Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard minutes 022008Approved 4/16/08 MINUTES ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 2008 MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Cole Baker, Pedestrian Advocate; Karen Barrows, Little River Township; Alice Gordon, Board of County Commissioners Liaison; Jan Grossman, Bicycle Advocate; Paul Guthrie, Transit Advocate; Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township; Julian (Randy) Marshall, Bingham Township; Pascale Mittendorf, Hillsborough Township; Sandra Quinn Johnson, Planning Board Representative; Dawn Brezina, Eno Township; Al Terry, Transportation Services Board Representative; Eric Tillman, EDC Representative MEMBERS ABSENT: Bryn Smith, CFE Representative STAFF PRESENT: Karen Lincoln, Transportation Planner; Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Donna Davenport, Administrative Assistant; OTHERS PRESENT: Pat Strong, TJ COG I. Call to order and roll call II. Consideration of additions to the agenda III. Board Comments/Updates Al Terry announced that Chatham County and Orange County Elected Officials are meeting for the third time to discuss transportation issues between Chatham County and Orange County and utilization of Chapel Hill transit for some means of public transportation. They are meeting at Southern Human Services Center, large conference room from 7-9PM. IV. Approval of Minutes. a) December 12, 2007, meeting minutes (Attachment 1) b) January 16, 2008 meeting minutes, (Attachment 2) Pat Strong: line #498 should read 250,000 thousand not millions. Jan Grossman: line #374 should read “is gravel” instead of “on the road are”. Paul Guthrie: line #335 should read “Land and Water Conservation” Sam Lasris reiterated that the January minutes forward will be in summary instead of verbatim. Karen Lincoln replied that they would be. MOTION to approve the minutes for December 12, 2007 made by Karen Barrows seconded by Jan Grossman. VOTE: Unanimous Approved 4/16/08 Karen Lincoln stated that the January 16, 2008 minutes are not completed and will be emailed as soon as they are finished. Sam Lasris asked if the minutes could be available prior to the packet mail-out and if possible emailed to the members for prior review. Craig Benedict announced that the EDD Bus Tour was this afternoon. He stated that he has handout sheets for anyone interested in seeing the route of the tour. V. Buckhorn Village Class A Special Use Permit – Planned Development Craig Benedict presented an overview of the Buckhorn Village Planned Development. He explained the context of the project; where the Planned Development (PD) is and why we have it in a certain section of the county. Prior to Buckhorn reviewed the Economic Development District (EDD). Showed example of Waterstone Planned Development for reference: • Elements of this plan have been here since 1981. • Orange County has the planning jurisdiction for the rural buffer area and the two transition areas. • Started 4th Task Force in the Hillsborough area • Economic Development Districts (EDD) Design Manual adopted 1994 • Amended in April 2001 to handle the Hillsborough Area EDD zone and also addresses some specifics for the I-85/US 70 intersection; Eno Township, Buckhorn, and Hillsborough • Urban Rural Transition Area Task Force developed report that had principles of agreement • Strategic Growth Plan Phase I completed in June 2007 • Beginning Strategic Growth Plan Phase II which will start by locking in the borders based on water and sewer. • Hillsborough and Orange County are consciously making decisions on the remaining undeveloped lands around the perimeter of Hillsborough to determine what will be in the ETJ, what will be in the Urban Transition Areas, and what land use they will be. Informal decisions have been discussed. • Congestion Management Air Quality grant was to try to bring rural areas to a focal point and then transfer them into an urban environment. Sam Lasris asked if that was a federal grant. Pat Strong answered that it was and that the next call will be in 2009. Craig Benedict reviewed the Buckhorn area: • Reviewed maps in packet. o Efland village core (314 acres) recommended change to village mixed use land use destination and zoning destination to promote intensification. There is a rail track that goes through there. o Cheeks Commercial Industrial Node primarily undeveloped. Approved 4/16/08 o West Buckhorn – Petro Truck Stop and Orange Skillet is a Satellite Annexation by Mebane. (Satellite Annexation is when they are allowed to go outside of their ETJ and annex it but they have limitations) o Buckhorn Village Planned Development is located where Jockey lot is now (15-20 acre area of the 130 acre proposal) o Purple areas are where rezoning can occur. o Lavender areas are areas change from residential base zone to economic development zone. • 2000-2003 Utility Interlocal Agreement for Mebane to allow utilities to be extended. • Project will be completed under Orange County Zoning standards and restrictions. • The Development would submit a petition for voluntary annexation to the local government that would not be acted upon until the development was completed. • Development would still be taxed by Orange County tax base and if annexed by the municipalities. Sam Lasris asked when the last update occurred for the EDD Design Manual. Craig Benedict answered that it was last updated in October 2003. Craig Benedict stated that the manual was designed with an outlet in booklet to allow developers/county review agencies they can go thru the Planned Development process if they find better ways to accomplish their plan. Quote from the manual “If they think the developer/county review agencies can build a better machine they can