He said commercial traffic should be limited to Highway 70. He said he has seen the new lines for access to 70 and this is a waste of money. He said this eliminates only 2 minutes of driving and is a waste of time and resources. Paul Guthrie said the transportation map includes the location of potential rail stop. He said there needs to be significant discussion on the location of this. He said this decision involves issues outside of the current discussion. Commissioner McKee asked what the speed limit is in this area. He noted that Pleasant Green Road on the north side of Highway 70 has an extended area of 45 miles per hour. He noted that the Board does not have the authority to regulate speed limit or what traffic can use the roads. He said the speed limits need enforcement in this area. Chair Jacobs said one of the reasons he likes going to football games at Duke is because there is not a lot of traffic, and he uses Old 10 as a shortcut. He said he does enjoy this drive and the sense of being in the country. He empathizes with the residents' comments. He said it could be part of the motion that the Planning Staff should share how the Saint Mary's scenic corridor works and how this might be applied to NC 10. He said DOT can be asked to reduce the speed limits, but speed limit is usually only reduced if there are high rates of accidents in the area. Chair Jacobs followed up on Commissioner Gordon's question regarding the petition against the access management plan. He said there was an underlying decision made by a previous Board that changed the land use plan, but that is not what is before the Board at this time. He said that is a topic for a later discussion. Commissioner Price said she travels in that area and she feels that an increase in the use intensity would mean more traffic and higher speeds. She said she has seen so many of the accident shrine markers on that road. She said something does need to be done. She said the same is true of Saint Mary's Road. She said DOT can intervene. Commissioner Rich referred to Chair Jacobs mention that the petition was for the wrong discussion, and she asked if the petitioner was in agreement with this statement. Chair Jacobs said the underlying issue from the petition is that the land use has changed. 54 Attachment 4 David Walbert said he signed the petition with full knowledge that it was not about the issue before the Board tonight. He said there was no petition to be signed 5 years ago. He said he found out about the plan in 2008 with only 2 days notice. He spoke at that meeting. He said that Chair Jacobs made the same comment at that meeting regarding a map that was drawn in 1980. He said it seems at every point in this process the Board is referring back to something that already happened. He said he would ask that the Planning Board and the Commissioners take into account the concerns expressed in that petition regarding the character and the fact that there is a residential neighborhood involved. Commissioner Price said the petition is about something else, but he management plan does affect the residents' way of life and quality of life. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to: 1. Refer the matter to the OUTBoard and the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned in time for the 11-19-2013 BOCC meeting. 2. Direct staff to review the standards applied to the Saint Mary's Road scenic corridor to see if and how these standards may be applied to Old Highway 10. 3. Adjourn the public hearing until 11-19-2013 in order to receive and accept the OUTBoard's and Planning Board's recommendations, and any submitted comments. Commissioner Dorosin asked for clarification on what is supposed to come back to the Board with regard to the Access Management Plan. He said there is not really a plan yet. Abigaile Pittman said this is a plan that offers criteria and a map Commissioner Dorosin said the abstract says this says it is a draft plan Abigail Pittman said this draft plan offers criteria and a map on future access and connectivity through the EDD. She said the highlights review existing conditions and how staff arrived here today. She said this is not a plan that examines any one development proposal, but it is a policy guideline with criteria to guide future development actions. Commissioner Dorosin said he feels that he needs a more specific plan of what this means. He said this is only a criticism of his own lack of understanding. He referred to the signal intersections map. He said a plan, to him, states a list of what will be done. He asked what the Board would be approving when this comes back in two months. Tom Altieri said what will be coming back will be the entire plan. He said this is pages 6 — 38 of the agenda packet. He said the map that Commissioner Dorosin refers to is within that plan. He said this could also be referred to as an access management plan for the area. He said this map is really a conceptual plan that provides the County the opportunity for future development. He said this will give the County future opportunity to get signals added, and to require easements for service roads to maintain the integrity of the existing roadway. Commissioner Dorosin said he is still not satisfied that there are enough details. 