HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB agenda 090518
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
AGENDA
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
ORANGE COUNTY WEST CAMPUS OFFICE BUILDING
131 WEST MARGARET LANE – LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM (ROOM #004)
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
Training Session – 6:00 pm
Note: This is a training session for Planning Board members who would like to attend. Attendance is
not mandatory and a quorum is not necessary for this training session. Light refreshments will be
available for Planning Board members.
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLANNING BOARD TRAINING SESSION – Staff will lead training on a
sample development, demonstrating how the requirements of the UDO
are applied to construction of a single-family home.
Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planner III
3. ADJOURNMENT
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
AGENDA
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
ORANGE COUNTY WEST CAMPUS OFFICE BUILDING
131 WEST MARGARET LANE – LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM (ROOM #004)
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
Regular Meeting – 7:00 pm
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
1. CALL TO ORDER
2.
3 - 4
5 - 8
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a.Planning Calendar for September and October
b.Information Item on September 4 BOCC Agenda Regarding
Land Use Plan Amendments to Expand Hillsborough
Economic Development District (EDD)
3.
9 - 9
10 - 12
13 - 13
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 1, 2018 Training Session Notes
August 1, 2018 ORC Notes
August 1, 2018 Regular Meeting
4. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
5. PUBLIC CHARGE
Introduction to the Public Charge
The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute,
appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development
laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and
harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and
future needs of its residents and businesses through efficient and responsive process that
contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB
will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services
during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations.
Public Charge
The Planning Board pledges its respect to all present. The Board asks those attending this
meeting to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner toward each other, County
staff, and Board members. At any time should a member of the Board or the public fail to
observe this charge, the Chair will take steps to restore order and decorum. Should it
become impossible to restore order and continue the meeting, the Chair will recess the
meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed.
1
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
The Planning Board asks that all electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and
computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate.
Please be kind to everyone.
6. CHAIR COMMENTS
7.
14 - 22
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – FEMA
FLOOD MAPS - To make a recommendation to the BOCC on
government-initiated text amendments to the UDO regarding FEMA
flood maps. This item is scheduled for public hearing on October 16,
2018.
Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
8.
23 - 163
EFLAND-BUCKHORN-MEBANE ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN - To review and
comment on draft updates to the Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access
Management Plan.
Presenter: Nish Trivedi, Transportation Planner
9. ADJOURNMENT
IF AN EMERGENCY OCCURS, OR IF YOU ARE RUNNING LATE FOR THE MEETING, PLEASE LEAVE A VOICE
MAIL FOR PERDITA HOLTZ (919-245-2578).
2
<August September 2018 October >
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1
Notes:
*Planning Board Member Attendance Required or
Expected
WCOB = West Campus Office Building (131 W.
Margaret Lane, Hillsborough)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Holiday Regular BOCC
Meeting
7:00 pm
Whitted
Building
Planning Board
Meeting
7:00 pm*
(Training
Session
6:00pm)
WCOB 004
BOCC Work
Session
7:00pm
Southern
Human
Services
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Joint
BOCC/City of
Mebane
Whitted
Building
Services 7pm
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
OUTBoard
meeting @
6:30 pm
WCOB 004
Regular BOCC
Meeting
7:00 pm
Southern
Human
Services
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
“Planning 101”
Public
Education and
Hillsborough
EDD Expansion
Info Meeting
BOCC Joint
Meeting with
School Boards
7:00 PM
Southern
Human
Services
30
3
6pm WCOB 004
< September October 2018 November>
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 4 5 6
BOCC Meeting
@7:00 pm
Whitted
Building
Planning Board
Meeting
7:00 pm*
(Training
Session
6:00pm)
WCOB 004
BOCC Work
Session
@ 7:00 pm
Whitted
Building
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
BOCC Meeting
@ 7:00 pm
Southern
Human
Services
OUTBoard
meeting @
6:30 pm
WCOB 004
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Joint
BOCC/Town Of
Carrboro
Southern
Human
Services
@7:00 pm
28
Notes:
*Planning Board Member
Attendance Required or Expected
WCOB = West Campus Office
Building (131 W. Margaret Lane,
Hillsborough)
4
29 30 31
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Comprehensive Planning
(919) 245-2575
(919) 644-3002 (FAX)
www.orangecountync.gov
131 W. Margaret Lane
Suite 201
P. O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director
Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor
DATE: August 15, 2018
SUBJECT: Land Use Plan Amendments – Process to Expand Hillsborough
Economic Development Area (EDD)
In September 2017, the BOCC approved an Amendment Outline Form authorizing staff to
proceed in processing amendments to expand the Hillsborough area EDD through a Joint
Land Use Plan amendment, which requires approvals by the Town of Hillsborough and
Orange County, and a companion County Comprehensive Plan amendment. These
amendments were triggered by the County’s request to expand the Hillsborough Primary
Service Area, as provided by the Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary
Agreement (WASMPBA). However, the amendments to expand the EDD were postponed
to allow for additional coordination between the Town and County to gain a better and
mutual understanding of the desired future land uses for the area. Later, the amendments
were further postponed to learn more about the Settlers Point development application,
which covered lands directly to the north and adjacent to the proposed area for EDD
expansion as discussed herein.
An update similar to this was provided to the BOCC on January 23, 2018.
February 22, 2018 BOCC/Hillsborough Board of Commissioners Joint Meeting: The Boards
discussed several Economic Development related topics, one of which was extension of
the WASMPBA boundary and Land Use Plan amendments to expand the Hillsborough
EDD area. The outcomes of discussions were for the Town to continue processing the
Joint Land Use Plan amendment and for the County to hold a public education meeting and
consider its respective amendments in the fall.
Link to Joint Meeting Minutes (See pp. 12-13):
http://www4.orangecountync.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=51872
Hillsborough Approval of Joint Land Use Plan Amendment Completed: As discussed at the
aforementioned Joint Meeting, the Town continued its portion of the amendment process
and approved the amendment to the Joint Land Use Plan in March 2018. The amendment
now requires County consideration and approval to become effective.
Item 2b – Info Item for Planning Board 5
Orange County Concluding Process to Consider Land Use Plan Amendments to Expand
Hillsborough EDD:
2018
BOCC Information Item Sept. 4
Public Notification Mailed Sept. 14
Two-Part Public Outreach Meeting: Sept. 26
1. “Planning 101” General Public Ed. Seminar
2. EDD Expansion Information
Planning Board Recommendation Oct. 3
BOCC Public Hearing Nov. 1
Planning Staff will provide subsequent notice to the BOCC with details of the Planning 101
Public Education and EDD Expansion Information Meeting to be held September 26. It will
also seek assistance from the Orange County Department of Community Relations to help
notify the public of the Planning 101 portion of the meeting. Consistent with County
Ordinance, notification of the Public Information Meeting will be mailed to affected property
owners, as well as owners of property within 1000’ of the amendment area.
Review of Amendment Specifics: Maps identifying the amendment area and proposed land
use classifications are attached. Planning Staff is not recommending any rezoning at this
time. Currently, the area is zoned Rural Residential (R-1). Following are the definitions of
the applicable future land use classifications:
Joint* Land Use Plan Future Land Use Classification
“Suburban Office Complex” – These areas provide opportunities to for office and
employment enterprises which do not rely on walk-in customers or have a
manufacturing component. Businesses may be large or small but will generally
arrange themselves in a campus setting with limited walkability and supporting
services. Developments of this type should be kept small in nature to limit the peak
transportation impact and limited vitality.
Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Classification
“Economic Development Transition Activity Node” - Land in areas of the County
which has been specifically targeted for economic development activity consisting of
light 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.
*Approved by Hillsborough March 2018
6
17 Parcels (in whole/in part)84 acres
!"_$
WATERSTONEDR
OAK RIDGE DR
G
LA D Y S L N
DAVIS RD
DESTINY DR
SERVICERD
W
SCARLETTMOUNTAIN
R
D
SU
MMIT
TRAIL
DRRIPPYLN
O
L
D
N
C
8
6
OL D N C 86
ALICELOOP
Proposed Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central OrangeCoordinated Area Land Use Plan
Natural Resources
Proposed Suburban Office
Expanded Urban ServiceBoundary PendingHillsborough
Current Urban ServiceBoundary
Existing Land Use Plan
Employment
Mixed Res Neighborhood
Mixed Use
Neighborhood Mixed Use
Permanent Open Space
Suburban Office ¯Orange County Planning and InspectionsBrian Carson (1/26/2018)
0 400Feet
1 in = 650 feet
7
!"_$
20 Parcels (in whole/in part)89 acres
WATERSTONE DR
VALLIE
HILN
OAK RIDGEDR
G
LA D Y S L N
DAVIS RD
DESTINY DR
SERVICERD
W
SCARLETTMOUNTAINRD
O
L
D
N
C
8
6
OL D N C 86
P
H
O
E
B
E
D
R
ALICELOOP
Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map
Resource Protection Areas Overlay
Water Supply Watersheds Overlay
Parcels
Proposed Economic Development Transition
JPA
Rural Residential
Rural Buffer
City Limits
Activity Node
Economic Development Transition ¯Orange County Planning and InspectionsBrian Carson (1/26/2018)
0 400Feet
1 in = 650 feet
8
1
SUMMARY NOTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 AUGUST 1, 2018 3 TRAINING SESSION 4
5
NOTE: A quorum is not required for Planning Board Training Sessions. 6
7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Kim Piracci, At-Large; Adam Beeman, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Randy Marshall (Vice-8
Chair), At Large Bingham Township; Carrie Fletcher, Bingham Township Representative; Alexander Gregory, Chapel Hill 9
Township Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 10 11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township 12
Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Hunter Spitzer, At-Large, Hillsborough Township; David 13
Blankfard, Hillsborough Township Representative; 14
15 STAFF PRESENT: Ashley Moncado, Planner II 16 17 AGENDA ITEM 1: PLANNING BOARD TRAINING SESSION – Staff will lead training in various planning topics using on-line 18
videos produced by the UNC School of Government and augmented as necessary by staff-produced 19
materials. This will be a monthly training session for several months; beginning in January 2018 and 20
ending after all of the video modules have been completed. 21
PRESENTER: Ashley Moncado, Planner II 22
23
24
Ashley Moncado conducted a training session on various aspects of planning. 25
26
Meeting was adjourned by consensus. 27
9
SUMMARY NOTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 AUGUST 1, 2018 3
ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE 4 5
NOTE: A QUORUM IS NOT REQUIRED FOR ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS. 6 7
MEMBERS PRESENT: Randy Marshall (Vice-Chair), Bingham Township Representative; Kim Piracci, At-Large; Randy 8
Marshall, At-Large; Adam Beeman, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Carrie Fletcher, Bingham Township 9
Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 10
David Blankfard, Hillsborough Township Representative; Alexander Gregory, Chapel Hill Township Representative; 11
Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township 12
Representative; 13
14
MEMBERS ABSENT: Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Hunter Spitzer, At-Large; 15
16
STAFF PRESENT: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Meredith Kern, Administrative Assistant II 17
18
AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order and Roll Call 19
Planning Board Chair Lydia Wegman called the meeting to order at 7:21 p.m. 20
21 AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – FEMA FLOOD MAPS - To 22
review and discuss proposed amendments to the UDO regarding FEMA flood maps. 23 PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 24
Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, reviewed that in 2017 the county mailed out over 10,000 letters to 25
property owners and 20,000 cards to adjacent property owner because county staff had been tasked with revising 26
flood insurance maps. It is the county’s responsibility to enforce flood damage prevention regulation and also to use 27
the best available flood data. The county and any participant of the National Flood Insurance Program gets 28
Community Rating System points for being more restrictive than the model and doing everything properly. Orange 29
County has a rating of 6, with 10 being a rating for a community that is new to the program and 1 being exceptionally 30
rare, Michael Harvey explained. 31
32
Michael Harvey reviewed that last year the county took flood map data and turned it into an overlay district, under the 33
advise of the county attorney at the time. Staff wasn’t comfortable with the overlay district. The county’s new attorney 34
is not comfortable with it. So, there is no longer an ordinance for the overlay district but the county still has the data. 35
The advertising of the flood map changes last year cost the county $25,000. 36
37
FEMA informed the county two months ago that it has tweaked the maps. No property owner in this county has a 38
marked change in the portion of the property in the flood plain but the dates have changed. Everywhere in the 39
ordinance that states Nov. 17, 2017, now needs to state Oct. 19, 2018. 40
41
Michael Harvey explained that the county does not need to hold a public hearing on the maps or mail out thousands 42
of notifications. The county does have to adopt the text amendment by Oct. 19 or be suspended from the flood 43
program. 44
45
David Blankfard asked if one article could be added to the ordinance to note the new effective date. Michael Harvey 46
answered that this is a possibility but the planning department erred on the side of being verbose until the legal 47
review is complete and a determination has been made whether to change the date throughout or add an article with 48
the new date. 49
50
10
AGENDA ITEM 3: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 51
- To review and discuss proposed amendments to the UDO to streamline and revise provisions related to the Board 52
of Adjustment. 53
PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 54
55
Michael Harvey explained that elected officials have tasked the county attorney’s office with streamlining provisions 56
related to the Board of Adjustment. He reviewed some of the general amendment proposals, starting on Page 8 of 57
the agenda packet. 58
59
Regarding the changes proposed to 2.2.4B, Lydia Wegman pointed out it doesn’t make sense as written because the 60
applicants would have the application and therefore do not need to be provided with their application. Michael 61
Harvey flagged it for the attorney’s office. 62
63
Regarding the Neighborhood Meeting section on Page 17, Lydia Wegman said she understands the attorney’s 64
