Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard minutes 012010 Approved 2/17/10 1 MINUTES 1 ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD REGULAR MEETING 2 JANUARY 20, 2010 3 4 5 MEMBERS PRESENT: Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township; Nancy Cole Baker, Pedestrian Access Safety Advocate; 6 Julian (Randy) Marshall, Bingham Township; Bryn Smith, CFE Representative; Paul Guthrie, Chapel Hill Township; 7 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Planning Board Liaison; 8 9 10 MEMBERS ABSENT: Alice Gordon, Board of County Commissioners liaison; Leo Allison, Cheeks Township; Amy 11 Cole, Transit Advocate; Jeff Charles, Bicycle Advocate; Al Terry, Transportation Services Board Representative; 12 Eric Tillman, Hillsborough Township Representative; Little River Township-Vacant; Economic Development 13 Commission-Vacant; Eno Township Representative-Vacant; 14 15 16 STAFF PRESENT: Karen Lincoln, Transportation Planner; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II 17 18 19 I. Call to order 20 21 22 II. Consideration of additions to the agenda 23 24 25 III. Board Comments/Updates 26 27 Paul Guthrie reported on the rail station progress. The current meeting of the workgroup is to come up with a sketch 28 plan to site the station, provide adequate space for a police substation (something the Town of Hillsborough wants to 29 do) and provide a future scenario for a fire station, adequate parking, and park area. He advised the report should be 30 coming out in 60 some odd days. He gave the Board additional information about future intent regarding the 31 property. 32 33 Nancy Baker asked about plans for private business to provide transportation to and from the station. 34 35 Paul Guthrie responded that it wasn’t to that stage but that it was being factored. He noted the Department of 36 Transportation (DOT) is advising them. 37 38 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke asked about the funding for the project. 39 40 Paul Guthrie responded that the Town of Hillsborough will have to come up with the resources for the platform and 41 terminal and probably some of the access area. He noted that a lot of the track work is incorporated in North 42 Carolina Department of Transportation’s application for stimulus funding for the high speed rail corridor 43 improvements. Some of those grants will be made next month. Paul referred to the newspaper article that predicted 44 that in the next 25 years, North Carolina’s population will double and the area from Raleigh to Greensboro is 45 expected to get half of it and rail will be more widely used. 46 47 Bryn Smith updated the Board on the discussion regarding Elizabeth Brady and Hollow Rock Park at the Commission 48 for the Environment meeting. She advised that the County chose to endorse the No Build option along with what the 49 Town of Hillsborough has chosen to endorse. It doesn’t mean it won’t get built but it makes it less likely. Regarding 50 Hollow Rock Park, she let the Board know the Environmental Commission decided to send a memo endorsing the 51 two stage plan with the closing of Pickett Road. 52 53 Karen Lincoln added the Transportation Advisory Committee of the Metropolitan Planning Organization also voted to 54 have the Chair sign a letter to the Department of Transportation (DOT) endorsing the No Build option for Elizabeth 55 Approved 2/17/10 2 Brady Road. She also advised that the money cannot just be shifted from one item to another, as all projects must 56 go through the MPO process for adding projects to the TIP. She noted that NCDOT has been very encouraging, and 57 is interested in the alternatives the local area wants but everything must be handled through the MPO using the 58 newly developed Strategic Planning Office of Transportation’s evaluation/prioritization criteria. 59 60 Karen Lincoln said Commissioner Gordon asked her to relate the discussion at the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro 61 (DCHC) Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting regarding the regional priority list for bicycle projects. 62 She noted several projects of great interest, like Homestead Road, were not on that list because the MPO rated it as 63 a highway project because it also included turn lanes and the thinking is that there is more money for highway 64 projects than for bike and ped. The TAC discussed the need for more funding for alternative transportation projects, 65 as the State has adopted a Complete Streets Policy and currently bicycle and pedestrian projects are allotted very 66 little transportation funds. The TAC voted to send a letter to the North Carolina Department of Transportation 67 explaining the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s position that places greater emphasis on bicycle and pedestrian 68 facilities for mobility within urbanized areas verses the Department of Transportation’s priorities to improve roads for 69 mobility from region to region or city to city. 70 71 The other item that Commissioner Gordon wanted to relay was in regard to newspaper articles detailing President 72 Obama’s plan to reevaluate public transportation policy. The new policy will rescind budget restrictions that focus 73 primarily on how much a project shortened commute times compared to its cost and consider “how much transit 74 helps the environment, how much it improves development opportunities and how it makes our communities better 75 places to live”. This could result in more money for transit projects. 