55 Attachment 4 Commissioner Gordon said she has no objection to getting more information on the Saint Mary's scenic byway. She said scenic byways just prescribe what kind of signs can be put up. She is not sure that a designation of Highwayl0 as a scenic byway will address the concerns expressed by the public. She said the main concern of residents is keeping commercial traffic off Old 10. Chair Jacobs said Saint Mary's scenic corridor has standards that were developed 15-20 years ago. He said these standards encompass much more than just signs, including setbacks and other provisions. Commissioner Gordon said it matters whether the term used is scenic byway or scenic corridor. She was referring to a state scenic byway. Chair Jacob said the term is scenic corridor. Commissioner Pelissier said that this item is confusing to the Board as well as the public, because it is really just a plan for a plan. She said this has to be done in order to develop details later on when there are requests for lights, bike lanes or other items. She said transportation planning is so complicated due to the all the different organizations involved on a federal, state, urban planning and rural level. She clarified that this plan is simply a placeholder to put ideas there for future implementation. Craig Benedict said this type of plan is needed to get funding for projects from DOT. He said it will help make any future development more manageable. He said this is a step in the process to manage growth. He said he understands the Board's comments regarding the comparison to the scenic corridor. Chair Jacobs emphasized that an access management plan also limits access. VOTE: 5 ayes, 2 nays (Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner Price) Commissioner Dorosin said the idea of a plan that doesn't really have to be followed is not satisfying. He said he appreciates the complexity of transportation planning, but he feels it is more useful to put more time in at the front end. Commissioner Price said more work needs to be done to outline how this transportation plan will fit in with the proposed land use. She said this plan has been sitting on paper for decades, and she feels it should be re-visited before anything is put in stone. Commissioner Rich said her understanding is that this plan is not set in stone but is meant to give direction moving forward toward a solid plan. Commissioner Price said once it is voted it seems to become a reference point. Pete Hallenbeck said it would be helpful to have the Planning Board make a map with the addresses of all of the people who signed the petition. He said this would help everyone see where the affected people are located. 56 Attachment 5 EXCERPT FROM THE DRAFT MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 2, 2013 PLANNING BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 2, 2013 REGULAR MEETING Agenda Item 10: Eno Economic Development District (EDD) Access Management Plan — To make a recommendation to the BOCC on a proposed access management plan for the Eno Economic Development District (EDD). The proposed access management plan involves approximately 980 acres of land in the vicinity of US Highway 70 and Old Highway 10 (near Durham County). This item was heard at the September 9, 2013 quarterly public hearing. Presenter: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Planner Abigaile Pittman: (Reviewed abstract). At the quarterly public hearing several comments were collected and this is what we came away with, that we need to prepare a summary of access management planning 101 to help educate residents and we have given you some of that in these initial slides. There was some confusion over the relationship to recent zoning and land use changes in the Eno EDD. Staff was asked to look at protections that could be applied on Old NC Highway 10 and St. Mary's Road was mentioned as an example. A petition was submitted by a group of citizens and it is one of your handouts. We have mapped the addresses of the people who have signed it. Some petitioners have voiced their concerns related to overall previously approved development plans, the zoning and future land use maps, water and sewer extension plans, etc. and not so much the access management plan. They don't like the zoning that is there. As a follow-up, based on County Commissioners' and public comments, staff has begun researching protections that may be put into place to preserve the character of Old NC Highway 10 including previous protections pursued for St. Mary's Road, secondary view shed regulations, scenic corridor overlay regulations, scenic byway regulations, and scenic conservation easements. Staff is recommending the following revisions to the plan based on comments: on page 4 and page 21 of the plan, to rephrase language regarding bike lanes to state that NCDOT has striped the pavement two feet from the shoulder of Old NC Highway 10 for bicycles, and on page 26 of the plan which is the concept map, to remove the simple symbol for possible commuter rail transit stop from the map and legend and revise the legend for signalized intersections to indicate that it means existing signalized intersections. The staff recommendation is that the Planning Board review the plan and provide its recommendation to the BOCC and the Board could also include the request that staff continue its research on protections for St. Mary's Road and report back to the BOCC. Herman Staats: At the Quarterly Public Hearing it seems that most of the public comments I heard related to this were the misperception that this was a plan to build a lot of new roads, stop lights, signals, etc. so I agree that education is needed. 