comment but feels the purpose of the neighborhood meeting should not be undermined. Michael Harvey reviewed 65
the purpose of the public hearing is to hear sworn testimony and evidence and the importance of the neighborhood 66
meeting is that the applicant can hear from neighbors and perhaps make modifications that satisfy the neighbors 67
before the public hearing. Lydia Wegman said the neighborhood meeting can be important in that way and she 68
doesn’t want the language amended in a way that doesn’t reflect that. 69
70
Orange County Planning Director Craig Benedict said he agrees that it is important to explain the differences 71
between the neighborhood meeting and the public hearing. 72
73
Randy Marshall said the language needs to be more descriptive for Neighborhood Information Meeting. It has implied 74
that attendees will receive information but with the removal of the redlined language, it makes it a staff meeting. He 75
suggested two meetings, with one held by the applicant and one by staff. 76
77
Michael Harvey said there should just be one neighborhood meeting. Some applicants take the reins for these 78
meetings. For instance, the applicants for Settler’s Point chose to hold four neighborhood meetings and staff 79
attended two. Staff attends to explain the public hearing and approval process. Michael Harvey said he would let the 80
attorney know the committee members are concerned with the changes in this section. 81
82
Paul Guthrie said the following two changes narrows the property owners who are contacted. Michael Harvey said 83
the attorney took out language describing adjacent property owners. He said the logic here is consistency with state 84
law because by contacting property owners whose property is not adjacent, you may be giving people rights they 85
don’t enjoy under the law. 86
87
Lydia Wegman asked about 1,000 feet. Michael Harvey said 1,000 feet is always the standard. The attorney’s office 88
is making a recommendation contrary to that because currently the county may be giving authority to people who 89
don’t have it. 90
91
Michael Harvey reviewed 2.79B1, explaining the attorney is concerned the language is too limiting. The county has 92
had issues where it can’t make a public hearing happen because of weather or not having a quorum. By eliminating 93
the words “a regular meeting,” the Board of Adjustment could call a special meeting if need be. 94
95
Regarding 2.7.11 (A)(2), Lydia Wegman had a question about the language. Kim Piracci noted it’s a triple negative. 96
Both said the language is not clear. 97
98
Regarding 2.7.13 (A), Lydia Wegman suggested changing the wording so it doesn’t sound like shrinking is 99
happening. 100
101
11
Regarding requiring the applicant to provide proposed findings of fact for each of the required findings pursuant to 102
Section 2.10.3, there was discussion that a typical property owner would have trouble providing such a formal 103
document. Michael Harvey explained that the attorney’s office was adding it because it is something the property 104
owner ought to do. Carrie Fletcher raised concern that it puts a burden on property owners to hire an attorney. 105
Paul Guthrie said the community may give negative feedback to the elected officials regarding this. Other committee 106
members felt comfortable with the standard because a template and examples are provided. 107
108
Paul Guthrie noted a place where the language said “sworn” and could also say “or affirmed.” 109
110
Michael Harvey said he would share the committee’s comments with Orange County Attorney James Bryan. The 111
committee members requested that the attorney’s comments regarding their comments be shared with them via 112
email. 113
114 AGENDA ITEM 4: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – REORGANIZATION OF 115 TABLES OF PERMITTED USES - To continue review and discussion on proposed amendments to the UDO that 116
would reorganize the Tables of Permitted Uses in response to the Byrd v. Franklin County judicial decision and 117
modify other sections to ensure consistency within the ordinance. 118
Michael Harvey noted this is the third time the committee has seen the revised permitted uses table. He reviewed 119
that staff has been tasked with combining three permitted uses tables into one. He noted the attorney’s office had 120
suggested numbering the land uses. He then reviewed the proposed changes, which are in red. 121
PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 122
123
There was brief discussion that turning gravel into sand is incidental to mining gravel and not a chemical process. 124
125
Michael Harvey reviewed under short-term rental under Services. He explained the language was borrowed from the 126
City of Wilmington, North Carolina. 127
128
The ORC concluded its meeting at 9:05 p.m. 129
130
Lydia N. Wegman, Chair 131
12
SUMMARY NOTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 AUGUST 1, 2018 3
REGULAR MEETING 4 5
6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Randy Marshall (Vice-Chair), Bingham Township Representative; Kim Piracci, At-Large; Randy 7
Marshall, At-Large; Adam Beeman, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Carrie Fletcher, Bingham Township 8
Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 9
David Blankfard, Hillsborough Township Representative; Alexander Gregory, Chapel Hill Township Representative; 10
Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township 11
Representative; 12
13
MEMBERS ABSENT: Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Hunter Spitzer, At-Large; 14
15
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Ashley Moncado, Planner II; Michael Harvey, Current Planning 16
Supervisor; Meredith Kern, Administrative Assistant II 17
18
AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 19
Chair Lydia Wegman called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. 20
21 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 22
a. Planning Calendar for August and September 23
24
AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 25 June 6, 2018, Training Session Notes 26
June 6, 2018, ORC Notes 27
June 6, 2018, Regular Meeting Minutes 28
July 11, 2018, Training Session Notes 29
July 11, 2018, ORC Notes 30
July 11, 2018, Regular Meeting Minutes 31
32
MOTION by Randy Marshall to approve the June 6, 2018, Training Session Notes, June 6, 2018, ORC Notes, June 33
6, 2018, Regular Meeting Minutes, July 11, 2018, Training Session Notes, July 11, 2018, ORC Notes, and July 11, 34
2018, Regular Meeting Minutes. Seconded by Adam Beeman. 35
VOTE: Unanimous 36 37
AGENDA ITEM 4: PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC CHARGE – To consider revisions to the public charge that is included 38
on agendas, in keeping with recent revisions made to the Board of County Commissioners’ public charge. 39 PRESENTER: Ashley Moncado, Planner II 40
41
Planner Ashley Moncado explained that the revisions to the public charge were intended to reflect recent changes to 42
the Orange County Board of Commissioners’ public charge in order to maintain consistency. 43
44
MOTION by Alexander Gregory to approve the revisions to the public charge. Seconded by Buddy Hartley. 45 VOTE: Unanimous 46
47
48
49
Lydia N. Wegman, Chair 50
13
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 5, 2018
Action Agenda
Item No. 7
SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments – Update of Effective Date
of Flood Information Rate Maps (FIRM)
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. UDO Amendment Outline Form
2. Statement of Consistency
3. UDO Amendment(s)
Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597
Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2575
PURPOSE: To review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on a Planning Director
initiated Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text amendment updating the effective date for
the County’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM).
BACKGROUND: Orange County has been a member of the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) since approximately 1976. The NFIP offers flood insurance to homeowners, renters, and
business owners if their community participates in the program through the adoption and
enforcement of regulations designed to mitigate/reduce flood risk. This includes adoption of
flood maps denoting areas where flooding is a possibility, specifically FIRM developed and
maintained by Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA).
Staff was recently informed by State emergency management officials there is going to be a
FIRM update, specifically a modification of floodplain data on several FIRMs impacting property
in Durham County. The maps contain property in both Orange and Durham County, effectively
making them ‘shared maps’.
While this update will not result in a change in identified flood data within Orange County (i.e. no
increase or decrease in flood area on property in our planning jurisdiction), the data on the
shared FIRMS is being changed. As a result, Orange County must modify existing regulation(s)
to reflect the new FIRM effective date of October 19, 2018.
This amendment needs to be adopted by October 19, 2018 in order for Orange County to
remain eligible for participation in the NFIP. A copy of the recommended language is contained
within Attachment 3.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Consideration and approval will not create the need for additional funding
for the provision of County services. Costs for the required legal advertisement for the text
amendment will be paid from FY2018-19 Departmental funds budgeted for this purpose.
Existing Planning staff included in the Departmental staffing budget will accomplish the work
required to process these amendments.
14
Planning Director Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the
Statement of Consistency, as contained in Attachment 2, and the UDO Text Amendment, as
contained within Attachment 3.
RECOMMENDATION(S): RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Director recommends the
Planning Board:
1. Review the proposed amendments to the UDO,
2. Deliberate on the proposal as desired,
3. Consider the Planning Director’s recommendation(s), and
4. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on:
a. The Statement of Consistency for proposed UDO Text Amendment(s) (Attachment
2), and
b. Proposed UDO Text Amendment(s) (Attachment 3).
in time for the October 16, 2018 Public Hearing.
15
Form Revised 09-29-16
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / FUTURE LAND USE MAP
AND
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
AMENDMENT OUTLINE
UDO / Zoning-2018-08
UDO Text Amendment Updating Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
Effective Date
A. AMENDMENT TYPE
Map Amendments
Future Land Use Map:
From:
To:
Zoning Map:
From:
To:
Other:
Text Amendments
Comprehensive Plan Text:
Section(s):
UDO Text:
UDO General Text Changes
UDO Development Standards
UDO Development Approval Processes
Section(s): Section 1.1.3 Flood Damage Prevention Authority – Basis for
Establishment
Other:
B. RATIONALE
1.Purpose/Mission
In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified
Development Ordinance Amendments of the UDO, the Planning Director has
initiated text amendments to the UDO modifying the effective date of our Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs).
Attachment 1 16
Form Revised 09-29-16
2. Analysis
As required under Section 2.8.5 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to: ‘…
cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis,
prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of
County Commissioners’.
Orange County has been a member of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
since approximately 1976. The NFIP offers flood insurance to homeowners, renters,
and business owners if their community participates in the program through the
adoption and enforcement of regulations designed to mitigate/reduce flood risk. This
includes adoption of flood maps denoting areas where flooding is a possibility,
specifically Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) developed and maintained by FEMA.
On November 14, 2017 the BOCC approved a UDO and Zoning Atlas Amendment
package that:
1. Adopted new FIRM maps with an effective date of November 17, 2017,
2. Eliminated the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Overlay District, and
3. Updated existing flood damage prevention regulations to ensure consistency
with State and Federal requirements.
Agenda materials from the November 14, 2017 public hearing can be accessed
utilizing the following link:
http://cms3.revize.com/revize/orangecounty/document_center/BOCCAgendaMinutes/
171114.pdf
State FEMA officials recently informed staff there is going to be a FIRM update
modifying existing flood data. As a result of these changes, the effective date of the
FIRM will change from November 17, 2017 to October 19, 2018.
It should be noted this update will not ‘create’ new flood area, or alter previously
defined floodway on property, within the County’s planning jurisdiction. Unfortunately
as there is an update to existing data, the FIRM has to be modified to incorporate
same, thereby changing the effective date.
Orange County must modify existing regulation(s) to reflect the new FIRM effective
date of October 19, 2018 in order to continue to be eligible for participation in the
NFIP. This amendment needs to be adopted on or before October 19, 2018.
3. Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives)
Chapter 2 Planning Principles of the Comprehensive Plan:
• Principle 2 – Sustainable Growth and Development: Growth and development
within the county should occur in a pattern, location, and density that is
sustainable over the long-term.
Chapter 5 Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan:
• Land Use Goal 1 – Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable
17
Form Revised 09-29-16
growth consistent with the provision of adequate services and facilities and a
high quality of life.
• Land Use Goal 2 – Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental
conditions and features and that protect natural resources, cultural resources,
and community character.
Land Use Goal 4 – Land development regulations, guidelines, techniques, and/or
incentives that promote the integrated achievement of all Comprehensive Plan goals.
4. New Statutes and Rules
Revised FIRM with a new effective date.
C. PROCESS
a. TIMEFRAME/MILESTONES/DEADLINES
a. BOCC Authorization to Proceed
September 4, 2018
b. Public Hearing
October 16, 2018
c. BOCC Updates/Checkpoints
August 1, 2018 – Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) (BOCC received agenda
materials)
September 5, 2018 – Planning Board Recommendation (BOCC receives agenda
materials)
d. Development Advisory Committee (DAC)
e. Legal Sufficiency Determination
f. Other
b. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
Mission/Scope: Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and
Orange County ordinance requirements
a. Planning Board Review:
August 1, 2018 – Ordinance Review Committee (ORC). There were no
comments or questions related to the proposed amendment.
September 5, 2018 – Recommendation.
August 16, 2018
TBD
N/A
18
Form Revised 09-29-16
b. Advisory Boards:
N/A
c. Local Government Review:
N/A
d. Notice Requirements
Legal advertisement for the public hearing shall be in accordance with the
provisions of the UDO.
e. Outreach:
c. FISCAL IMPACT
Consideration and approval will not create the need for additional funding for the
provision of County services. Costs for the required legal advertisement will be paid
from FY2018-19 Departmental funds budgeted for this purpose. Existing Planning
staff included in the Departmental staffing budget will accomplish the work required
to process this amendment.
D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS
The updating of the FIRM effective date will allow the County to maintain membership in
the NFIP program.
E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
Amendment language is contained in Attachment 3.
Primary Staff Contact:
Michael D. Harvey
Planning and Inspections
(919) 245-2597
mharvey@orangecountync.gov
General Public:
Small Area Plan Workgroup:
Other:
19
STATEMENT OF APPROVAL AND CONSISTENCY
OF A PROPOSED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT
WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Orange County has initiated an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO) to modify existing floodplain management regulations, specifically updating the effective
date for the County’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) incorporating modification of
floodplain data by FEMA.