76 77 Karen Lincoln also advised the members that the facilities at Southern Human Services will not be able to the Board 78 for meetings. The other option is to use a smaller room or use the Seymour Center. 79 80 The consensus was to use the Seymour Center. 81 82 83 IV. Approval of Minutes 84 85 The OUTBoard approved the minutes from December 16, 2009 with corrections by affirmation. 86 87 88 V. Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) 89 90 Karen Lincoln noted that this item is going to the Commissioner on February 2, 2010 and she requested the Board 91 endorse an option for in regard to NC 86 so she can confirm it to the BOCC. 92 93 Motion: Randy Marshall moved to approved option to show NC 86 as a Strategic Highway Corridor on the 94 Comprehensive Transportation Plan highway map and include in the technical report a plan for phased interim 95 improvements in the NC 86 corridor. Seconded by Bryn Smith. 96 97 Vote: Unanimous 98 99 100 VI. Proposed Ordinance Amendments for Drive-thru Facilities 101 102 Karen Lincoln noted the comments the members had made about their opinion on drive-thrus was attachment 2. 103 Base on those statements she came up with some recommendation. 104 105 Sam Lasris noted that he had provided a handout of research done by UPS on air quality, gas savings, etc. He also 106 handed out one from www.fueleconomy.gov and a handout of an excerpt from The New Yorker. 107 108 Nancy Baker asked if option four would require a Special Use Permit (SUP). 109 Approved 2/17/10 3 110 Karen Lincoln explained that it would require an SUP. 111 112 Motion: Sam Lasris made a motion to ban drive-thrus throughout Orange County. No Second 113 114 Motion Failed 115 116 Paul Guthrie asked for clarification on what constitutes a drive-thru. 117 118 Sam Lasris noted that it is specifically talking about fast food restaurants, pharmacies, and banks. He noted that the 119 list could specify what could never be allowed. 120 121 Karen Lincoln noted that an SUP allows control of the way in which it is done and also where. Karen explained the 122 options. She noted existing zoning regulations that specify zoning districts and uses allowed in each, noting zoning 123 districts that allow uses for which drive-thrus may be appropriate, and the requirements. She advised the 124 requirements should be related to the Board’s concerns such as environmental, traffic, and safety concerns. She 125 continued that the board’s task is to refine the proposed ordinance definition for drive-thru facilities to clearly and 126 succinctly state uses for which a drive-thru facility as an accessory use would be appropriate/allowed. 127 128 Karen Lincoln stated that a drive-thru land use would be an accessory use, which is allowed by right for any use. 129 Current regulations allow uses that would be the type using a drive-thru in Economic Development Districts or 130 Community Commercial Districts. She noted that those were the two she would recommend to allow drive-thrus with 131 specific requirements. She gave a definition of a use that would have a drive-thru as one that provides a service that 132 allows customers to purchase products without leaving their vehicle. Karen noted the reason a service station isn’t 133 included is because the primary use is to sell a product (motor fuels) that is purchased at the vehicle and the gas 134 pumps and canopy would not be an accessory use. 135 136 When asked, Karen Lincoln responded that the purpose of the Community Commercial District is to provide suitably 137 located and sized sites for commercial office and service uses including limited automotive convenience, durable 138 goods, and other similar uses. Performance standards will be used to ensure the absence of adverse impacts 139 beyond the zoning district boundaries of the use. She continued they are mostly to be applied to existing community 140 commercial type developments on sites that are within areas designated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan as 141 commercial transition activity nodes. 142 143 Paul Guthrie noted his concern regarding the language. He asked if there has been any environment impact review 144 or study done on the all the implications and has there been an economic analysis of the impact. He gave the 145 example that some businesses that could not have drive-ins would have to increase their parking areas, which would 146 have an immediate environmental impact on everything from run-off to air quality, with the starting and stopping of 147 engines. He continued that this would only concern new business and it could have a competitive disadvantage to 148 existing business. 149 150 Overlapping conversations 151 152 Motion: Nancy Baker moved the Board recommend option 5 some combination of options 2, 3, and 4. Seconded by 153 Bryn Smith. 154 155 Randy asked if it would be used in its present form and Karen Lincoln replied it would not. 156 157 Sam Lasris responded that it was meant to be for stimulation of discussion and that the motion referred to number 5 158 under item number 6, a combination of the options 2, 3, and 4. 