HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard minutes 041608Approved May 21, 2008
MINUTES 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD MEETING
APRIL 16, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township; Nancy Cole Baker, Pedestrian Access Advocate; Jan
Grossman, Bicycle Transportation Advocate; Julian (Randy) Marshall, Bingham Township; Paul Guthrie, Chapel Hill
Township; Karen Barrows, Little River Township; Alice Gordon, Board of County Commissioners; Bryn Smith, CFE
Representative
MEMBERS ABSENT: Al Terry, Transportation Services Board Representative; Pascale Mittendorf, Hillsborough
Township; Eric Tillman, EDC Representative; Dawn Brezina, Eno Township
STAFF PRESENT: Karen Lincoln, Transportation Planner; Donna Davenport, Administrative Assistant II
OTHERS PRESENT: Pat Strong, Triangle J. COG
I. Call to order and roll call 17
II. Consideration of additions to the agenda 19
III. Board Comments/Updates 21
Sam Lasris stated that Nancy presented the board’s ideas on the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan
to the Planning Board at the April 2nd meeting and that the Planning Board really liked her ideas.
Karen Lincoln mentioned that Eric Tillman was unable to be here tonight and that he had concerns about comments
that were submitted during the previous meeting on the private sector transportation issues not being included in the
re-write of the Transportation Element.
Nancy Cole Baker stated that the comments were included and Sam Lasris confirmed that they were included in two
different areas of the re-write.
Bryn Smith shared concerns about Turkey Farm Road bridge project. The Commission for the Environment received
information about the bridge at its meeting Monday. She stated that the Commission is concerned about the
placement of the pylons being in the water and possibly disturbing species on the national endangered species list.
Karen Lincoln stated that the New Hope Creek Advisory Committee (NHCAC) sent comments to DOT regarding the
design of this TIP project that is in the Federal Bridge Replacement Program. The original design did include bents in
the stream and a riprap causeway. The NHCAC is concerned because this area of New Hope Creek supports a
unique community of fresh water mussels including three State Endangered Species, two Federal Species of
Concern, and several other significantly rare species. The DOT has redesigned the bridge to remove the bents out
of the stream to the dry stream bank. NCDOT has specified “Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds”, design
standards giving the highest level of erosion control measures NCDOT implements, to be used for this project.
The New Hope Creek Advisory Committee has filed a lawsuit against The Division of Water Quality to get them to do
a more in-depth environmental analysis and that is still in litigation.
The (New Hope Corridor Advisory) committee requested that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) endorse a
resolution requesting NCDOT to raise the bridge height sufficiently to accommodate an under bridge pedestrian trail,
to consult with the Advisory Committee in any decisions that may impact the New Hope Creek natural corridor, and to
conduct an environmental assessment process required for projects that may impact species identified on the
Page 6 of 6
Approved May 21, 2008
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
72
73
75
76
77
80
82
83
85
86
87
89
93
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
National Endangered Species list, including a field meeting with qualified ecologists. A new environmental analysis
and wider, longer bridge redesign will delay the project for several years. The BOCC endorsed the resolution April 1.
Paul Guthrie asked for clarification that the committee has asked for changes that will result in more earth moving,
construction, disruption of the territory and possible more environmental damage than the original design.
The board asked that Karen keep the board updated.
IV. Presentation of Recommendations of the Efland/Mebane Small Area Plan 60
Perdita Holtz presented a condensed version of the Efland/Mebane Small Area Plan (SAP) that was developed by a
12-citizen task force appointed by the BOCC. The SAP was adopted in June 2006. The presentation gave an
overview of the existing land use and transportation infrastructure, the existing land use plan and the SAP’s
recommended changes to the land use plan, and recommendations regarding transportation issues and needs. The
Efland/Mebane Plan covers approximately 7500 acres from Lebanon Road south to West Ten Road and bounded by
the Mebane’s planning jurisdiction boundary on the west and the Eno critical watershed boundary on the east. The
Buckhorn Road Economic Development District is included in the study boundary.
The SAP transportation recommendations:
1. Road volumes and capacities on Brookhollow, Richmond, and Efland-Cedar Grove Roads should be further 71
studied before significant additional development in that area to facilitate obtaining necessary road
improvements needed to accommodate growing traffic volumes.