The Planning Board hereby approves the proposed text amendment and finds:
a. The requirements of Section 2.8 of the UDO have been deemed complete; and,
b. Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 153A-341 of the
North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within
the record denoting that the amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
1. The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it supports the
following 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives:
• Land Use Goal 6 – A land use planning process that is transparent,
fair, open, efficient, and responsive.
These amendments are consistent with this goal and
objective by updating existing language to ensure
consistency with FEMA requirements ensuring property
reference and use of new FIRM data.
c. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it:
1. Ensures legal sufficiency by referencing the current effective FIRM data.
These amendments ensure uniformity by eliminating references to
out of date map data, and identifying the effective date of new
FIRMs.
2. Ensures legal sufficiency by adopting new FIRM data, as prepared by
FEMA, by reference.
This amendment allows Orange County to enforce current flood
map data thereby ensuring our continued eligibility for participation
in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The Planning Board hereby adopts this Statement of Approval and Consistency as well
as the findings expressed herein.
______________________ ________________________
Lydia Wegman, Chair Date
Attachment 2
20
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 1-1
ARTICLE 1: ADMINISTRATION
SECTION 1.1: GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.1.1 Title
The official title of this document is ‘Unified Development Ordinance of Orange County, North
Carolina’. For convenience, it shall be referred to throughout this document as ‘this Ordinance’,
‘the Ordinance’, ‘ the/this Unified Development Ordinance’ or ‘the/this UDO’.
1.1.2 Authority
This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to the statutory authority provided in the North Carolina
General Statues (NCGS), specifically the provisions of:
(A) Chapter 153A, Article 18,
(B) Chapter 4,
(C) Chapter 160A, Article 19,
(D) Chapter 39, Article 5A,
(E) §47-30, and
(F) §143 214.5.
For the purpose of establishing comprehensive development regulations for designated portions
of Orange County and providing for administration, enforcement and amendment thereof in
accord with the aforementioned provisions.
1.1.3 Flood Damage Prevention Authority – Basis for Establishment
(A) The Legislature of the State of North Carolina has delegated authority to county
governments to adopt regulations to promote the public health, safety, and general
welfare of its citizenry in the following sections of the North Carolina General Statutes:
(1) Part 6, Article 21 of Chapter 143,
(2) Parts 2, 3 and 4 of Article 18 of Chapter 153A, and
(3) § 153A-121.
(B) The Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) are those identified under the Cooperating
Technical State (CTS) agreement between the State of North Carolina and FEMA in its
Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and associated Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM)
panels, with an effective date of November 17, 2017October 19, 20181 for Orange
County including any digital data developed as part of the, which are adopted by
reference and declared a part of this ordinance.
Future revisions to the FIS and panels that do not change flood hazard data within the
jurisdictional authority of Orange County are also adopted by reference and declared a
part of this ordinance. Subsequent Letter of Map Revisions (LOMRs) and/or Physical
Map Revisions (PMRs) shall be adopted within 3 months.
For reference, previous SFHA data was produced under the CTS agreement between the
State of North Carolina and FEMA or FIS and its accompanying FIRMs for Orange
County dated:
(1) February 2, 2007, with incorporation of Letters of Map Amendments 07-04-
6156R, 08-04-2897A, 08-04-2898A, 08-04-2899A, and 08-04-2900A;,
(2) May 16, 2008, with incorporation of Letters of Map Revision 06-04-BQ22P, 06-
1 This change is being necessitated due to updates by FEMA in the FIRM for Orange County.
21
Article 1: Administration
Section 1.1: General Provisions
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 1-2
04-C141P, 07-04-6156R, and 08-04-1666P and Summary of Map Amendment
#115-CWG (C) dated May 16, 2008and,
(3) November 17, 2017 which with accompanying supporting data, including Letters
of Map Amendment or Revision and Summary of Map Amendments, were
adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this Ordinance as part of the
Special Flood Hazard Area Overlay District, which was eliminated with the
adoption of the aforementionedrevised FIS and DFIRMs with an effective date of
November 17, 2017.2
1.1.4 Purpose and Intent
(A) In order to protect and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the County and
its residents, this Ordinance is hereby adopted by the Orange County Board of
Commissioners.
(B) The purpose of the regulations set out in this Ordinance shall be to accomplish
compatible development of the land within Orange County in a manner which will best
promote the health, safety, and general welfare, as well as to:
(1) Provide for efficiency and economy in the process of development;
(2) Make adequate provisions for traffic;
(3) Secure safety from fire, panic, and other hazards;
(4) Provide for light and air;
(5) Prevent the overcrowding of land;
(6) Avoid undue concentration of populations;
(7) Facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools,
parks, and other public requirements;
(8) Provide for the protection of the surface and underground water resources of the
County;
(9) Provide for efficient use of renewable and non-renewable sources of energy;
(10) Promote desirable living conditions and the sustained stability of neighborhoods;
(11) Protect property against blight and depreciation; and
(12) For other purposes in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan for the County.
(C) It is the further purpose that all material included herein by reference and all material
used for the administration of this Ordinance, does not take any property, does not
unduly restrict property rights or use, nor convert any of these to public use except by
due process of law.
(D) The Ordinance is further designed to provide for residential, commercial, and industrial
growth in Orange County by the establishment of districts within which each type use can
develop properly and profitably and not interfere with the use of land in adjacent parcels
or districts.
1.1.5 Statement of Intent - Amendments
For the purpose of establishing and maintaining sound, stable and desirable development within
Orange County this Ordinance shall not be amended except to:
(A) Correct a manifest error in the Ordinance, or
2 Staff is recommending modifying existing language in an attempt to make it more user friendly and easier to
follow for the reader.
22
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 5, 2018
Action Agenda
Item No. 8
SUBJECT: Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan Update
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Presentation
2. Draft Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access
Management Plan
Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Planner
(919) 245-2582
PURPOSE: To review and comment on the Draft Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access
Management Plan (E-B-M AMP) update.
BACKGROUND: In order to better promote economic development opportunities and help
preserve planned sewer and road corridors and associated capacities for all land uses within the
E-B-M AMP planning area, the Planning Director is suggesting consideration of updates to the
current Access Management Plan. This update will utilize a 2017 Transportation Study for the
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Study Area to renew and replace the original 2011 Efland-Buckhorn-
Mebane Economic Development District Access Management Plan. In a few cases, it will also
incorporate other road and intersection improvements recommended by planning staff.
An Access Management Plan is a conceptual roadway alignment and corridor width necessary
to serve future land uses in the comprehensive Manner. If development occurs, then this plan
guides the specific part of their roadway construction as it supports the overall existing and
proposed roadway network. The original Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
was adopted November 15, 2011 and it implemented a recommendation of the Efland-Mebane
Small Area Plan (2006). It also served as a tool for implementing the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
principles, goals and objectives.
The original plan consisted of multiple access management strategies and was completed with
limited on-site analysis. However, this plan was instrumental in gaining North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) acceptance and participation in roadwork improvements
necessary to serve the Morinaga Candy Factory, which opened in 2016. Developments like this,
along with increased residential and commercial growth in Hillsborough, especially growth’s
impact on traffic, demonstrates the plan’s importance.
A thorough existing conditions, environmental, and traffic analysis was conducted as part of the
2017 Transportation Study, which was completed by a consultant. This report reinforces the
original Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan with a comprehensive investigation
of the area’s development potential, traffic impact and recommended improvements.
Community Meeting
23
Planning staff held a community meeting on August 28th at Gravelly Hill Middle School to collect
public comments on the presented analysis.
Advertising for the Community Meeting was done through direct mailing to over 700 property
owners in and around the planning area.
Next Steps
• October 3rd –Planning Board recommendations to the BOCC on the draft plan.
• November 1st – Tentatively scheduled Board of County Commissioners public hearing on
the draft plan.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Staff recommends that the Planning Board review and comment on
the draft plan.
24
8/29/2018
1
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane
Access Management Plan
August 28, 2018
Background
o 2011 E-B-M AMP
o 2017 Transportation Study
Updating the Plan
o Process
o Analysis
o Public Participation
Next Step
o Public Process & Actions
o Implementation
Outline
Background –What is AMP
Access Management Plan (AMP) is a proposed
master plan of possiblenew roads & connections to
existing roads while providing access to
development, preserve traffic flow, safety & capacity.
Improve overall transportation system
Minimize congestion & crashes
Efficient traffic flow, safety & access to properties
Background
1981 -comprehensive plan
1991 -The Efland Area Study
2004 -Expansion of Public Water and Sewer to Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane
2006 -Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan
2011 -E-B-M AMP
2017 -Volkert transportation study
•Highlighted key nodes &
corridors
Background –2011 E‐B‐M AMP
•Multiple access
management strategies
•2 possible street cross
sections
Background –2011 E‐B‐M AMP
September 7, 2011
Planning Board
September 21, 2011
Orange Unified
Transportation Board
November 14, 2011
Public Information Meeting
November 15, 2011
BOCC Adoption
25
8/29/2018
2
Background –2017 Transportation Study
4.25 sq. mi.
•Existing conditions analysis
•Cultural and environmental issues
•Land use and traffic impacts
•Corridor and intersection feasibilities
Background –2017 Transportation Study
30 rows of data for 4.25 square miles of potential development
Background –2017 Transportation Study
24 different NCDOT street cross sections evaluated
Background –2017 Transportation Study
Studied possible
improvements
Updating the Plan Updating the Plan –Process
Community Meeting
2011 AMP
and 2017 Transportation Study
Recommendations AMP Update and Implemention
26
8/29/2018
3
Updating the Plan –Process
New E-B-M AMP
Public
Input
2011 E-B-M AMP 2017 Transportation Study
Updating the Plan –Analyzed Network
•NCDOT –“Typical” Highway Cross Section –2D
•2 Lane undivided with paved shoulder and sidewalk
•All streets west of Buckhorn Road
Updating the Plan –Cross Section
•NCDOT –“Typical” Highway Cross Section –2A
•2 lane undivided with paved shoulder
•All streets east of Buckhorn Road
Updating the Plan –Cross Section
•NCDOT –“Typical” Highway Cross Section –3A
•2 Lane with two way left turn lane and paved shoulder
Updating the Plan –Cross Section
Intersection Improvements
BenWilsonRoadatNewRoadA
Southboundrightturnlane
Northboundrightturnlane
Westboundrightandleftturnlane
WestTenRoadatNewRoadA Rightandleftturnlanesinalldirections
WestTenRoadatBuckhornRoad Rightandleftturnlanesinalldirections
Mt.WillingRoadatNewRoadH Rightandleftturnlanesinalldirections
US-70/I-85Connector
Westboundleftturnlane
Eastboundrightturnlane
Northboundrightandleftturnlane
Updating the Plan –Improvements
27
8/29/2018
4
Updating the Plan –Public Participation
Over 700 notices mailed out
to property owners
Website for public participation
Updating the Plan –Public Participation
All comments included in plan
Next Step Next Steps –Public Process & Actions
Board of County Commissioners
Public Notice & WebsitePublic Notice & Website Public Hearing
(November)
Public Hearing
(November)
Consideration
(November/December)
Consideration
(November/December)
Orange Unified Transportation Board
WebsiteWebsite Review
(September)
Review
(September)
Recommendation
(October)
Recommendation
(October)
Planning Board
Public Notice & WebsitePublic Notice & Website Review
(September)
Review
(September)
Recommendation
(October)
Recommendation
(October)
Section 2.5.3 Site Plan
(V) Compliance with County adopted
access management, transportation
and/or connectivity plans and denote the
location of future roadway(s) and access
easements, …
SECTION 6.10.A
(1) Roadway Design/Improvement
(a) Whether improvements are required or not,
adequate right-of-way must be dedicated to
accommodate the projected right-of-way
requirements as identified in adopted
thoroughfare plans.
Next Step –Implementation Questions?
28
8/29/2018
5
Contact
Nishith Trivedi
Orange County Planning Department
131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 201
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
E-mail: ntrivedi@orangecountync.gov
Phone: (919) 245-2582
29
2018
Orange County Planning Department
Orange County, NC
5/17/2018
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
30
31
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department
Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ i
I. Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................1
A. State and Local Regulations ................................................................................................................................ 2
B. Background and Planning Area ......................................................................................................................... 3
C. Goals and Objectives .............................................................................................................................................. 5
D. Planned Projects ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
II.Access Management Plan .......................................................................................................................7
A. Community Meeting ............................................................................................................................................... 7
B. 2017 Transportation Study ................................................................................................................................ 7
1.Land Use Matrix and Future Network ..................................................................................................... 12
2.Pod Delineation and Analysis .................................................................................................................. 12
3.Intersection Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 13
C. Recommendations - Future Roadway and Intersection Improvements ........................................... 14
1.Street Cross-Section Requirements ......................................................................................................... 14
2.Intersection Improvement Requirements and TIA .................................................................................. 16
D. AMP Update and Implementation .................................................................................................................. 17
III.Enforcement ......................................................................................................................................... 20
A. Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................................................................................ 21
B. Resources ................................................................................................................................................................ 22
IV.Appendix .............................................................................................................................................. 23
A. 2011 E-B-M EDD AMP .......................................................................................................................................... 23
B. 2017 E-B-M Transportation Study.................................................................................................................. 23
C. Community Meeting ............................................................................................................................................. 23
32
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department
Figures
Figure 1: Access vs Mobility ........................................................................................................................................1
Figure 2: Plan Chronology ..........................................................................................................................................3
Figure 3: E-B-M AMP Planning Area ...........................................................................................................................4
Figure 4: Transportation Projects Map .......................................................................................................................6
Figure 5: Planning Process ..........................................................................................................................................7
Figure 6: US-70 Traffic Trends ....................................................................................................................................8
Figure 7: Traffic Count Stations ..................................................................................................................................9
Figure 8:Crash by Severity ....................................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 9: Crash Frequency Trend ............................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 10: Rural vs Urban Crashes ........................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 11: POD Delineation Process ........................................................................................................................ 12
Figure 12: POD Trip Generation .............................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 13: 2017 Transportation Study – Street Cross Section 2A ........................................................................... 15
Figure 14: 2017 Transportation Study – Street Cross Section 2B............................................................................ 15
Figure 15: 2017 Transportation Study – Street Cross Section 3A ........................................................................... 16
Figure 16: E-B-M AMP ............................................................................................................................................. 19
Tables
Table 1: Traffic Trends ................................................................................................................................................8
Table 2: POD Buildable Acreage .............................................................................................................................. 12
Table 3: POD Daily Trips .......................................................................................................................................... 13
Table 4: Intersection Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 17
Table 5: AMP Practices ............................................................................................................................................ 17
33
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page i
Executive Summary
The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) official access management definition is the process that provides
access to land development while simultaneously preserving the flow of traffic on the surrounding system in
terms of safety, capacity, and speed. This plan promotes FHWA’s access management practices by allowing local
government to:
• Maintain the overall safety of the transportation system;
• Minimize congestion and crash rates;
• Provide for efficient traffic flow and pedestrian safety; and
• Provide appropriate access to adjacent business properties.