submit the merits of their proposal of how they think they can build a good development they and go thru a Planned Development process. The Buckhorn Village Planned Development-Economic Development submittal will be unique to that property. Jan Grossman asked if they can get this without going thru this process. Craig Benedict answered there is over 100 design criteria but they probably adhere to 80 and the other 14 they are asking for a different design solution. Sam Lasris asked who decides if their design concepts are acceptable and who holds them to it. Craig answered the Public, the Planning Board, the Commissioners and they decide whether it’s acceptable. There are new laws that have changed the rules on how they are approved; local government and the developer have to agree upon conditions prior to adoption of the rezoning and special use process. Requests that are different will be discussed at the Public Hearing, with the Planning Board, and at a follow-up Public Hearing but there will have to be an agreement. Approved 4/16/08 Paul Guthrie asked about the transportation aspects of the project. Craig answered there is a traffic impact analysis that must be done on the project. The analysis talks about types of uses. Nancy Cole-Baker asked do they want to have mixed use. Craig answered that’s a request but it’s not allowed in that district but that could be one of the changes. Paul Guthrie asked how would you make the analysis. Craig answered there’s been a mixed reaction to mixed use. Retail does have a higher potential of having a residential component. Sam Lasris asked what about beyond the boundaries and would adjacent properties change. Craig answered the adjacent properties are designated on the future Land Use map as non-residential. Craig Benedict stated that we can say what land use planning and zoning areas would be appropriate for mixed use and what areas would not be. Nancy Cole Baker asked what about areas like Southpoint Mall. Craig answered Durham plans differently than Orange County. Alice Gordon asked do you have a map that shows what the transportation issues are to allow everyone to see what changes they would want to comment on at the public hearing. Craig Benedict answered we have put on the design of West Ten Rd and DOT has suggested that anywhere you have transportation intensity that you have parallel roads. Craig Benedict reviewed the transportation aspects. On site they have major corridors that go thru the site. All streets have sidewalks and landscaping. They would have to do bridge widening and ramp widening. Orange County put together a preliminary Buckhorn Road Access Management System. There are a potential for 2 lights in the area with a full service entrance/exit area. Allow only restricted types of movements with limited access. All access within the project would use service roads so that they could come out and use signalized intersections. When they asked for the Plan Development they county can ask for more walkability. Sam Lasris asked we can ask for innovations. Craig answered yes, you can ask for conditions that you as a board would like to have input into the plan. February 25th is the Quarterly Public Hearing and you can provide verbal testimony there after that you can provide things in writing that the applicant has to do research on. All documentation; questions and answers, and will become part of the public record. Alice Gordon asked if Craig could review the timeline. Craig answered that on page 4 are the opportunities depending on what option is chosen; at the Quarterly Public Hearing, at the Planning Board and you can make comments. Approved 4/16/08 We will also be asking for your written comments to staff to be answered by the applicant. All comments at the public hearing and any questions at the planning board meeting on March 5th will have formal responses from the applicant. Staff will be working on the phasing of the project. Paul Guthrie asked where is the forum to discuss the project as it unfolds. Craig answered the forum would be part of our comprehensive plan update. You can discuss the transportation element goals and objectives that would affect this project as it unfolds and those discussions can occur now. You have to leave openings to allow you room to analyze and address these issues. Nancy Cole Baker asked how do we come up with feedback. Alice Gordon answered we need to understand what this project is and how you feel the project works. You can make comments about what the land use plan and Craig mentioned some roadway improvements. You need to figure out how you can physically provide comments. I recommend that someone from this board attends the public hearing and if necessary state that you will provide your comments by a certain date. Karen Lincoln stated that there will be a full presentation at the public hearing. Craig stated that he is looking for this boards input. Sam Lasris stated that I think we as a board are looking for efficient movement of people inside and outside the development. We are looking for ways for people to move without the automobile and a design that allows that. We are looking for innovative design throughout. Paul Guthrie suggested we also need to look at efficient ways for material movement also. Craig Benedict stated that those type of comments heard at the public hearing. For example you could say ‘we’d like the applicant to provide a full explanation analysis of how they are going to use 21st century plus multi-modal transportation techniques. You could ask how they are going to reduce traffic. Karen Lincoln there improvements that they are proposing to make that includes sidewalks and bicycle lanes from the interstate to the main entrance. Randy Marshall asked do