159 160 Vote: Passed 5-1 161 162 Approved 2/17/10 4 Paul Guthrie noted his opposition to the motion is because it is an area where it needs to be extremely specific of 163 what uses the proposal will allow and what it will not allow and this option does not do that. He noted that lawyers 164 would agree the language has to be very specific and it will have to have justifiable reason for limiting facilities. He 165 noted that until that is done, the first case that challenges the County in court would put it back on the drawing board. 166 Paul Guthrie advised he isn’t against some of the proposed recommendations but he thinks it is the wrong way to go 167 about it. 168 169 170 VII. Safe Routes to School 171 172 Nancy Baker informed the Board that the group is having its first steering committee meeting on Thursday, January 173 21 in the planning department conference room. She noted the group’s hope to be able to start with the school 174 kickoff meetings in February or March. She noted that the information about idling is important because right now, 175 parents driving and parking idling cars outside the schools is one of the major ways the kids get home and the points 176 about keeping children healthy are related. 177 178 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke advised the Board that the Winston-Salem/Forsyth County School District started an educational 179 program in the elementary school that was voluntary where the school principals worked with the PTAs/PTOs and 180 lobbied for the parents to turn the cars off while waiting. The program was very successful, they are taking further 181 steps to include the middle schools this year. 182 183 Randy Marshall noted that signs could be put up at the schools to request parents not leave cars running and to 184 further request the busses not to leave the engines running as well. 185 186 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke noted, as a result of the educational outreach, the parents in Forsyth County changed their 187 behavior beyond the schools. 188 189 Randy Marshall noted that the financial savings of the busses not running for upwards of 15 to 30 minutes before the 190 students are loaded would be vast. 191 192 Overlapping Conversations 193 194 195 VIII. Orange County Unified Development Ordinance 196 197 Karen Lincoln advised the draft is not quite ready but noted the Board should start thinking about the transportation 198 ordinances specifically related to the OUTBoard’s charge. 199 200 Sam Lasris summarized that there is an Economic Design manual, Zoning Ordinance manual, Subdivision 201 Regulation manual, and two other manuals and everything will be concise into one manual by an outside consultant. 202 It will look at inconsistencies between all five. The OUTBoard will be examining the transportation topics for review 203 and comments. 204 205 Overlapping Conversations 206 207 Karen Lincoln elaborated regarding the incorporation of the Comprehensive Plan and classifications of streets as an 208 example. She noted other places it come into play is with buffers as it relates to the types of streets. 209 210 Sam Lasris noted that if something came up that the Board determined should be included it could be addressed. 211 212 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke agreed that was her understanding from the Planning Board meeting. She added that the 213 consultant will find the similar items from all the manuals and bring them together so there is a common 214 understanding which will then be passed out to the advisory boards that have expertise in that area. 215 216 Approved 2/17/10 5 Sam Lasris noted the point is to make it so that any layman can read it and it would be clear. 217 218 Nancy Baker stated that last year the OUTBoard wrote up a lot of goals and at some point the Board should focus on 219 that. She added that getting it into one cohesive package will make it easier to look at for things to be changed or 220 added in the future. 221 222 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke advised that consultant for the Comprehensive Plan had noted it should be reflected in the 223 Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) product. She added that if goals of the OUTBoard aren’t there it should be 224 determined how to get them included. 225 226 Randy Marshall noted that two areas to consider is doing away with cul-de-sacs and in regard to emissions from 227 vehicles, to do away with lights and put in more round-a-bouts, and asked it this would be the appropriate vehicle for 228 those changes. 229 230 Sam Lasris advised that it is his understanding the Board will not be adding anything at this time. 231 232 Overlapping Conversations 233 234 Nancy Baker noted something even if it is education needs to be put in place dealing with the struggle between 235 drivers and bicyclists. 236 237 Sam Lasris suggested an education program could work as it did to get parents to shut off their engines at schools. 238 239 Karen Lincoln elaborated on the DOT process for installing signs and the difficulty in getting signs in the DOT right-of-240 way. She noted that if the sign is not in the right-of-way, DOT does not have to approve them. 241 242 Randy Marshall requested that the OUTBoard have a representative of the sheriff’s department come to an 243 OUTBoard meeting to discuss the situation and possible solutions and enforcement. 244 245 Consensus was mutual to contact the sheriff’s department to request someone come to an OUTBoard meeting. 246 247 IX. Adjournment 248 249 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.250 ________________________________________ Sam Lasris, Chair