The original Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan (E-B-M AMP) was adopted November 15, 2011
and it implemented Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan (2006) recommendations. It has also advanced several 2030
Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives.
The original plan identified access management strategies and
areas where new connector roads would be needed to
maintain and improve access within areas identified in the
County’s land use plan for economic development purposes.
This plan was instrumental in gaining North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) acceptance and
participation in roadwork improvements necessary to serve
the Morinaga Candy Factory, which opened in 2016, with
limited on-site surveying and analysis.
In 2017, a thorough existing conditions, environmental, and traffic
analysis was completed through an engineering-based transportation
study conducted by Volkert Inc., based in Raleigh, NC. Its
Transportation Report for the Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Study Area
(See Appendix A), hereafter referred to as the 2017 Transportation
Report, reinforces the original E-B-M AMP with a comprehensive
investigation of the area’s development potential, traffic impact and
recommended improvements.
This update uses the 2017 Transportation Report to renew and replace
the original 2011 Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Economic Development
District Access Management Plan. This plan takes into account input from local residents and businesses in the
area through a public workshop conducted throughout the planning process. It also incorporates other road and
intersection improvements recommended by planning staff based on their expertise and familiarity with
economic development activities coordinated by the County’s Economic Development Department.
34
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 1
I. Introduction
Orange County seeks to develop an access management plan in order to maintain and improve the functionality
of the transportation network as the Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane (E-B-M) Study Area develops. This E-B-M AMP
provides the basis and justification for requiring the dedication of right-of-way in the planning area. Orange
County’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requires that proposed site plans demonstrate compliance with
adopted access management plans.
As properties are developed, transportation interconnectivity and access become increasingly important.
Orange County and regional metropolitan and rural planning organizations are dedicated to safe and efficient
use of the transportation network through sound access management practices. These practices in form of local
plans and policies are applied to highways, major arterials, and other roadways, including but not limited to:
• Access Spacing: Increasing the distance between traffic signals improves traffic flow on major roadways,
reduces congestion, and improves air quality for heavily traveled corridors.
• Driveway Spacing: Fewer driveways spaced further apart allow for more orderly traffic merging and
presents fewer challenges to drivers.
• Safe Turning Lanes: Dedicated left- and right-turn, indirect left-turns and U-turns, and roundabouts keep
through-traffic flowing. Roundabouts provide an opportunity to reduce conflict points within intersections
for safe travel.
• Median Treatments: Two-way left-turn lanes and non-traversable, raised medians are examples of some of
the most effective means to regulate access and reduce crashes.
• Right-of-Way Management: Right-of-way reservation for future widenings, good sight distance, access
location, and other access-related issues.
Such policies designate appropriate control levels for various land
uses. Local residential streets are allowed full access, while
commercial corridors have limited access. A wide range of road
types are included, each requiring standards that ensure free traffic
flow while allowing access to major businesses and other land uses
along a road (FIGURE 1).
Orange County uses Access management Plans to ensure land use
decisions take into consideration their impacts on the
transportation network. This practice is incorporated into the UDO
as a means of implementing the County’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The County currently has three Access
Management Plans in place:
• Orange Grove Road (March 2003)
• Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane (November 2011)
• Eno Economic Development District (November 2013)
A review of current legal and regulatory practices lists some fundamental access management aspects and
authority:
Figure 1: Access vs Mobility
35
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 2
• Access management starts at the state level through enabling legislation;
• State-enabling legislation dictates power given to local jurisdictions; and
• Land use planning techniques can be used to promote access management.
This regulatory framework is detailed in the following section.
A. State and Local Regulations
Under State law - North Carolina General Statutes (N.C.G.S.) § 136-66.2 - Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPOs) and municipalities shall develop Comprehensive Transportation Plans (CTPs) in cooperation with the
NCDOT. Orange County’s is divided among three regional transportation agencies, each with a CTP. These
agencies work with Orange County to meet state and federal regulations for all transportation projects, plans,
and programs. They also ensure transportation planning is continuing, coordinated, and comprehensive (23
U.S.C. 134-135).
• Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BG MPO)
• Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO)
• Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO)
TARPO’s CTP was adopted in 2013 and provides transportation project recommendations for Orange County’s
rural areas, while the MPO CTPs address the urbanized areas. DCHC MPO CTP was adopted in 2017 and a BG
MPO CTP is currently underway.
It is important to note that the CTPs do not include every road on the highway system. As such, in accordance
with state law, to complement the CTP roadway element, municipalities and MPOs may develop collector street
plans. Additionally, locally approved transportation plans, such as the E-B-M AMP, may contain street or
highway right-of-way alignment and dedication requirements, and collectively function as the collector street
plan for the MPO or municipality as referenced in N.C.G.S. § 136-66.2.
The Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) section
2.5.3.(v) and reiterated in section 6.10.A.1.(b), includes the
requirements for reserving and dedicating right of way or requiring
road construction listed in Access Management Plans or on the CTP.
Specific mention is also made to the dedication of right of way based
on the concepts shown on the CTP and locally adopted transportation
plans, in accordance with N.C.G.S. § 136 66.2 and § 136 66.10.
The CTP, collector street plan and locally adopted transportation plans
pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 136-66.2 serve as the comprehensive legal
framework referenced in N.C.G.S. § 136-66.10(a), addressing the
reservation and dedication of right-of-way under local ordinances.
36
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 3
North Carolina requires development along state routes to be accordance with NCDOT’s Policy on Street and
Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways. This document sets specific driveway and street access points
criteria regulating their location, design, and operation. When any construction work is done on state routes or
adjacent to existing roadways, connection and access points must meet this state regulation; including
properties being modified or expanded. While the state’s policy focuses on the transportation network, local
zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations address land use. Local access management plans play an
important role in merging state policy and local authority in efforts to integrate land use and transportation,
including Orange County planning processes.
B. Background and Planning Area
Several plans have been completed within the E-B-M area, beginning with the 1981 Comprehensive Plan, which
was a Countywide plan addressing land uses for all of the County’s townships. FIGURE 2 illustrates the AMP’s
chronology. The E-B-M AMP encompasses 4.25 square miles along I-85/I-40 between Efland and Mebane and is
bounded by the following (FIGURE 3):
• North: US Highway 70
• South: West Ten Road/Bowman Road
• East: I-85/US-70 Connector
• West: Ben Wilson Road
1981 -
Comprehensi
ve Plan
1991 -The
Efland
Area
Study
2004 - Expansion of
Public Water and
Sewer to Efland-
Buckhorn-Mebane
2006 -
Efland-
Mebane
Small
Area Plan
2011 - E-B-M
AMP
2017 - Volkert
Transportation
Study
Figure 2: Plan Chronology
37
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 4
Figure 3: E-B-M AMP Planning Area
38
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 5
C. Goals and Objectives
This update advances goals and objectives of the Orange County’s adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan (adopted in 2008) to ensure land use decisions
take into consideration their impact on the transportation network. Specific goals and objectives advanced include:
Economic Development (ED) Goal 2: Infrastructure that supports desired development.
• Objective ED-2.1: Encourage compact and higher density development in areas served by water and sewer.
• Objective ED-2.2: Encourage mixed use projects that support walkable communities.
• Objective ED-2.3: Promote public transportation, alternative modes of transportation, and encourage carpooling and park-and-ride
participation.
• Objective ED-2.5: Identify lands suitable to accommodate the expansion and growth of commercial and industrial uses in the County.
Land Use (LU) Goal 1: Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth, consistent with the provision of adequate services and facilities and
a high quality of life.
• Objective LU-1.1: Coordinate the location of higher intensity / high density residential and non-residential development with existing or planned
locations of public transportation, commercial and community services, and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer, high-
speed internet access, streets, and sidewalks), while avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural resources. This could be achieved by
increasing allowable densities and creating new mixed-use zoning districts where adequate public services are available.
• Objective LU-1.2: Evaluate and report on whether existing and approved locations for future residential and non-residential developments are
coordinated with the location of public transportation, commercial and community services, and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e., water
and sewer services, high-speed internet access, streets and sidewalks).
Transportation (T) 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.
• Objective T-3.3: Determine the policies to guide connectivity within and between residential developments based on their impact on
neighborhood character.
• Objective T-3.4: Direct development to higher density mixed-use districts along transit corridors and make necessary multi-modal transportation
improvements to service lands that are slated for future intense development, such as Economic Development Districts.
• Objective T-3.5: Use innovative techniques to increase mobility and reduce rush hour congestion.
Additionally this AMP advances the Efland Mebane Small Area Plan’s following goals and objectives:
Goal: In the future, the planning area should be well served by reliable infrastructure to accommodate orderly, planned growth. The planning area will
retain the core village area that will be the center of community life. An efficient multi-modal transportation system will operate in the area and
commercial and light industrial uses both in the planning area and nearby will provide job opportunities to area residents. There will be a mix of housing
types and sizes that will be economically accessible to a broad spectrum of working people. Parks and greenspace will be connected by a system of
greenways that will allow people to enjoy a high-quality outdoor environment while also serving as corridors for wildlife migration.
• Objective: Orderly and planned expansion of the sewer system and a sufficient public water supply system.
• Objective: Preservation of community character while allowing for planned, sustainable residential and non-residential growth.
• Objective: Provision of an efficient, multi-modal transportation system.
• Objective: A greater level of intergovernmental coordination between Orange County and the other governmental entities in the planning area.
Given that a portion of the E-B-M AMP planning area is within the City of Mebane as designated in the city’s 2017 Mebane by Design Comprehensive
Land Development Plan and addressed in the water and sewer agreement between Orange County and Mebane, Mebane in coordination with Orange
County may seek to extend additional water and sewer lines into the planning area. Based on these policies, it is expected that any future development
within the E-B-M planning area that requests water and sewer service from the City of Mebane may at some point be annexed by the City of Mebane.
The planning process takes the adjacent city into consideration.
D. Planned Projects
I-85 bisects the planning area and is scheduled for pavement rehabilitation through NCDOT’s adopted FY 2018-2027 State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP).
• TIP I-5954 & TIP I-5958 - I-40/I-85 pavement rehabilitation totaling $18,365,000 and covering 7.4 miles.
Three projects from the FY 2016-2025 STIP remain critically important in Orange County and have a total project cost of $53,795,000. These projects are
• SPOT ID – H140373 - Mattress Factory Road - extended to US-70 0.04 miles - $17,300,000
• SPOT ID – H090193 - I-40 - convert grade separation into interchange - 0.08 miles - $21,700,000
• SPOT ID – H090557 - SR 111 - multi-lane with bike/ped accommodations – 1.10 miles - $14,795,000
While these projects will not be part of the FY 2020-2029 STIP, they are an Orange County priority for the E-B-M planning area. Other projects include
modernizing 7.29 miles of Buckhorn Road with paved shoulders and establishing and/or increasing ridership on Orange County Public Transit’s routes in
the area. All of these projects are presented on the map in FIGURE 4.
39
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 6
Figure 4: Transportation Projects Map
40
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 7
II. Access Management Plan
The E-B-M AMP is updated using a strategic planning process. The detailed analysis included in the 2017
Transportation Study, located in APPENDIX B, documents the quantitative nature of the planning area, identifying
key access management issues addressed by the original 2011 access management plan. This E-B-M AMP update
is to follow a planning process similar to the original 2011 AMP. A community meeting was conducted to gather
public input on the plan, including the issues, concerns, and recommendations of the attendees. Access
Management strategies have been evaluated, recommended, and included in this document in order to execute
a successful plan. A summary of the planning process is shown below in FIGURE 5 and detailed in this chapter.
A. Community Meeting
On August 28, 2018, Orange County Planning Department hosted a Community Meeting at Gravelly Hill Middle
School, located within the planning area. Extensive outreach was conducted to get the public involved in the
planning process, this included:
• Individual letters mailed to each property owner in - and within 500’ of - the planning area notifying
them of the Community Meeting and encouraging their participation.
• Posted on County website urging public involvement and keeping them updated on the plan’s status.
• Provided a schedule requesting public participate when the plan goes before Planning Board, Orange
County Unified Transportation Board and Board of County Commission for approval.