we need to make suggestions to get people to the southern end of the county or is it anticipated that everyone will go to the nearest interstate entrance to get to the development. Craig answered part of their traffic modeling techniques is to have this as an attraction and part on capacity of roads. Craig answered that at the Public Hearing I plan to show other malls in the area and explain travel circles showing what it might do to the traffic with a third destination mall. Adding another destination in the area reduce the miles traveled by the people in that region and there’s also an element of air quality and the reduced pollution. Approved 4/16/08 Al Terry stated that he is not opposed to any economic development. I like the controlled growth that we have by using that. But you made a comment that might could go in the EDD manual as a policy that states if there is something of this magnitude that there is an automatic bicycle area, an automatic bus pull off and bus shelter and not something that is requested, it is something that the developer is required to do. My second point is there are 13 surfaced parking lots and 2 structured parking lots and that’s double the buildings and that does not sound like we are promoting public transit. Craig stated they are asking for a reduced amount of parking. You can ask for bus shelters and pull offs. Al stated these should be automatic requirements not requests. Sam Lasris asked if the board wanted to continue this discussion. Alice Gordon stated that you need to make sure there is a consensus of the board. Sam Lasris I think we should call for comments via email from the board members to Karen, Nancy and myself. Alice Gordon stated that you want to have a chance to make formal comments. Nancy Cole Baker stated that someone need to attend the meeting to say that we would like a chance to make formal comments. Craig Benedict suggested that the board gather what information you want researched as soon as possible. VI. Draft Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Sam Lasris stated that on March 5th there is a joint meeting at the Exchange Club at 7:30 with the Planning Board to discuss the transportation element of the comprehensive plan. We have an April 14th deadline for comments on the objectives. Nancy Cole Baker reviewed the objective comments that were compiled from the last meeting. After the last meeting I thought we were a little unhappy with the results so far. A comment made me think about you can’t have a transportation plan without talking about destinations. I put together some of the objectives that talk about a transportation system as being a network of nodes and edges. Nodes being the places you go, where you live and stay for a while and the edges are the connectors are the routes you take from one place to another. The transportation plan should be the whole system not just the connectors. We need to focus on this being a complete system. The third thing is the traffic and how things connect from one node to the other. I have objectives for the nodes and connectors, and qualities you want your system to have. Lastly, how the system relates to other systems. Jan Grossman stated that we meet and decide on what we want and the consultants keep formalizing and we end up with this. We stated that we want true action words. Sam Lasris stated the Planning Board boiled it down to an overarching goal and you can fold the rest into that plan. Nancy Cole Baker asked has the Planning Approved 4/16/08 Board been told to do this for us. Alice Gordon answered that they are facilitating the process. Randy Marshall stated that the consultants are leading instead of following. Karen Lincoln asked if the board would like to have a special meeting to discuss this after the March meeting. Sam Lasris suggested that the board meet immediately after. Alice Gordon asked if there has been a packet mailed out. Sam Lasris answered that at the March 5th meeting will be a reading of the text. Nancy Cole Baker asked why are they writing this. Jan Grossman stated that the consultant should be reviewing what we write instead of doing the writing. Sandra Quinn stated the consultants have all the comments from the many meetings and they are pulling them together. Alice Gordon stated that it sounds like the consultant is writing everything down but they are not representing the board the way we want them to. Paul Guthrie states there is no place where they state why they are not following what we want. Sam Lasris stated we are in agreement that we will meet after the March 5th meeting and Karen will determine what meeting facility is available and let everyone know. VII. TIP Update Karen Lincoln reviewed the Draft TIP. This is an update on where we are in the process. Last Wednesday the TAC held a public hearing and your comments were submitted there. We plan to meet with the board of transportation members about the draft TIP before the adoption of the final TIP. Today NCDOT held a meeting Pat Strong attend and spoke for this board on projects you had commented on. I also spoke about the pedestrian bridge over I-40 and Orange Grove Road and the Buckhorn Road project. I also mentioned the TIP project for the replacement of a bridge over Turkey Farm Road and DOT has agreed to change the design of the bridge. There will be a one on one meeting with the board members on March 4th. Alice Gordon stated the recommendation came from this board. Karen Lincoln stated I added this based on previous discussions of this board. Alice Gordon stated that she thought the board should know. Motion mad by Randy Marshall to adjourn. Seconded by Jan Grossman. VIII. Adjournment Donna Davenport, Minutes Preparer _________________________ Sam Lasris, Chair