1 57 Attachment 5 Tony Blake: When we did the rezoning last year, I took a drive up there and I heard at least 4 or 5 people comment that the biggest transportation improvement needed is to fix the railroad bridge on Old NC 10 because the trucks keep going down there and slamming that bridge overpasses or having to back up when they realize the bridge is too low. Did that figure into this plan? Are you working with DOT on that? Abigaile Pittman: We reviewed that in the course of this access management plan because we heard comments from the residents out there that they don't want the truck traffic going down NC 10 and into Hillsborough. Our review is that it is not possible because of the bridge. They don't have adequate clearance. I think what could be done is that we need some good signage and good communication from NCDOT because truckers have to clear their routes and it needs to be properly signed that they can't get down that road. We can certainly recommend communication with NCDOT to create a good system of signage through there. Maxecine Mitchell: People are concerned about the vehicle traffic and speed. To not encourage more traffic on Old NC 10. Whatever development that comes will create more traffic on Old NC 10and it will be very dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists who utilize that road as a scenic route. Abigaile Pittman: One of the objectives of an Access Management Plan is to control that traffic flow and manage the access points so the road has capacity to manage it in a safe manner. Maxecine Mitchell: If we have it in here, we will have to educate the community on how we plan to redirect the traffic. Craig Benedict: If you don't have an access management plan on Highway 70 where the focus of the growth is, the higher intensity area where things are planned, then people are going to look for a bypass. The main purpose of this is to designate efficiently spaced intersections on 70 with frontage roads so that people are directed to these potential of a signalized intersection to handle the growth and then they won't look for these bypasses as much. It really is a benefit to the peripheral areas to bring people to those services that may be eventually on 70. Lisa Stuckey: Could you repeat what you said about the bike lanes? Abigaile Pittman: NCDOT striped two feet from the edge of the curb to allow for the bicyclists. Paul Guthrie: Most of the signatures on the petition is concentrated in that area of the subdivision so I would suggest that further communication with them regarding the access management plan, the transportation planning, may ease their pain. Pete Hallenbeck: One of the things we can see from the petitioners' map and addresses is that there is confusion over the difference between zoning and an access management plan. 2 58 Attachment 5 Tony Blake: Do we act on this petition? Pete Hallenbeck: This is just information about public input. Tony Blake: Ok, that was my question. MOTION made by James Lea to adopt agenda item 10 as recommended by staff. Seconded by Lisa Stuckey. VOTE: Unanimous 3 59 ATTACHMENT 6 DRAFT MINUTES ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD OCTOBER 16,2013 MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Amy Cole, Transit Advocate; Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Alex Castro, Bingham Township Representative; Gary Saunders, Commission for the Environment Representative; Brantley Wells, Hillsborough Township Representative; MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Charles, Bicycle Advocate; Andrea Rohrbacher, Planning Board Representative; Jeff Miles, Pedestrian Advocate; Ted Triebel, Little River Township Representative; Vacant- Cheeks Township Representative; Vacant—Eno Township Representative;Vacant—Economic Development Representative STAFF PRESENT: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Planner; OTHERS PRESENT: Lisa Burley, Orange County Department on Aging AGENDA ITEM I: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL AGENDA ITEM II: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 21,2013 The September 18, 2013 OUTBoard minutes were approved with changes by consensus. AGENDA ITEM III: CONSIDERATIONS OF ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA AGENDA ITEM IV: REGULAR AGENDA DRAFT ENO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN. The Draft Access Management Plan is available on the Orange County Planning Department Website at: http:/lorangecountync.gov/planning/SpecialProjects.asp OUTBoard Action: This plan has been referred to the OUTBoard by the BOCC for review, with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for its November 19, 2013 regular meeting. Abigaile Pittman advised the members that the Eno Economic Development District Access Management Plan was heard at the September 9th Quarterly Public Hearing. The Commissioners referred it to the Planning Board and OUTBoard for recommendation, and the Planning Board reviewed it and recommended the plan on October 2nd. Abigaile Pittman reviewed the Access Management Plan. Alex Castro asked if the Durham side of the Eno area was an economic development zone. Abigaile Pittman responded that it is not but the area is Durham's future jurisdiction and they are planning for extension of their urban services into the area, so they have amended their land use plan to be consistent with the Orange County land use plan. She noted that Orange County has a utility service agreement with Durham. Abigaile continued review of the item. 60 ATTACHMENT 6 DRAFT Sam Lasris asked Abigaile to explain the internal connectivity. Abigaile Pittman responded that the dash lines on the map represent frontage roads and then further into areas future development would also use access roads. Basically future road networks would be off US 70. Entering US 70 would occur at identified safe access points. Paul