The Community Meeting was held in the gym at Gravelly Hill Middle School from 4:30 pm – 6:30 pm. Maps of
the E-B-M planning area were displayed around the gym with comment cards and brief surveys soliciting their
input while crafting the plan. Detail comments from the community meeting are included in Appendix C. They
support the need for an update of the E-B-M AMP and are supportive of the implementation strategies
necessary to address their transportation concerns in the planning area.
B. 2017 Transportation Study
The 2017 Transportation Study (APPENDIX B) analyzed existing conditions for the planning area. The area is
mostly rural in character with a few commercial properties scattered throughout. Sites such as Morinaga
America Foods, Inc., Forma-Fab Metals, Cleora Sterling, and Gravelly-Hill Middle School are located within the
planning area. I-85/I-40 bisects the area and is paralleled by US-70 and West Ten Road. Efland Fire Department
Station 2, GE Industrial Solutions, and Efland Cheeks Elementary School as well as other uses are found along the
area’s border. Since the 2011 AMP’s adoption and the subsequent 2017 Transportation Study, the planning area
has been further analyzed, including updating traffic count and crash data and additional road and intersection
improvements have been identified for the area.
2011 AMP and
2017
Transportation
Study
Community
Meeting Recommendation
AMP Update
and
Implementation
Figure 5: Planning Process
41
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 8
In 2016, nineteen NCDOT traffic counting stations were located throughout the planning area (FIGURE 6). These
stations count vehicular traffic traversing various corridors. Some stations collect traffic counts annually while
others are collected every other year.
Key highlights of traffic count analysis:
• Station 6701742 – Buckhorn Road north of I-58 – currently accounts for twice as many vehicles (12,000)
than 2006 (6,500).
• Stations 6701742 and 6701751 – I -85 within the planning area – currently has an estimated 30% more
traffic volume (113,000) than in 2006 (88,000).
• Stations 6700018 and 6700009 – US-70 east of Efland Cedar Grove Road – continue experiencing
increased traffic over the past few years (FIGURE 7).
Figure 6: US-70 Traffic Trends
• Traffic count stations along West Ten Road and Bowman Road indicate traffic has more than doubled
(TABLE 1).
ROUTE
Station
ID 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
West Ten Road 6701749 830 870 1000 900 1000 1500
West Ten Road 6704718 980 910 1100 1000 1200 1400
West Ten Road 6704719 1200 1300 1400 1300 1600 1800
Bowman Road 6704717 440 460 610 630 770 840
Bowman Road 6704716 460 860 1200 1200 1500 1200
Table 1: Traffic Trends
Increased traffic in the area has also resulted in greater number of accidents in the planning area. Access
Management policies must address this increased traffic to ensure safe travel for all users.
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
2013 2014 2015 2016
US 70 Westbound at Efland Cedar Grove Road (Station ID 6700018)
US 70 Eastbound at Efland Cedar Grove Road (Station ID 6700009)
US 70 Connector North of I-85 (Station ID 6700008)
Av
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
D
a
i
l
y
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
o
u
n
t
Year
42
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 9
Figure 7: Traffic Count Stations
43
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 10
This plan update includes a brief safety analysis, an analysis not included in the 2017 Transportation Study. A
total of 1,385 estimated crashes have been reported in the planning area over the past ten year. Accidents in
the urban area - as determined by the U.S. Census - account for only 2.74% (38) of all crashes (FIGURE 8). The
urban area is mainly along US-70. Crashes along rural streets in the E-B-M area have constantly been increasing
over the past ten years as reported to NCDOT (FIGURE 9). Five accidents in rural area have resulted in fatalities.
This trend may continue as more accidents continue to occur along rural roads like Buckhorn Road, Bowman
Road and West Ten Road. While US-70 portion of the planning area may be considered urban, the northern half
is still rural. Access management policies will seek to reduce this growing trend, especially in the rural areas.
Figure 8:Crash by Severity
0
100
200
300
400
Rural Urban
Crash Locations by Severity
Possible injury Suspected minor injury Suspected serious injury Fatal
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
A
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
s
0
50
100
150
200
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Crash Locations by Frequency
Rural UrbanNu
m
b
e
r
o
f
A
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
s
Figure 9: Crash Frequency Trend
44
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 11
Figure 10: Rural vs Urban Crashes
45
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 12
1. Land Use Matrix and Future Network
As part of the 2017 Transportation Study, the planning area was divided into eighteen potential development
sites called “pods”. These sites were analyzed and their maximum buildable area was determined APPENDIX B.
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generations were also evaluated to ascertain development impact
on the transportation network. The Pod analysis, street cross sections and intersection improvements were
developed to help identify and mitigate the traffic impact through this process and made as part of updated
AMP.
2. Pod Delineation and Analysis
The analysis completed as part of the Study estimates a total 638.2 buildable acres (27.73% of 2301.5 gross
acres), due to environmental constraints and other factors. Pods range in size from 22 to 362 acres. A summary
of each pod’s buildable acres is shown below (TABLE 2 & FIGURE 11). Refer to the 2017 Transportation Study
in APPENDIX B for additional information and assumptions used in the analysis.
Pod Gross
Acres
Buildable
Acres
Constraints/
Attributes
Percentage
Buildable
1 343.41 86.79 256.62 25.27%
2 75.35 19.06 56.29 25.29%
3 257.53 81.01 176.52 31.46%
4 362.35 135.16 227.19 37.30%
5 138.95 0.00 138.95 0.00%
6 109.73 19.65 90.08 17.91%
7 22.01 7.47 14.54 33.94%
8 243.19 70.07 173.12 28.81%
9 55.96 18.15 37.81 32.43%
10 192.12 48.60 143.52 25.30%
11 62.20 7.14 55.06 11.48%
12 35.32 4.91 30.41 13.92%
13 49.26 15.23 34.03 30.91%
14 63.26 8.52 54.74 13.47%
15 49.91 11.07 38.84 22.19%
16 23.59 1.76 21.83 7.44%
17 144.61 79.31 65.30 54.84%
18 72.77 24.28 48.49 33.36%
Total 2301.52 638.17 1663.35 27.73%
Table 2: POD Buildable Acreage
Total acres
Minus current development
Minus environmental
constraints
Minus other attributes
Buildable acres
Figure 11: POD Delineation Process
46
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 13
These pods were also used to estimate how m uch additional traffic future development could generate. Each
year, ITE publishes trip generations for individual land uses. Based on current analysis, if all pods were
developed over time and based on the designated land uses and current zoning, the planning area could
experience an additional 172,829 vehicular trips per day on the roads. Below is a summary of daily, morning,
and evening peak hour trip generations for the planning area (TABLE 2 & FIGURE 12).
Pod Daily
1 7,440
2 2,781
3 21,917
4 40,416
5 0
6 1,998
7 36,955
8 5,088
9 17,736
10 4,336
11 4,516
12 392
13 925
14 4,896
15 1,010
16 772
17 16,228
18 5,422
Table 3: POD Daily Trips
3. Intersection Analysis
Various intersections in the planning area were analyzed for potential improvements. This investigation is based
on the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) being projected from 2014-2025 using historic trends. NCDOT
monitors the AADT data and the 2017 Transportation Study estimates a 3% annual increase over the past 15
years. This data is collected from traffic count stations located throughout the planning area and helps in
determining each road’s Level of Service (LOS). ITE defines the various LOS as described below:
• LOS A: Free flow with individual users unaffected by others in the traffic stream.
• LOS B: Stable flow with freedom to select speed with some influence by others.
• LOS C: Restricted flow remaining stable with significant interaction with others.
• LOS D: High-density flow with speed and maneuverability restricted but steady traffic stream.
• LOS E: Unstable flow with poor comfort and convenience level.
• LOS F: Forced flow characterized by stop-and-go waves and increased accident exposure.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
AM Peak
PM Peak
POD Number
Tr
i
p
s
Figure 12: POD Trip Generation
47
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 14
Refer to the 2017 Transportation Study for detail information on the planning area’s LOS. It provides the
engineering bases for requiring developers mitigate the traffic impact they will have on existing transportation
network in accordance with the County’s adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives.
C. Recommendations - Future Roadway and Intersection Improvements
Based on the information presented in the 2017 Transportation Study and taking into account public comments,
functional classification, design speed, traffic volumes, character and composition of traffic and type of right-of-
way, the roadway network and intersection improvements are recommended on the following pages.
In order to meet the goals and objectives identified on page 15, this AMP update recommends the following
actions:
• Require right-of-way dedication - based on the “Street Cross-Section Requirements” below - for all
development throughout the Planning Area and acquire necessary easements for infrastructure
improvements.
• Work with NCDOT to pursue funding to advance the following improvements:
o Install a traffic light at high frequency crash intersections to ensure safety and assist traffic flow.
o Install a crosswalk with a flashing light at key intersections in the planning area.
• Consider a provision that any development having ingress/egress in the Planning Area either construct
its fair share of recommended improvements or provide payment in lieu of such improvements.
• Work with developers, the Orange County Economic Development Department, and Orange County
Planning and Inspection Department to implement access management recommendations.
• Identify and promote transportation projects in the planning area to respective planning organizations
and NCDOT.
• Pursue NCDOT SPOT Safety projects for key intersections throughout the planning area.
• Support NCDOT’s County Complete Street Policy, which was being updated at the time this Plan was
prepared, to address multi-modal travel and protect pedestrian circulation around residential
subdivisions and commercial areas.
1. Street Cross-Section Requirements
Many existing roads will no longer have the capacity to handle the projected 172,829 additional vehicular trips.
New roads will have to be constructed while existing ones may require widening. Road design plays an
important role in access management. Several road cross sections have been designed to help address increased
traffic. This AMP update also takes into consideration bicycle and pedestrian requirements along the proposed
cross sections as demonstrated below (FIGURES 13-15).
48
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 15
Figure 13: 2017 Transportation Study – Street Cross Section 2A
• All new streets east of Buckhorn Road including, existing Southern Drive, and Forrest Road.
• Propose: 2 lanes and ditch/swale
Figure 14: 2017 Transportation Study – Street Cross Section 2B
• All new streets west of Buckhorn Road, including existing Bowman Road, Rock Quarry Road, and Ben
Wilson Road.
• Proposed: 2 lanes, ditch and sidewalk
49
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 16
Figure 15: 2017 Transportation Study – Street Cross Section 3A
• Existing Ben Wilson Road, Buckhorn Road, West Ten Road, and Mt. Willing Road
• To be done through State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
• Current: 2 lanes and ditch - Proposed: 3 lanes, ditch/swale and sidewalk
Implementation of the future roadway network and recommended cross sections is intended to occur over time
and largely through the development approval process. Developers are required to dedicate right-of-way
consistent with the recommended cross sections and construct roads in accordance with NCDOT Roadway
Design Manual requirements. While the cross sections are designed for local and collector roads, their capacity
is taken into account as intersections are also analyzed and recommendations are provided in an effort to
address traffic impact.
2. Intersection Improvement Requirements and TIA
Evaluating LOS determines the necessary recommendations at various intersections in the planning area. For
reference, many municipal governments adopt policies like TIAs that require that new development not
decrease LOS below level C or D. Determining the LOS for a given roadway involves complex calculations taking
into account factors such as roadway grades and lane width. The 2017 Transportation Study identified the
following intersections as those requiring specific improvements by developers and any transportation projects
associated with them (TABLE 4).
The 2017 Transportation Study serves as an overall Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the E-B-M area, as each
pod’s development potential was modeled in accordance with Section 6:17 - Traffic Impact Analysis – of the
County’s UDO. The purpose of a TIA 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.” TIAs also document the required traffic mitigations that must be incorporated into the
proposed development. A TIA is required for all special use permits, subdivisions, conditional zoning applications
and site plans. This is for all applications with an estimated trip generation exceeding 800 daily trips as the pods
have previously demonstrated.
50
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 17
Intersection Recommendation
Ben Wilson Road at New Road A
South bound right turn lane
North bound right turn lane
West bound right and left turn lane
West Ten Road at New Road A Right and left turn lanes in all directions
West Ten Road at Buckhorn Road Right and left turn lanes in all directions
Mt. Willing Road at New Road H Right and left turn lanes in all directions
US-70/I-85 Connector
West bound left turn lane
East bound right turn lane
Northbound right and left turn lane
Table 4: Intersection Recommendations
The AMP for the planning area consists of planned streets intersections as illustrated in FIGURE 16. Details of
these intersection improvements are located on pp. 26-42 of APPENDIX B.
D. AMP Update and Implementation
Developers proposing projects within this area will be required to provide the appropriate street cross sections
and intersection improvements as specified in this plan. The E-B-M AMP update includes the original 2011 AMP
by carrying forward its list of access management concepts, treatments, and considerations as listed in TABLE 5.
Concepts Treatments
Driveway-Related Crashes, Spacing, Density and
Consolidation Access Management and Pedestrian Safety
Intersection Spacing and Traffic Signal Spacing Driveway Grade and Width
Functional Areas of Intersections and Conflict Points
Clearing Driveways Away From Corners and
Driveway Turn Radius
Speed Differential Between Turning Vehicles And
Through Traffic Shared/Joint Driveways and/or Cross Access
Benefits and Economic Impacts of Access Management Dedicated Left And Right Turning Lanes
Continuous Two-Way Left-Turn Lanes
Considerations
Three-Lane Roadways With Two-Way Left-Turn
Lanes
Internal Circulation In Land Developments and Sight
Distance
Raised Medians at Intersections and Continuous
Raised Median
Incorporating Aesthetics Into Access Management
Comparison Of Raised Median And Two-Way Left-
Turn Lanes
Clear Zones, Utility Placement And Lighting Frontage and Backage Roads
Table 5: AMP Practices
A detail explanation of each concept, treatment and consideration is provided in APPENDIX A at the end of this
Plan. The E-B-M AMP below (FIGURE 16) illustrated the road network and intersection improvements planned in
51
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 18
the area. This plan is based on detail transportation analysis as documented in the 2017 Transportation Study
(APPENDIX B) and public comments gathered throughout the planning process.