2. The Efland-Cedar Grove/Forrest Avenue/Mt. Willing road corridor should be realigned with provision of a railroad 74
underpass for the extension of Efland-Cedar Grove Road. Traffic circles should be used at the realigned road
intersection to effectively move peak hour traffic through this area. The at-grade railroad crossing on Mt. Willing
should be closed.
3. A connection from eastbound US Highway 70 to the Interstate Connector should be identified and constructed. 78
4. A park and ride lot should be located in the planning area at a location near the Interstate that is walkable from/to 79
the Efland village core.
5. Bicycle lanes should be provided along all major roadways (Brookhollow Road, Efland-Cedar Grove Road, 81
Richmond Road, Frazier Road, Buckhorn Road, Lebanon Road, Forrest Avenue, Mt. Willing Road, West Ten
Road, Bowman Road and Ben Wilson Road).
6. Sidewalks should be requires in new developments and a sidewalk plan should be completed to retrofit 84
sidewalks in developed areas. Construction of a sidewalk along Highway 70 from Tinnen Road to Lloyd Dairy
Road should be a priority. A sidewalk or trail easement should be secured when the sewer right-of-way is
acquired.
7. The ability to have commuter rail station in the future should be preserved within the vicinity of the Efland village 88
core near Mt. Willing Road or Efland-Cedar Grove Road Extension.
8. The County should work with Triangle Transit to provide bus service in the area. 90
9. Mace Road should be extended to connect to Lebanon Road. 91
10. An Interstate pedestrian overpass should be planned in the future to connect areas north of Interstate I-40/I-85 92
with Gravelly Hill Middle School and West Ten Soccer Park.
11. A Buckhorn Road Access Management Plan should be explored. 94
Sam Lasris: Is there a Buckhorn Road Access Management Plan and when was this started? The SMA
recommends that there be an access management plan to try to minimize the number of driveways along Buckhorn
Road for better flow of traffic and access management plans can do several different things. The access
management plan development has not been approved as a project even though some preliminary work has been
done at staff level. Studies, including public involvement, would still need to be done. The proposed Buckhorn
Village development plans indicate some improvements to manage access for that development.
Page 7 of 6
Approved May 21, 2008
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
Karen Barrows: What became of the bonds issued for sewer expansion for Efland? - The bond money is still there
but the sewer system project cost more than expected. The first public hearing for the sewer expansion project took
place at the April 1st BOCC meeting. (Per federal grant guidelines requirements.) The second public hearing will be
on the May 1st BOCC agenda.
Paul Guthrie asked for further clarification of the sewage treatment facility: if transportation of waste collection would
be needed. The sewer expansion is only to expand the existing lines in the Efland area. Orange County has an
agreement with the Town of Hillsborough for wastewater treatment. There are not plans for the county to do its own
waste treatment facility. The (water and sewer system service to) EDD area is in a separate watershed basin.
Frazier Road is the basin dividing line. In 2004 the County entered into an interlocal agreement with the City of
Mebane to provide water and sewer services to the EDD area.
Perdita Holtz reviewed the Land Use recommendations, making note of areas not currently within the water and
sewer boundary agreement (pointing to map). There is a recommendation in the Plan to amend that agreement to
include Orange Alamance Water Service and the City of Mebane. The Plan recommends that the Commercial
Industrial Node on the west side of Buckhorn Road north of West Ten Road be changed (zoned) to the Economic
Development District and that the area north of Bowman Road (outside Mebane’s municipal limit) adjacent to the
expanded EDD be developed as mixed use. The Plan recommends that the economic development land use
definition be amended to include potential for high density multifamily.
Alice Gordon asked what is the intent regarding when these designations are going to be changed, and where are
the recommendations coming from. The recommendations are coming from the Efland/Mebane Small Area Plan
Task Force and the intent is to bring them forward after Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan is finished.
Nancy Cole Baker asked what would be the advantages to a business of locating in the EDD as opposed to the
commercial node. The economic development area is zoned EDD and most of the commercial industrial nodes are
zoned R1, which is low density residential. The zoning is not congruent with the land use plan.
Nancy Cole Baker asked where the proposed density in population is for Efland and if there would be a town center
or town hall. Will there be places where people can walk? It would be hard to have a high-density community in this
location.
Perdita Holtz answered there’s not a central focus point but a lot of people consider the area of Efland-Cedar Grove
Road and Hwy 70 the core. This is an unincorporated area. One of the recommendations is to develop design
guidelines for the mixed-use core area and that would be the urban design component. There’s an implementation
focus group that works with us on this.