Guthrie raised a question about the proposed transit stop which was just a place where one could possibly be in the area. He added that the long range plan for the NC Railroad for potential commuter rail between Goldsboro and Greensboro is a long term strategy. There is the likelihood that the junction of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro spur of the railroad will be in our area where there might be a switching station for passengers from a long term future north/south Orange County transit system. While working on the Hillsborough rail station committee one thing discussed was that they could only locate Amtrak stations so often and if they put a station where they have here, and then they have the Durham station, they will have a problem of either in the future putting a stop at the junction or they would not interested in having Hillsborough as a stop because of the overabundance of stations. It would be relatively easy to have a station at the Chapel Hill/Carrboro spur junction with the necessary parking. One thing most people don't understand, including some of the people who building along the railroad, is that it's a 360-foot right-of- way. It is a large right-of-way and it's owned by the NC Railroad Company which was created by the state of North Carolina. Even in downtown Durham, that 360-foot right-of-way is not always honored so that's an issue. He continued that in the foreseeable future,within 10 years, the railroad track will be double tracked from where it ends its double track in the first third of the eastern part of the map and all those tussles that are now too low will have to be expanded which means they would be rebuilt. The third issue is that is now a residential neighborhood and to put a railroad commuter station in the middle of a neighborhood like that is not very good far sighted planning. A broader issue which is not on our agenda is that some of that residential housing in the middle of this area is all single family units that are not going to disappear in ten years, so the question is how you deal with that area in terms of transportation access. Most of the other transportation suggestions are very well done and thought out. Paul informed the Board that in the area of NC 10 there are only two discernible business enterprises; it is basically modest homes. Sam Lasris noted that the question is what it will be in 2030 or 2070. Paul Guthrie answered that it depends on how the transportation planning takes place and what kind of structure you put on Old NC 10. Sam Lasris added that he thinks most of the action is really centering on US 70 and 1-85 and not Old NC 10 and he thinks that in 2070 it will be like 15-501 between Durham and Chapel Hill and basically NC 10 and the areas beyond that will remain pretty much unscathed because it's not where the action really is. Paul Guthrie added that how the County handles the development of Old NC 10 may determine that outcome. Abigaile Pittman noted that the Plan contains criteria that there be no access by non-residential development through the 10 year transition area until it commences a transition with urban densities/intensities. Sam Lasris moved that the OUTBoard approve the recommendation. Paul Guthrie asked that a member amend the motion to include a request that the Planning Board keep the OUTBoard informed of progress on this issue. Alex Castro made that motion and Sam Lasris seconded it. Amy Cole noted that she thinks there are a lot of people that unfortunately are too late in having their voices heard. Abigaile Pittman responded that the staff proposes to review protections measures for Old NC 10. Amy Cole continued that she acknowledges the protection considerations but there are a lot of low income homes. 61 ATTACHMENT 6 DRAFT Abigaile Pittman responded that they are not in a position to undo the land use plan and zoning approvals that the BOCC has already done. She added that they are in a position moving forward to offer options for protection. Amy Cole added that she is in agreement but in general the whole plan doesn't sit well with her but at this point the concept is already approved and now it is the best situation going forward. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously. AGENDA ITEM V: STAFF UPDATES a. Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) recommendations for new projects in the DCHC MPO and TARPO planning areas for the State Transportation Improvement Program(STIP) b. Clarification regarding bicycle project in the STIP c. Safe Routes to School Plan adoption schedule d. OUTBoard Appointments e. OUTBoard items of discussion for Chuck Edwards, NCDOT District Engineer OUTBoard Action: Receive updates Abigaile Pittman provided an update that the BOCC is reviewed the list of BG MPO projects recommended by the OUTBoard, and on the 19th will review the remainder of the projects in the DCHC MPO and TARPO area for the STIP. Also,Triangle Transit is working with Orange County for the list of bus projects for implementation of the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (BRIP)and a report should be out by the end of the year. Alex Castro requested that the OUTBoard be given access to the presentation of the DCHC MPO coordinated public transportation plan workshop. He noted that this request was made to the consultants but they never followed up on it. He thinks they do their thing in the MPO and the OUTBoard hears about it secondarily and he thinks the Board should know what is going on as it happens as opposed to after it has been completed. Abigaile Pittman stated that she would follow up and