52
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 19
Figure 16: E-B-M AMP
53
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 20
III. Enforcement
The following is a list of plans, policies, and regulations currently in place aimed at addressing relevant issues:
• Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan
• Orange County Unified Development Ordinance
• E-B-M Small Area Plan and Access Management Plan
Consistent with adopted plans and access management practices, following is a list of criteria considered during
the development review process:
1. Restrict access where possible from the functional area of intersections.
2. Control turning movements at entrances where recommended by a TIA, right-in/right-out entrance
design prevents left ingress and egress turning movements.
3. Limit or share access through a proposed development in order to prevent vehicles from backing up on
to the major roads and to enhance onsite circulation.
4. Space intersections and driveway access points to plan for reduced traffic conflict points as traffic
congestion increases:
a. Align major intersections and minor entrances with positive offset(s) to increase safety.
b. Provide a limited number of strategically located median crossovers in the planning area.
c. Add exclusive turn lanes where required by NCDOT.
d. Provide adequate separation between traffic signals to expand road’s traffic capacity and simplify
signal synchronization.
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 by 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. Provide frontage roads with non-residential development/redevelopment to increase safety on arterials
and collector roads, and promote non-residential development for economic benefit.
8. Provide an interconnected street network in the planning area as generally indicated on the map (FIGURE
16)
9. Provide an interior access network from identified primary access points along arterial and collector
roads.
10. Accommodate transit, bicyclists and pedestrians on roadways in the planning area.
11. Limit perennial stream crossings, and impacts to wetlands and steep topographical areas.
12. Required future road cross-sections shall be subject to NCDOT and Orange County review and are
incorporated in the Burlington Graham, Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization and Durham-Chapel
Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Comprehensive Transportation Plans (CTP) by
reference.
54
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 21
A. Roles and Responsibilities
NCDOT has full authority over state roads but not over local land use decisions. Orange County regulates land
use decisions but does not own or maintain local roads. Therefore, coordination is essential in balancing the two
authorities when it comes to access management policies and procedures. Each agency has authority over a
different part of the process and the partnership benefits the public, developer, and property owner whose
financial investment is at stake.
Role/Responsibility of the NCDOT
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 helps ensure conformance with access management
requirements and provides NCDOT an opportunity to suggest changes prior to local project 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 generation may have on the state roadway system and
provides recommendations based on the analysis. This process typically requires the completion of a Traffic
Impact Analysis 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 impact.
Role/Responsibility of Orange County
Several sections of the Orange County UDO assist with implementation of the E-B-M AMP. The UDO requires site
plans to comply with County adopted access management, transportation and/or connectivity plans and to
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). An important implementation tool
for access management is the UDO requirement of a traffic impact analysis for all special use permits, major
subdivisions, conditional zoning applications, site plans that exceed 800 trips per day, and for 80 or more
dwelling units of residential development. Additionally, a traffic impact analysis 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 road network and to identify any traffic problems associated with
access from the site to the existing transportation network. The objective of the traffic impact analysis is to
identify solutions to potential problems and to present improvements to be incorporated into the proposed
development.
55
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 22
As individual developments occur in the planning area, permits can be issued that conform to the access
management plan, or permits outlining conditions (whether through conditional zoning, special use permits, or
site plan reviews) can be issued so that the development will ultimately be in conformance. NCDOT
representatives provide 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. All development in the planning area must be in accordance with NCDOT Policy on Street
and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways.
Continued intergovernmental coordination with the City of Mebane will be important to realizing desired
development and access management within the planning area since the City will be the service provider of
public water and sanitary 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
adopted access management plans. A traffic impact analysis may be required to be prepared by the applicant’s
engineer, to determine any traffic concerns associated with access from the site to the existing transportation
network, and to identify solutions to potential problems for incorporation into the proposed development.
Additionally, prior to beginning any site disturbance 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). All applicants are required
to coordinate with all agencies involved, including other local governments, to identify conflicting or overlapping
access issues.
B. Resources
The plan may require future updates as development occurs and other access management issues are identified.
While North Carolina counties do not own or maintain local roads, they do have certain authority over land use
decisions, and through innovative use of local regulations, Orange County can adopt local policies and
ordinances aimed at addressing specific issues such as access management. A variety of tools are made available
including and not limited to:
• Land Development Regulations
• Special Service Districts
• Intergovernmental Agreements
• Complete Streets Policy
• Exactions
56
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 23
IV. Appendix
A. 2011 E-B-M EDD AMP
B. 2017 E-B-M Transportation Study
C. Community Meeting
57
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 24
APPENDIX A
2011 Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
58
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 25
59
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 26
60
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 27
61
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
ACCESS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
(To Be Applied Within Corridors And Development Zones)
ACCESS MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS
1. Driveway-Related Crashes
Much of access management involves managing traffic movements into and out
of commercial driveways. The reason for this is that driveway traffic generates a
large number of crashes on major roads and streets-arterials and collectors.
2. Driveway Spacing
Maintaining an adequate spacing between commercial driveways is one of the
most critical aspects of access management.
3. Driveway Density And Driveway Consolidation
Driveway density (the number of driveways per block or per mile) and driveway
consolidation are very important considerations in access management. These
roadway characteristics are basic issues in any access management plan or
program.
4. Intersection Spacing And Traffic Signal Spacing
Although most discussions about access management focus on the
management of private driveways, proper spacing of roadway intersections is an
equally important access management issue.
Why is intersection spacing important?
The importance of intersection spacing is similar to that of driveway spacing. As
the number of intersections per mile increase, the opportunity for crashes
increases. The existence of too many intersections per mile also increases delay
and congestion. On the other hand, not providing an adequately dense street
network forces motorists and pedestrians to travel farther to their destinations.
5. Functional Areas Of Intersections
It is important to protect the functional area of an intersection from driveway
access. Driveways located within this area may result in higher crash rates and
increased congestion.
What is the functional area of an intersection?
The f unctional area of an intersection is that area beyond the physical intersection
of two roadways that comprises decision and maneuvering distance, plus any
required vehicle storage length. The functional area includes the length of road
upstream from an oncoming intersection needed by motorists to perceive the
62
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
intersection and begin maneuvers to negotiate it. The upstream area consists of
distance for travel during a perception-reaction time, travel for maneuvering and
deceleration, and queue storage. The functional area also includes the length of
road downstream from the intersection needed to reduce conflicts between through
traffic and vehicles entering and exiting a property.
6. Conflict Points
Conflicts points are commonly used to explain the accident potential of a roadway.
Access management strategies are typically designed to reduce the number and
density of conflict points.
What is a conflict point?
A conflict point is the point at which a highway user crossing, merging with, or
diverging from a road or driveway conflicts with another highway user using the same
road or driveway. It is any point where the paths of two through or turning vehicles
diverge, merge, or cross.
7. Speed Differential Betw een Turning Vehicles And Through
Traffic
Speed differential is a simple yet important concept that forms the basis for many
access management measures.
What is speed differential?
Speed differential is the difference between the speed of vehicles that are continuing
along the main roadway versus those that are entering and exiting the driveway For
instance, if through traffic generally moves at 35 miles per hour and cars have to slow
to 10 miles per hour to enter a driveway, the speed differential at and near that
driveway is 25 miles per hour.
Why is speed differential important?
A speed differential above 20 miles per hour begins to present safety concerns. When
the speed differential approaches 30 to 35 miles per hour, the likelihood of a collision
between fast moving through vehicles and turning vehicles increases very quickly.
8. Benefits Of Access Management
An effective, local access management program can play an important role in
preserving highway capacity, reducing crashes, and avoiding or minimizing costly
remedial roadway improvements. The traveling public would then benefit from faster
and safer travel. The great majority of businesses would benefit from increased
economic vitality along a well-managed corridor. Taxpayers would benefit from more
efficient use of existing facilities. And public agencies would benefit from the relatively
low cost of access management; they could then use their resources for other needs.
63
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
9. Economic Impacts Of Access Management
Business owners often are concerned that changes in access to their premises will
have temporary or permanent impacts on their sales. They are concerned that
changes in direct access to their property-such as consolidating driveways or installing
raised medians will lead to declines in patronage and sales. Perceived impacts of
access management on adjacent commercial businesses and landowners are often
major impediments to projects moving forward. In the case of access management,
perceptions are often worse than reality.
Access management before development offers clarity and relieves the post-
development difficulty in retrofitting.
10. Access Management And Pedestrian Safety
Access management is usually promoted as a way to improve driving conditions for
motorists. Clearly, access management techniques can lead to roads and streets that
are dramatically safer and much easier and more pleasant to drive. However,
research also indicates that several key access management techniques are just as
valuable to pedestrians. These include:
• reducing the number of driveways, particularly commercial driveways, within a
given distance (per block or mile)
• providing for greater distance separation between driveway
• providing a safe refuge for pedestrian crossings with raised medians
COMMON ACCESS MANAGEMENT TREATMENTS
11. Driveway Grade
Along older urban arterial streets, it is common to find rather steep driveways with
grades (or slopes) of 5-10 percent or more. Driveways with steep grades were often
constructed to allow the driveway and connecting parking lots to drain more efficiently
and to save earth-moving costs. On the other hand, more recently constructed
arterials typically feature very gentle driveway grades. Driveway grade is an important
– yet often overlooked – safety consideration.
The maximum practical grade for driveways varies between 8-14 percent for low-
volume driveways and five percent for high-volume driveways (a 30-foot long driveway
with a 14 percent grade would rise or fall about four feet along its length).
Furthermore, the maximum practical change in grade is about 12 percent. Above this
value, many vehicles will scrape their bumpers or other low-hanging parts on the
driveway, potentially causing damage to the vehicle and driveway or roadway surface.
While this may be the maximum practical grade, it is much safer to use a smaller
grade. A minimal grade (say, two percent) is still needed for drainage.
64
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
12. Driveway Width
Along older urban arterial streets, it is common to find many narrow driveways. Older
commercial driveway and parking lot designs tended to use ten to fifteen foot wide
driveways. This type of design will safely accommodate only one vehicle at a time,
either an entering or an exiting vehicle. Another common problem is driveways in
urban and rural areas that are too wide. In some cases, the driveway may have no
discernible boundaries or curbs. Both situations create operational and safety
concerns. A properly designed driveway helps turni ng traffic move off the roadway
more quickly and reduces the likelihood of crashes.
13. Clearing Driveways Away From Corners
Clearing driveways away from corners is the simplest, yet perhaps the most critical
access management treatment.
What is corner clearance?
Corner clearance is the minimum distance required between an intersection and an
adjacent driveway along an arterial road or collector street.
14. Shared/Joint Driveways And/Or Cross Access
Driveway spacing and driveway density are important considerations in managing
access. When driveways are spaced too closely together or the number of driveways
per block or mile becomes too large, a significant increase in traffic accident rates
occurs. Traffic also tends to become congested more quickly in such situations.
What is driveway sharing?
A shared driveway is when two or more adjacent properties use the same driveway for
ingress and/or egress. Shared driveways are very common in newer commercial
areas, for instance at strip malls, regional shopping centers, and office parks. Sharing
driveways is simply good design practice since conf lict points caused by motorists
entering and leaving the businesses are reduced. This will, in turn, tend to reduce
traffic accidents associated with turning traffic and improve the traffic flow on the main
road.
What are joint and cross access?
Joint and cross access are formal, legal methods of ensuring that adjacent properties
can share driveways. In the case of joint access, two adjacent property owners share
a driveway along their common property line. In the case of cross access, one
property owner has the legal right to access and use a driveway that is on the adjacent
property owner’s land.
Joint and cross access can be built into private real estate titles through easements.
They can also be encouraged or required in local planning or design standards or in
municipal and county ordinances.
65
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
15. Continuous Two-Way Left-Turn Lanes
Continuous two-way-left-turn lanes (TWLTL) are a common access management
treatment when combined with driveway consolidation and corner clearance. TWLTLs
simultaneously provide a separate lane for left turning vehicles and property access.
Typically, they are used as the center lane of a five-lane roadway. A less common
design involves three lanes, a TWLTL in the center for left turns and one lane in each
direction for through traffic.
Recent theory suggests avoiding this design unless road right-of-way conditions are
restrictive.
16. Three-Lane Roadways With Two-Way Left-Turn Lanes Continuous
two-way left-turn lanes (TWLTL) are a common access management treatment.
Typically, they are used in the center of a four-lane roadway. However, a less-
common design involving three lanes – a TWLTL in the center for left turns and one
lane in each direction for through traffic – is being used more and more frequently. At
first, the idea of a three-lane road may seem strange. But under the right
circumstances they can work very well, operating better and more safely than a four-
lane undivided road.
17. Raised Medians At Intersections
Raised medians with left-turn lanes at intersections offer a cost-effective means for
reducing accidents and improving operations at higher volume intersections. The left-
turn lanes separate slower turning vehicles from through traffic and provide a protected
space for these vehicles to decelerate and turn. The raised median prohibits left turns
into and out of driveways that may be located too close to the functional area of the
intersection.