Paul Guthrie asked if the Buckhorn Village development is compatible with this plan. Does the plan intend building
a centralized core community (in the Efland area)? The area of the proposed Buckhorn Village is designated as
EDD and retail has always been a component of the EDD. The implementation focus group looked at 7500 acres.
The recommendation in the Plan is to amend the EDD definition for land use to include high density as a potential
use.
Nancy Cole Baker stated that we like this vision and hope that the new shopping center will not derail any of it.
Jan Grossman asked why do you feel that you needed to expand the area and to bring water to those areas.
Perdita Holtz answered that when you start looking at where water and sewer lines run it makes sense to service that
area and hold the line to the southern boundary of West Ten.
Alice Gordon stated we don’t have very many economic development areas in the county and if you ever try to add it
into the residential area people don’t want you to mix it in. If you have an economic development district that allows
Page 8 of 6
Approved May 21, 2008
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
171
172
173
174
175
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
high density residential those people don’t want adjacent uses that are commercial industrial and then you have a
problem. That’s why the major EDD’s are along the interstate.
Karen Barrows stated Paul’s point is very germane the Plan predates the development going in on Buckhorn Road.
Why do we need this, most of this will be included in the Buckhorn plan. The County has always envisioned the EDD
to be developed.
Sam Lasris stated that in talking with some of the people on the board I think they were envisioning being able to live
and have your business in the same area.
Perdita Holtz stated the EDD’s don’t allow residential. But the potential change would allow high density residential.
There could still be limits. This is just a general recommendation but the implementation measures get more to the
intent of what you are looking for. There are two other EDDs in the County. There is an EDD south of Hillsborough,
and there is the Eno EDD.
V. Approval of Minutes of February 20, 2008 meeting 170
MOTION made by Jan Grossman. Seconded by Paul Guthrie.
VOTE: 7 approved. 1 opposed, Bryn Smith.
The board agreed to postpone approval of the March 19 meeting minutes, as the minutes were not completed for the
board’s review.
VI. Buckhorn Village Planned Development Class A Special Use Permit (PD-ED SUP) 176
Sam Lasris shared several concerns: that the developer’s vehicle count is off, and that there are stream buffer
requirements and the stream has been left off the transportation map. There are setback requirements. Can they run
a road across the stream? Sam asked Karen if NCDOT would make recommendations.
Karen Lincoln answered that the Transportation Impact Analysis is currently under review by NCDOT and this will
include the proposed transportation improvements and access points to the road system proposed by the developer.
NCDOT must approve access and any work to be done within the NCDOT right-of-way. The DOT may have
additional requirements that will have to be met before they (DOT) can approve the plans for the driveway
connections. DOT may also have requirements regarding the internal circulation with respect to access management
to the secondary road system.
Sam Lasris asked if this development could be approved without having the DOT requirements. The County can
approve the development, but as far as the connections with any of the public right-of-ways, interchange widening,
etc., NCDOT will have to approve those plans and may have other conditions with which the developer must comply
before those improvements can be constructed. DOT can only require improvements to the degree that this
development is causing the need for those improvements.
Jan Grossman asked if DOT makes the recommendation that there needs to be a light or a traffic circle. There must
be an analysis that indicates the location meets warrants for a traffic light in order for NCDOT to approve a traffic
signal.
Karen Lincoln noted that the handouts are preliminary conditions that have been compiles by staff to give the
OUTBoard some ideas of the types of conditions the board may wish to request that the Planning Board consider
recommending for this development.
Alice Gordon stated this is a lot of information to absorb and she would like everyone to think about how some of
these conditions could be accomplished. There are many possibilities; including offering incentives to businesses to
encourage employees to ride public transportation. Recommend the best transportation system for this
development.
Page 9 of 6
Approved May 21, 2008
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
Karen Lincoln stated at this time this board can make specific recommendations to the Planning Board to consider in
developing its final recommendations.
Jan Grossman asked if the (adjacent) communities want a walking/bicycle path to the proposed development. The
open space around the exterior would allow for walking paths.
Alice Gordon stated that this board needs to have a strategy for how to make your recommendations.
Paul Guthrie stated there’s not a single thing that I suggested on this plan. This transportation plan still isolates this
project by itself at the corner of two roads with a minimal attempt to reach out to the community to the north and
south.
Karen Lincoln asked what ways he suggested for the developer to make those connections.
