Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard minutes 042110 Approved 5/19/10 1 MINUTES 1 ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD REGULAR MEETING 2 APRIL 21, 2010 3 4 5 MEMBERS PRESENT: Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township; Nancy Cole Baker, Pedestrian Access Safety Advocate; 6 Alice Gordon, Board of County Commissioners liaison; Leo Allison, Cheeks Township; Julian (Randy) Marshall, 7 Bingham Township; Bryn Smith, CFE Representative; Paul Guthrie, Chapel Hill Township; Amy Cole, Transit 8 Advocate; 9 10 11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Charles, Bicycle Advocate; Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Planning Board Liaison; Al Terry, 12 Transportation Services Board Representative; Eric Tillman, Hillsborough Township Representative; Little River 13 Township-Vacant; Economic Development 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. Approval of Minutes 26 27 The OUTBoard approved the minutes from February 17, 2010 by affirmation. 28 29 30 IV. Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) 31 32 Karen Lincoln updated the Board on the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) Steering Committee meeting 33 held in March. The group went over information staff had requested from NCDOT to answer all the questions posed 34 by the Commissioners and supply them with sufficient information to make them comfortable with continuing 35 development of the Plan, even though NC 86 will have to be shown as a future four lane divided highway. Part of the 36 Commissioners’ decision, with no explicit approval, to pursue development of the CTP was to include an interim 37 development plan in the technical report that would talk about when certain improvements would be anticipated as far 38 as need. She noted that the group asked for the traffic projections on NC 86 in 5- or 10-year intervals to see how the 39 traffic is projected to grow and to note years the traffic will be over capacity of the road, along with appropriate cross 40 sections that would handle the amount of projected traffic at those intervals. Karen reviewed the handout of the NC 41 86 projections prepared by NCDOT showing the trend of traffic growth using the historic data, as straight line 42 projection into the future. She reviewed levels of service and the Triangle regional model traffic projections for NC 43 86, using a level of service D for the volume to capacity ratios. She noted that the Triangle Regional Model uses 44 level of service E for volume to capacity rations. Level of service E is just before gridlock occurs on a highway. 45 Current traffic counts indicate NC 86 is already over capacity from US 70 Bypass to NC 57 and from NC 57 to 46 Coleman Loop Road North, it is near capacity and there is no traffic problem from there up to Caswell County. She 47 noted that each area may require something different. Karen advised that NCDOT’s division office rejected doing an 48 interim phased plan. Karen noted that Paul Black from the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) is 49 running into the same problems with other counties’ CTPs. She noted that he has done preliminary work to request a 50 modification to the Strategic Highway Corridors Vision Plan to change the facility type for NC 86 to a boulevard cross 51 section. Karen advised the Steering Committee to go back to the Commissioners and let them know that if they want 52 to go forward there won’t be a phased plan. Karen noted that if a request is made for a modification to change NC 86 53 to a boulevard, it will delay the plan by approximately 6 months to get a decision from the Board of Transportation. 54 NCDOT does now have a new policy of transparency and they have changed a lot of things and are trying to work 55 Approved 5/19/10 2 with the local areas as far as the programs so there may be a better chance to have the plan modified. Karen 56 advised that there will be a presentation to the BOCC at a work session and she is working on a pros and cons style 57 chart and will be supplying them with the information they requested at their February meeting. One of the requests 58 from the Commissioners was the reasoning used by NCDOT to designate NC 86 as a strategic highway corridor. 59 Karen advised that David Wasserman, with transportation planning worked on that and basically the strategic 60 highway corridor guidelines are based on goals of mobility, connectivity, interstate connectivity/interstate reliever, the 61 things vital to state and regional interests that serve long distance and/or regional travel whose users may be long 62 haul trucks (they were looking at truck routes and NC 86 is a truck route), tourists and/or motorists passing through 63 the region, and connectivity between activity centers (they also consider the Metropolitan Planning Organizations, 64 MPO, as activity centers). They mentioned all the things that are in the area such as Duke, UNC, the hospitals, and 65 all the destinations here that bring people in from other places. 66 67 Randy Marshall noted that point that gets missed is this is long range planning. The roads won’t be changed until the 68 need arises due to the increase in population and the finances are available. He suggested that the need will be 69 here long before the financing and the state is looking ahead and has outlined what it feels is necessary to have a 70 network of roads to get people from one place to another. He believes it is justified as a strategic highway corridor 71 given the amount of traffic this corridor carries. He noted that NC connects Durham/Chapel Hill and Danville, a 72 length of approximately 42 miles, and people have to get from that area of Virginia down to the triangle area for the 73 resources. Randy added it is not unreasonable that it is designated as a strategic highway corridor and it will not be 74 built soon, it will be built when it‘s justified. What DOT doesn’t want to do is have the County predict when that is 75 going to happen. 76 77 Members discussed the options between the moving forward with designating NC 86 as a strategic highway corridor 78 or trying to get NCDOT to change the designation to a boulevard and what to recommend to the Commissioners as 79 the best option. 80 81 Motion: Randy Marshall made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that they endorse the 82 Comprehensive Transportation Plan in its entirety with a provision that it can be changed up until 2035. Seconded by 83 Sam Lasris. 