18. Continuous Raised Median
Continuous raised medians with well-designed median openings are among the most
important features for managing access to create a safe and efficient highway system.
19. Comparison Of Raised Median And Two-Way Left-Turn Lanes
Because raised medians are the most restrictive access management treatment,
building a raised median along an arterial is often very controversial among business
and property owners. Two-way left-turn lanes (TWLTL) are much less so. Business
persons and property owners feel that installation of raised medians will have a large,
negative impact on their customers, sales, and property values. Therefore, TWLTLs
are often suggested as a compromise solution. However, TWLTLs also represent a
safety compromise when compared to raised medians. They should be used with
care.
66
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
20. Frontage And Backage Roads
Frontage and backage roads run parallel the mainline route and provide alternative
access to property. Property access is provided along the frontage or backage road,
which accesses the arterial via a cross road (with a traffic signal if necessary). This
reduces the number and density of conf lict points associated with strip development.
These roads are generally applicable to commercial development.
A backage road provides access to the rear side of commercial properties
located between the backage road and the arterial. It also provides
access to properties located on the opposite side of the backage road
from the arterial, thus increasing land values and reducing infrastructure
costs to individual properties.
A frontage road provides access to the front side of commercial
properties located along the arterial. Care must be taken to ensure
adequate separation between the arterial and the intersection of the
frontage and cross roads.
Why are frontage and backage roads important?
Frontage and backage roads reduce conflict points between through traffic and turning
traffic associated with strip development and direct property access to the arterial.
Conflict points are associated with reduced levels of roadway safety and operations.
Studies have shown that when driveway access to arterial roadways is granted to too
many property owners without considering future traffic volumes and road
classifications, the additional driveways increase the rate of accidents and decrease
the efficiency of the roadway.
21. Dedicated Left And Right Turning Lanes
One of the major concerns of transportation engineers and planners in cities and
suburban areas is keeping through traffic moving at a smooth and even pace. When
traffic can’t move at an even pace, delays and congestion are the result. This
frustrates motorists and creates opportunities for “fender-bender” crashes. One of the
simplest ways to accomplish smooth and even traffic is to remove the turning traffic
from the through traffic flow at road intersections and near busy driveways. Often,
dedicated turning lanes are provided to serve that purpose. Many times turning lanes
are used in conjunction with raised medians and medians at intersections to provide
additional safety by protecting turning traffic.
22. Driveway Turn Radius
Turn radius refers to the extent that the edge of a commercial driveway is “rounded” to
permit easier entry and exit by turning vehicles. Driveway entrances with longer turn
radii help slower, turning traffic move off the arterial more quickly. They also help
traffic leaving a driveway turn and enter the stream of traffic more efficiently.
Guidelines for turn radii are generally applied to non-residential developments and
subdivisions.
67
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
23. Internal Circulation In Land Developments
Internal site design is probably the most neglected discussion point in access
management. It would be natural to think that access management concerns stop at
the roadway right-of-way line, but in fact they carry through into the property that is
provided with access.
Why is internal site design important?
The movement of traffic into and out of properties can be dramatically affected by the
internal design for on-site circulation. The internal design of circulation on a property
may help or hinder traffic turning off or onto an arterial street. This in turn affects the
speed differential between turning and through traffic.
What is the best way to design for internal circulation?
The internal circulation of a land development functions well when it is designed with
respect to highway access point(s) rather than the building(s). Design should start
from the outside in and finish with the parking and building. Very often, the opposite
approach is taken. The circulation design of driveways and parking lots are done last.
Here is the optimal internal circulation design approach:
1. Provide safe and reasonable access to and from the street to motorists and
pedestrians.
2. Provide a reasonable transition between the access and the internal circulation,
especially by making sure the driveways are wide and long enough.
3. Design the parking area and individual parking spaces.
4. Design the building footprint within the constraints of the internal circulation and the
parking.
OTHER CORRIDOR DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
24. Sight Distance
Guidelines for adequate sight distance are one of the most important and basic
approaches a community can take in managing access to its roadways. Sight distance
guidelines can help communities ensure that its arterials are safe for motorists and
pedestrians. Sight distance guidelines can also help communities promote adequate
spacing of residential and commercial driveways.
What is sight distance?
Sight distance is the length of highway visible to a driver. A safe sight distance is the
distance needed by a driver on an arterial, or a driver exiting a driveway or street, to
verify that the road is clear and avoid conflicts with other vehicles. Sigh lines must be
kept free of objects which might interfere with the ability of drivers to see other
vehicles. Features such as hills, curves in the road, vegetation, other landscaping,
signs, and buildings can reduce sight distance.
68
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
25. Incorporating Aesthetics Into Access Management
Access management projects often involve widening existing roadways to add either
an additional two-way-left-turn lane (TWLTL) or a raised median. Such projects can
lead to a wide expanse of concrete and asphalt. An aesthetically pleasing treatment,
however, does not need to run counter to sound access management practices. In
fact, aesthetics can and should be incorporated into access management project
plans.
Why are aesthetics important?
Access management projects are much more likely to be accepted by the public and
by business owners of adjacent properties if they look good as well as improve safety
and traffic flow.
26. Clear Zones, Utility Placement And Lighting
Adequate clear zones with proper placement of utilities and sufficient lighting are
essential components of well designed roadways. Proper design will help ensure
sufficient sight distance and improve roadway operating safety.
What is a clear zone?
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
Green Book states that “a clear zone is used to designate the unobstructed, relatively
flat area provided beyond the edge of the traveled way for the recovery of errant
vehicles.” Utilities, structures, signs, trees, and other objects should not be located
within the clear zone.
69
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Bik
e
l
a
n
e
Vehicle
Lane
Vehicle
Lane
Bik
e
l
a
n
e
2.5’
Curb & gutter
Side
walk
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
es
Curb & gutter
Bik
e
lane
2.5’
Bik
e
lane
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
es
Side
walk
Figure 1a.
80’ PROPOSED STREET CROSS SECTION
SHOULDER SECTION
80’
11’ – 12’ 11’ – 12’
’ ’ ’ ’
19’ – 20’ 19’ – 20’
Shoulder & Shoulder &
Drainage Drainage
si
de
wa
lk
si
de
walk
Figure 1b.
80’ PROPOSED STREET CROSS SECTION
CURB & GUTTER SECTION
80’
5’ 4’ 11’ – 12’ 11’ – 12’ 11’ – 12’ 4’ 5’
Vehicle lane Left turn
lane
Vehicle lane
70
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
APPENDIX B
2017 Transportation Study
71
Transportation Report for the Efland‐Buckhorn‐
Mebane Study Area
Prepared For:
Orange County Planning & Inspections Department
131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 201
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
May 2017
Prepared By:
5540 Centerview Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
72
Contents
Section 1 ‐ Introduction................................................................................................................................... 3
Purpose and Background ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Access Management ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Business Impacts .................................................................................................................................................. 5
Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) ......................................................................................................... 5
Section 2 – Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 6
Environmental Features ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Cultural Features ........................................................................................................................................... 6
Existing Roadway Network ............................................................................................................................ 9
Section 3 – Future Network .................................................................................................................... 10
Future Land Use Map ................................................................................................................................... 10
Study Area Buildout Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 12
Future Roadway Network ............................................................................................................................ 15
Typical Sections .............................................................................................................................................. 16
Traffic Volume Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 22
Intersection Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 25
Section 4 – Cost Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 43
Conceptual Design .......................................................................................................................................... 43
Construction Cost Estimate ............................................................................................................................. 43
Section 5 – Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 44
Attachment A ‐ Study Area Map ............................................................................................................... 45
Attachment B – SHPO Cultural Resources Response Letters ................................................................. 47
Study Area 1A SHPO Response Letter ........................................................................................................... 48
Study Area 1B SHPO Response Letter ........................................................................................................... 50
Study Area 2A SHPO Response Letter ........................................................................................................... 51
Study Area 2B SHPO Response Letter ........................................................................................................... 53
Attachment C – Formulas and Assumptions .......................................................................................... 54
Formulas ........................................................................................................................................................ 55
Assumptions ...................................................................................................................................................... 55
Buildout Analysis Spreadsheet ...................................................................................................................... 58
Attachment D ‐ Traffic Volume Data ..................................................................................................... 59
1
73
Figures and Tables
Figures
Figure 1‐ Study Area for the Efland‐Buckhorn‐Mebane Transportation Report……………………………………. ... 4
Figure 2‐ Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 3 ‐ Environmental Features ............................................................................................................... 8
Figure 4 ‐ Future Land Use Map .................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 5‐ Development Pod Map ................................................................................................................ 14
Figure 6 ‐ Typical Section 2D ...................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 7 ‐ Typical Section 2A ...................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 8 ‐ Typical Section 3A ...................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 9 ‐ 2014 AADT ................................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 10 ‐ 2025 AADT ................................................................................................................................ 24
Figure 11 ‐ Study Intersections ................................................................................................................... 42
Tables
Table 1 ‐ Anticipated Traffic Generated from Development. ..................................................................... 13
Table 2‐ Construction Cost Estimates for New Roads. ..................................................................................43
Table 3 ‐ Construction Cost Estimates for Updating Existing Roads. ............................................................. 44
2
74
Section 1 ‐ Introduction
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
The primary purpose of this technical report is to develop a roadway network to support investment in
the Efland‐Buckhorn‐Mebane Study Area, based on an examination of existing plans, future land use,
environmental constraints, cultural and historic resources, key transportation considerations, and future
development potential. The data presented in this technical report will provide the basis and justification
for requiring the dedication of rights‐of‐way in the Efland‐Buckhorn‐Mebane Study Area and may serve
as an appendix to the updated Efland‐Buckhorn‐Mebane Study Area Access Management Plan.
Access management of the road network in the study area will facilitate access to land for development,
while maintaining the safety and efficiency of the State’s transportation system. The goals of an access
management plan include creating access to new developments and ensuring that existing facilities
remain operating at a functional level. Within Orange County, the Efland‐Buckhorn‐Mebane Study Area
was selected as a location to encourage future economic development activities, based on its strategic
location along major transportation corridors. The Efland‐Buckhorn‐Mebane Study Area runs along the
north side of I‐40 between Buckhorn Road and I‐85/US 70 Connector and along the south side of I‐40
from Ben Wilson Road and Mt. Willing Road. Recent growth along the I‐85/40 corridor has resulted in an
average increase of traffic of 3% each year; with the expected growth of residential activity and office,
service, research, commercial and industrial development in the study area, the future traffic is
anticipated to also intensify. A map of the project study area is shown in Figure 1.
ACCESS MANAGEMENT
Access management is the systematic control of the location, spacing, design and operation of driveways,
median openings, interchanges and street connections to a roadway1. The Federal Highway
Administration’s (FHWA) official definition of access management is “the process that provides access to
land development while simultaneously preserving the flow of traffic on the surrounding system in terms
of safety, capacity, and speed.” By controlling these access points, a local or state government can:
Maintain the overall safety of the transportation system;
Minimize congestion;
Provide for efficient traffic flow and pedestrian safety;
Minimize crash rates; and
Provide appropriate access to adjacent business properties.
Ultimately, Orange County seeks to develop an access management plan in order to maintain the
functionality of the transportation network as the Efland‐Buckhorn‐Mebane Study Area develops.
1 Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C. 2003
3
75
·
Study Area for the Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Transportation Report - Figure 1
FOREST AVE OUTHERN DR
Study Area 1 in = 3,400 feet
0 2,000
Parcel
Feet
Orange County Planning and Inspections
Brian Carson (12/21/2016)
EST TEN R
TON
RD
O
S EL
EV
E
N
TH
ST
AR
RY
RD
CE
N
T
E
R
IN
4
76
BUSINESS IMPACTS
Addressing the roadway network and access management issues during the planning and development
of land in the study area and transportation projects can help a community in various ways. Customers
are seeking businesses with unblocked driveways and easy access while businesses are seeking access to
signalized intersections and interconnected developments which allow easy access to interstate facilities.
Having a plan in place to address the needs of the community is critical to the economic prosperity of
the region and ultimately to the State of North Carolina.
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (CTP)
The North Carolina Department of Transportation and Orange County adopted the Orange County
Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP), which provides project recommendations for rural areas of
the county, in 2013. The Durham‐Chapel Hill‐Carrboro MPO (DCHC MPO) CTP is currently under
development and will be adopted in 2017. This plan addressed future transportation needs in the
urbanized areas. The Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) will be used to further foster
economic development in the Mebane/Buckhorn Economic Development District (EDD).
Under State law (N.C.G.S. § 136‐66.2), Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and municipalities
shall develop Comprehensive Transportation Plans (CTPs) in cooperation with the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT). For municipalities and counties, or portions thereof, located
within an MPO planning area, the development of a CTP shall be by the MPO in cooperation with the
NCDOT. The CTP is not required to be fiscally constrained and no minimum horizon year or update
timeframes are specified. The CTP is the element of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) that
identifies transportation needs before fiscal constraint is applied.
Under Federal law (23 U.S. Code § 134), MPOs are required to prepare a MTP. The MTP is required to
address the federal planning requirements in 23 U.S.C. § 134, which include being fiscally constrained,
having a minimum 20 year horizon, and being updated every 4 years in air quality non‐attainment or
maintenance areas (every 5 years in attainment areas).