Paul Guthrie stated our previous discussion was the need to have access by various ways without the barriers of
either roadways that were unfriendly to pedestrian or bicycle travel and the ability to have, as growth occurs, a
reasonable degree of housing. He stated that he did not see anything that suggests that this development
demonstrates those interests.
Sam Lasris stated that it comes down to what the definition of destination shopping center is, whether the shopping
center is going to be a neighborhood oriented shopping center (or more regionally oriented).
Randy Marshall stated that the developer is probably targeting travelers of I-85.
Bryn Smith stated that the developers proposed landscaping did not indicate any walkability, there are walls of trees
and bushes that will not allow people to walk thru from one area to the other areas. There’s also the question of who
would be responsible for getting the easements for walkways that could connect the development from other
properties.
Karen Lincoln stated that the developers can provide a trail to the edge of the development. A major comment
regarding connectivity is to extend the major road through the development to the property boundary to connect the
remaining EDD, and include bike and pedestrian facilities along that road all the way to the edge of the property. It
would be nice if they showed some kind of bicycle and pedestrian facilities that would provide connectivity to the
adjacent property in the southern part of the development.
Nancy Cole Baker stated that the sewer easements would be a possible connection from the soccer field and
Gravelly Hill from the development. The water lines on the other side of 85 could also be future connections.
Sam Lasris stated that planning board is going to start deliberations at their next meeting on May 7th and then again
on the 14th and 21st. He asked for the board’s general comments to transmit to the planning board. He suggested
that one would be to know what the draw (how much traffic and where is it coming from) to this shopping center will
be.
Randy Marshall reiterated that we need to know where the target customers are coming from that will feed this
enterprise. It’s hard to determine transportation issues when you don’t know where they are coming from. The current
density is not sufficient to support this shopping center. Has the carrying capacity of retail for the region been
reached?
Karen Lincoln stated the handout we have is a list on comments/conditions compiled by the planning department and
we could review this list and make recommendations to the planning board. Our next meeting is scheduled for May
Page 10 of 6
Approved May 21, 2008
Page 11 of 6
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
299
300
301
302
21st, which is the same night the planning board plans to have a special meeting on this. We could change our
meeting date if necessary (to an earlier date to endorse a concise list of recommended conditions of the SUP).
Sam Lasris asked the board if it would like to request a joint meeting with the planning board at one of the special
Planning Board meetings to share the OUTBoard’s concerns, or if the OUTBoard would like to appoint a working
group to develop recommendations. We can also ask that after the planning board reviews these (staff) comments,
they send them back to us for comment.
The board agreed that asking for a joint meeting would be a good idea. The board decided on asking for a joint
meeting at the May 14th special Planning Board meeting.
Sam Lasris stated that we need to have a working group to work with this. He asked for volunteers. He suggested
that everyone submit comments to the volunteer group and Karen Lincoln . we can meet on April 25th at 3:30. Sam
Lasris and Paul Guthrie volunteered to work with the recommendations, and set April 25th at 3:00 p.m. to meet.
Alice Gordon stated that the board had good discussion tonight and the board needs to get its thoughts, points, ideas
and comments down so that they can be transmitted prior to your meeting with the planning board. The board also
needs to have proposals for those issues as well. Someone needs to write a summary of these tonight.
Bryn Smith stated the Commission for the Environment mentioned about permeable surface parking lots. That
allows water to percolate through and drain into a cistern for reuse for landscaping. Elon has been compiling studies
on using this type of surface.
Paul Guthrie stated maybe the developer would like to use a gray water facility. T here are very good new structural
devices for making huge cisterns that are self-supporting.
Sam Lasris stated that the planning board about air quality.
Paul Guthrie stated several germane ideas. Who do they expect to utilize this facility? For what target population is
the development being designing? What are estimations of local traffic generation? Who are the non-transitional
residents? How does this fit in with proposed planning processes and maps?
Alice Gordon stated you need to work on future transit service so something concrete can be done in anticipation of
the service. For example, require businesses to sign on to a bus service, buy bus passes for employees, and join the
best work place for commuters program.
Karen Lincoln stated some of the conditions she recommended are requiring the development organization to require
as part of the agreements for parcels that are sold or leased, that the individual businesses/uses provide bicycle
racks, bus turnouts with shelters, provisions for park and ride, and a transportation management plan.
VII. Adjournment 298
MOTION made by Randy Marshall to adjourn. Seconded by Paul Guthrie.
VOTE: Unanimous