get back with Alex Castro about this report. Abigaile Pittman clarified information from last month's meeting about bike projects that are over 1 million dollars having to be classified as highway projects. She stated that NCDOT has reversed that decision and determined they will continue to be bike projects no matter the costs. Local governments will have to come up with 20%and administer the projects. Abigaile Pittman advised that the Safe Routes to School Plan adoption schedule was approved by the BOCC and the OUTBoard will be reviewing it at its December 18th meeting. Abigaile Pittman advised that the OUTBoard will be also be working on the annual work plan to be submitted to the BOCC in December. Abigaile Pittman let the OUTBoard know that there may not be a need to meet in November and that she would follow up to confirm. Paul Guthrie requested to have the Safe Routes to School material several weeks in advance of the December meeting in order to have ample time for review. Alex Castro suggested working on the annual report by email prior to the December meeting. Abigaile Pittman advised the Board of the two newly appointed OUTBoard members, Brantley Wells representing Hillsborough Township and Donald Wollum representing Eno Township. 62 ATTACHMENT 6 DRAFT Abigaile Pittman advised the members that Chuck Edwards, NCDOT wants an agenda before coming to a meeting due to time constraints and asked the members to send her topics for an agenda. Paul Guthrie suggested that Chuck Edwards give the OUTBoard a candid appraisal of what he thinks the new system is going to do with regard to the allocation of different kinds of projects in Orange County. Abigaile Pittman requested that members email her with anything they would like to discuss with or learn about from Chuck Edwards. AGENDA ITEM VI: UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS OF INTEREST ON OTHER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION RELATED BOARD AGENDAS OUTBoard Action: Receive information as a handout AGENDA ITEM VII: BOARD COMMENTS OUTBoard Action: Receive comments Gary Saunders advised that on the Commission for the Environment they are working on the latest version of the State of the Environment report. AGENDA ITEM VII: MEETING SCHEDULE-THE OUTBoard's next scheduled meeting is November 20, 2013, but this meeting may not be held due to lack of an agenda. AGENDA ITEM IX: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus. Attachment 7 63 RES-2013-096 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ENO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (EDD) ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, Because of its proximity to 1-85, US 70, the interchange, and the NCRR/Norfolk Southern (NS) Railway, the future of the EDD for urban growth was originally defined by the 1981 Orange County Land Use Plan, and reinforced by the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan (adopted November 18, 2008), and by economic development land use and zoning amendments in 1994 and 2012; and WHEREAS, The adopted Transportation Goals of the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan supports integrated land use planning and transportation planning that serves existing development supporting future development, and which is consistent with the County's land use plans, including provisions for preserving the natural environment and community character; and WHEREAS, Orange County adopted the EDD Area Small Area Plan (June 24, 2008), which includes a recommendation for the preparation of an access management program for US 70 and Old NC Hwy 10 to provide better transportation systems and capacities as development proceeds in the area; and WHERAS, Access management provides an important means of maintaining mobility, capacity and traffic safety as properties are developed over time for nonresidential land uses; and WHEREAS, Formally adopted transportation plans are necessary to procure federal and state funding for projects, enhance collaboration with regional transportation organizations, and to require developer action consistent with the plan; and WHEREAS, The Draft Eno EDD Access Management Plan was heard at the September 9, 2013 Quarterly Public Hearing; and WHEREAS, The Orange County Planning Board and OUTBoard has reviewed the Draft Eno EDD Access Management Plan and unanimously recommended approval; and WHEREAS, The Eno EDD Access Management Plan will further carry out the intent and purpose of the Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan, and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that the attached document titled "Eno Economic Development District (EDD) Access Management Plan" is hereby approved: 1 64 The Orange County Board of Commissioners further directs the Planning Department staff to research the following protection options for Old NC Hwy 10 and report back: • Previous protections pursued for St. Mary's Road; • Secondary view shed regulations; • Scenic corridor overlay regulations; • Scenic byway regulations; • Scenic conservation easements; • Discuss with NCDOT the need for a signage plan to provide improved signage with the goal of limiting truck traffic on Old NC Hwy 10; • Review methodologies for informing truck drivers of the low overpass heights along Old NC Hwy 10; • Discuss with NCDOT the speed limit along Old NC Hwy 10 through the study area, and the possibility of it being reduced. Adopted by Orange County: This the day of , 2013. Barry Jacobs, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners Donna Baker County Seal: Clerk to the Orange County Board of Commissioners 2