84 85 Paul Guthrie asked that motion if it include a recommendation to the Commissioners that they make a statement to 86 NCDOT that they are concerned about the designation of the character of that road and because of Orange County’s 87 unique character it should be reconsidered on a regular basis up until the time the decision is made to move forward 88 with planning. 89 90 Paul Guthrie noted the need to have some way to say to the state board that we don’t agree with the idea of putting 91 an expressway in and then saying ‘expressway’ has to be ‘a, b, c, d, and e’. That may or may be the case in 20 92 years, 30 years, etc. I think the Board needs to go on record that it’s troubled. 93 94 Randy Marshall agreed to the friendly amendment, with Paul and Karen working on the wording. 95 96 Vote: unanimous 97 98 99 V. Safe Routes to School 100 101 Nancy Baker advised the members that the committee decided to have their public meeting on the same day that 102 The Town of Hillsborough has Walkable Hillsborough Day which is Saturday, June 5 from 9.m. to 12 p.m. with a big 103 meeting at Cameron Park Elementary followed by a walk from Cameron Park to Stanford Middle School. They may 104 also go to Grady Brown. There will be NCDOT, school officials, and the consultants who will bring their current ideas 105 and the public is welcome to come and critique the ideas and give input to the plan. Nancy informed the Board that 106 the consultants went to each school site on one of the coldest days of the winter and met with school team members 107 and walked around the areas surrounding the schools. They observed the traffic and watched to see if kids were 108 Approved 5/19/10 3 walking to school. Nancy also told the members that at each school a survey was done with the parents and the 109 teachers took a questionnaire with students and asked how they get to school. 110 111 Karen Lincoln noted that there will be flyers advertising the event. 112 113 114 VI. Orange County Unified Development Ordinance 115 116 The Board reviewed the parking section of the draft Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Sam Lasris instructed 117 the members that they go through and make brief comments and then if any member has suggestions for changes in 118 the content or wording to email those directly to staff. 119 120 Paul Guthrie noted that the style is emphasizing motor vehicle transportation to and from work sites and because of 121 the investment and infrastructure to provide these spaces it can be a disservice in providing public transportation in 122 more places in the community. The cost can take away incentives for businesses to have employees or customers 123 get to the site of business by other means. 124 125 Sam Lasris noted that there is a new urbanist argument that less parking is better than more. 126 127 Sam Lasris and Karen Lincoln noted that related regulations such as lighting and landscaping should be cross-128 referenced within the parking sections. 129 130 Leo Allison noted that the word within should be removed from #5 on page 6. 131 132 Sam Lasris noted there isn’t anything included for safe walking areas from a satellite parking locations and also 133 nothing noted about providing shuttle for satellite parking. He also asked about signage, bicycle racks, and facility for 134 bus pickup. Sam also asked about section 50-111 that refers to the planning director making determination and 135 questioned if it should be a Special Use Permit and asked if it would go to the Planning Board and if it should be 136 noted as such. 137 138 Randy Marshall asked about the stormwater management and Sam Lasris noted that should be cross-referenced. 139 140 Paul Guthrie noted it should be tied together with the surface characteristic because of different types of stormwater 141 management depending on surface. 142 143 Randy Marshall added that impervious surface should also be cross-referenced. 144 145 Sam Lasris suggested that 3d on page 11 the word should be ‘less’ and not ‘more’. After discussion it was 146 consensus that section 50-111(j) number 3.d be rewritten. Sam also asked if the landscaping must be complete 147 before a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is issued. 148 149 Paul Guthrie noted the need to have facilities with plugs for electric cars. 150 151 Nancy Baker asked if the County had any plans to include bicycle parking ordinances. Karen Lincoln noted th at in 152 Subdivision Regulation the commercial use has some language that addresses it. Nancy suggested that this should 153 be included as part of the UDO. 154 155 The members discussed incentives, bus routes, and alternatives, and having a section that gives credit for alternative 156 forms of activity for transportation to and from sites. 157 158 Bryn Smith pointed out some missing information from section 50-111(j) number 3.e and thinks it is an unfinished 159 section of the draft. 160 161 Approved 5/19/10 4 Sam Lasris asked that the members write up and send all suggestions, questions, and comments to staff 162 electronically. 163 164 165 VII. Board Updates 166 167 Paul Guthrie updated the members on the public hearing regarding the train station held in the County library on 168 March 31st. He has comments on the computer that he will send out. He noted it was a well attended meeting and 169 the comments were generally about the future plans. He noted that most of the meeting was explaining they were 170 looking at a conceptional design for the station site and how it might be used. Paul advised the final train station 171 report should be done by the end of May. Paul noted NC Railroad is gearing up with some project ideas, which down 172 the road will address the issues of commuter rail. He updated the Board on the plan to operate commuter rail 173 between Goldsboro and Greensboro and eventually to Charlotte. He also told the members that long range, there is 174 a possibility that there will be rail going to points west from a new facility in Wilmington that would be a very big deal. 175 The idea would be to have express freight from New York, Norfolk, Charleston, Wilmington all being able to feed the 176 whole country. 177 178 VIII. Adjournment 179 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 180 181 182 ___________________________________ Sam Lasris, Chair