It is important to note that the CTP/MTP does not include every road on the highway system. As such, in
accordance with G.S. § 136‐66.2, to complement the roadway element of the CTP, municipalities and
MPOs may develop a collector street plan and/or include additional projects that may be included in the
transportation plan if reasonable additional resources beyond those identified in the financial plan were
available to assist in developing the roadway network. The Department of Transportation may review
and provide comments but is not required to provide approval of the collector street plan. The CTP and
the locally approved collector street plan(s) work together to identify the future transportation system.
The street and highway elements of the plans developed pursuant to G.S. § 136‐66.2 shall serve as the
plan referenced in G.S. § 136‐66.10(a), which addresses the reservation and dedication of right‐of‐way
under local ordinances.
Locally approved transportation plans may contain street or highway right‐of‐way alignment and
dedication recommendations or requirements, and collectively function as the collector street plan for
the MPO or municipality as referenced under G.S. § 136‐66.2.
5
77
The concepts shown on a CTP are for planning purposes and are subject to change. These concepts will need
additional analysis to meet state and federal environmental regulations, to determine final locations and
designs, and to be funded for implementation. The Orange County UDO, Sections 6 and 7 includes the
requirements for reserving and dedicating right of way or requiring construction of roads listed in Access
Management Plans or on the CTP. Specific mention is also made to the dedication of right of way based on
the concepts shown on the CTP and local collector street plans, based on N.C.G.S.
§136 66.2 and § 136 66.10.
Section 2 – Existing Conditions
ENVIRONMENTALFEATURES
To begin the transportation report development process, Orange County’s environmental contractor, Pilot
Environmental, Inc. (PEI) conducted preliminary studies within the Study Area: Wetlands determination,
threatened and endangered species determination. Specifically, PEI’s field work and use of existing federal
and state agency data determined the presence of any streams, ponds and Wetlands, assessment of potential
historic properties/structures and/or archaeological remains, and obtain information regarding federally
protected threatened and endangered species that could be located in the area. The project was broken into
four study areas: 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B, a map of which is shown in Attachment A. The purpose of the work was
to document environmentally sensitive areas to assist the County in long‐range planning and regulating
future road networks related to development proposals in the area. The future road network proposals will
ultimately be developed to mitigate impacts on environmental features in the Study Area. Figure 2 depicts
the Existing Conditions, highlighting water features, schools, and cemeteries. Figure 3 contains
Environmental Features including endangered species and elevation contours.
CULTURAL FEATURES
PEI also conducted a cultural resources inquiry in the Study Area. A cemetery and several historic
structures were located. PEI submitted a letter to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) soliciting
comments pertaining to the Study Area. Copies of their responses are shown in Attachment B. SHPO
determined that the road network as proposed will not have an effect on any of the historic structure, and
additionally, the cemetery is protected in accordance with NCGS Chapter 65.
Portions of the Study Area also have a high probability for the presence of archeological resources.
Archaeological data was obtained but is not depicted on Figure 2 in order to protect sensitive areas
of archaeological interest.
6
78
Existing ConditionsNote: This map is for presentation use only and not to be used for construction purposes.
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4WEST TEN RD
INDUSTRIAL DR
M
A
T
T
R
E
S
S
F
A
C
T
O
R
Y
R
D
SOUTHERN DR
WEST TEN RD
RO
C
K
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
R
D
BOWMAN
R
D
B
E
N
W
I
L
S
O
N
R
D
SOUTHERN RAIL
W
A
Y
I-85/40
I-85/40
Legend
Cemetery kj Cemetery
Riverines
Ponds
Wetlands
Lakes
4 Schools
Wetlands
Streams
Railroad
F010.5 Miles
§¨¦
§¨¦
§¨¦
I-85/4
0
FOREST AVE
BU
C
K
H
O
R
N
R
D
B
U
C
K
H
O
R
N
R
D
MT.
W
I
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
US-70
US-70
US-70
US-70
Figure 2 7
79
Legend
Riverines
Ponds
NWI Wetlands
Lakes
Endangered Species
Elevation Contours
0 0.5 1
Miles
Note: This map i s for pre sentation use only
and not to be used for construction purpos es.
Environmental Features Map
Figure 3
Archaeologica l data is not provided on
this map in order to protect sen sit ive areas
of arch a e o l o gic a l i n t eres t . However a r c hae ologic a l
site acreage in the study area was c o n sid e red in our
analysis and was removed from the total buildable area
calculated for the purposes of trip g e n e r ati o n .
F 8
80
EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK
The project area (shown in Figure 1) is approximately 4.25 square miles bounded on the west by Ben
Wilson Road, on the east by The I‐85/US‐70 Connector, on the north by US‐70, and on the south by West
Ten Road and Bowman Road. The area lies between two municipalities, Mebane and Hillsborough. A
description of the transportation facilities in the general vicinity of the project study area is as follows:
I‐40/I‐85 is an eight‐lane interstate that runs concurrently through Guilford, Alamance, and Orange
Counties. I‐40 diverges from I‐85 at exit 163 south of Hillsborough. The posted speed limit is 65 mph and
the AADT is 98,000 vehicles/day.
Ben Wilson Road is a two‐lane major connector which is accessed from the Mebane Oaks Road
interchange on I‐85/40 and carries mainly residential traffic. It was recently extended to act as a service
road for employees of Morinaga America Foods, Inc. The extension of Ben Wilson Road to Mebane Oaks
Road has been studied, however plans have not been approved and will not be discussed in this report.
The posted speed limit is 35 mph.
West Ten Road is a two‐lane major connector south of I‐40/I‐85 which runs from Mattress Factory Road
to the I‐85 Connector. The posted speed limit is 55 mph, except for a 45 mph section near Gravelly Hill
Middle School, and the AADT is 1,800 vehicles/day.
Mattress Factory Road is a two‐lane major connector that is north of I‐40/85 which runs from East
Washington Street (SR 1303) to West Ten Road, intersecting at I‐40/85. The posted speed limit is 35 mph
and the AADT is 2,500 vehicles/day.
Buckhorn Road is a two‐lane major connector stretching from US‐70 in the north to Orange Grove Road
(SR 1006) in the south. Within the study area, i.e. from US‐70 to West Ten Road, Buckhorn Road has a
posted speed of 35 mph and the AADT is 2,700 vehicles/day.
US 70 is a two‐lane road classified as an Other Principal Arterial, which provides east‐west access across
Orange County from I‐85 and Durham in the east to Mebane in the west. US‐70 represents the northern
boundary of the study area. The posted speed limit is 45 mph and the AADT is between 3,600 and 5,300
vehicles/day.
I‐85/US‐70 Connector is a four‐lane interstate providing access between I‐40/I‐85 and US‐70. A full
access interchange is provided at I‐40/I‐85, while a partial access interchange is present at US‐70. The
partial access interchange restricts westbound travel onto US 70 from the I‐85/US‐70 Connector and
southbound travel from US‐70 onto the I‐85/US‐70 Connector. The posted speed limit is 55 mph and the
AADT is 4,400 vehicles/day.
9
81
Section 3 – Future Network
FUTURE LAND USE MAP
The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) (Figure 4) is a key component of the adopted Orange County 2030
Comprehensive Plan. The FLUM provides guidance and direction regarding future land use planning and
development efforts undertaken in the county, including the Study Area. The FLUM defines the location
of appropriate land use classifications that would achieve a desired pattern of development, and is critical
for achieving sustainable growth.
Implementation of the stated land use goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan is accomplished
primarily through the application of zoning districts consistent with the FLUM. The land use classifications
depicted by the FLUM provide the locations in the county where certain zoning districts may or may not
be appropriate. The classifications designated for the Study Area are: Commercial‐ Industrial Transition;
Economic Development Transition Activity Node; and 10‐Year Transition. A variety of zoning districts are
appropriate for these classifications with specifics provided through a Land Use and Zoning Matrix that
is included in the Comprehensive Plan. If a proposed zoning district is not compatible with the
classifications contained in the Matrix, re‐zoning cannot take place unless the FLUM is amended.
The land use classifications of the FLUM, together with the existing and projected future zoning districts,
informed a build‐out analysis for the Study Area. The analysis provides an estimation of future
development. It serves as the basis for estimations of the amount of additional traffic that could be
generated if the Study Area was developed to its full potential, as well as serving as a tool for planning
for future improvements to the transportation network.
10
82
Me
b
a
n
e
Efland
US
7
0
W
B U C K H O R N R D
LEBANON
RD
ECENTERST
US 70 W
WEST
TEN
RD
I85US70CONNECTOR
R IC H MOND RD
H
E
B
R
O
N
C
H
U
RCH
R
D
B
O
W
M
A
N
R
D
FRA Z I E R R D
EFLAND CEDAR GROVE RD
M A T T R E S S F A C T O R Y R D
MILL CREEKRD
BROOKHOLLOWRD
IRA RD
BUS
H
Y
C
O
O
K
R
D
H I G H R O C K RD
M EB A N E O A K S R D
C H ES T N U T R I D G ECHURCHRD
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
Fu
t
u
r
e
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
M
a
p
o
f
t
h
e
O
r
a
n
g
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
Plan 01,000Feet 1 in = 3,500 feet.Adoption Date: Nov 18,2008 Amended through November 2014
Wa
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
A
r
e
a
s
Wa
t
e
r
S
u
p
p
l
y
W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
s
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
A
r
e
a
s
Pu
b
l
i
c
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
A
r
e
a
s
10
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
20
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
Ru
r
a
l
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ci
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
s
ET
J
Ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
N
o
d
e
s
Ru
r
a
l
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
-
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
Orange County and Planning and Inspections Department.This copy printed July 19, 2016. Map is for reference use only.Contact Planning staff for verification of data.
Fi
g
u
r
e
4
11 83
STUDY AREA BUILDOUT ANALYSIS
An important element of the Transportation Report for the Efland‐Buckhorn‐Mebane Study Area was the
preparation of a buildout analysis. The buildout analysis provides an estimation of future
development and helps determine quantity and location of future growth. The analysis utilized an
Orange County parcel map with a GIS overlay, and was based upon a number of attributes, among the
most important being:
Existing land uses;
Existing zoning; and
The adopted Future Land Use Plan
Delineation of Development Pods
Based primarily on a combination of the existing road network, the existing Zoning Map, and the designated
future land use (per the adopted Land Use Plan), eighteen (18) development pods were created as a base for
estimating future trip generation for the study area. The development pods are depicted in Figure 5, and
range in size from 22 acres to 362 acres.
The buildout analysis process incorporated a number of attributes:
Zoning and Future Land Use Plan designations for the pods.
Gross acreages of development pods, undeveloped land, current non‐residential land, current
residential acreages including subdivisions and development, existing non‐residential
development, and other developed area to be preserved;
Documentation of environmental and cultural constraints by developable areas;
Estimation of appropriate land uses by ITE codes;
Consideration of development regulations restricting the percentage of site development;
Provision of public services (water, sewer);
Proximity of interstate interchanges;
Proximity of and potential access to the rail line;
Potential impact of future transit (OPT); and
An applied market reduction factor based on location and available public services.
The primary concern in the study area in terms of developing a feasible future roadway network are the
presence of streams that have a fifty‐foot vegetative buffer based on the Neuse River Riparian Buffer
Rules. While roadway crossing of streams are allowable per the buffer rules, Volkert attempted to
minimize stream crossings in the development of the future roadway network and assumed that no
development would take place within the stream buffers.
The trip generation analysis is summarized in the spreadsheet provided in Attachment C. The result of the
analysis was the estimated buildable acres per pod. The analysis provides valuable estimated projections
about future land uses and development potential, and serves as the basis for estimations of the amount
of additional traffic that could be generated if the study area was developed to its full potential. The
analysis also serves as a tool to be used to consider future needs and improvements to the transportation
network serving the Study Area.
12
84
Future Traffic
Future trips to and from the development pods were determined by combining data from existing
transportation impact analyses (TIAs) in the vicinity, NCDOT traffic counts, and trip generation data,
calculated based on various land use codes and the buildable areas of the pods. The formulas and land
use codes used to determine the trip data area listed in Attachment C. The anticipated number of
vehicles generated from the development in each pod in shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1 – Anticipated Traffic Generated from Development
Pod Area (acres)
Total
Daily
Traffic
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
1 86.8 7,440 986 1,025
2 19.1 2,781 338 302
3 81.0 21,917 2,227 2,144
4 135.2 40,432 4,114 3,270
5, 6 19.7 1,998 189 203
7 7.5 36,955 3,476 2,865
8 70.1 5,088 715 738
9 18.1 17,736 1,534 1,492
10 48.6 4,336 586 574
11 7.1 4,516 468 466
12 4.9 392 51 49
13 15.2 925 128 124
14 8.5 4,896 509 507
15 11.1 1,010 127 124
16 1.8 772 81 81
17 79.3 16,228 1,931 1,770
18 24.3 5,422 647 614
Note: Pods 5 and 6 were combined because Pod 5 did not have any developable area. There are plans for the development of
additional soccer fields at the Soccer.com center in Pod 5 which will add another 3 vehicles to the peak hour of Pod 5/6.
13
85
Development Pod MapNote: This map is for presentation use only and not to be used for construction purposes.
1
2
3 4
6
7 8
9
10
11 12
13
14
15 16 17
18
WEST TEN RD
INDUSTRIAL DR
M
A
T
T
R
E
S
S
F
A
C
T
O
R
Y
R
D
SOUTHERN DR
WEST TEN RD
RO
C
K
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
R
D
BOWMAN
R
D
B
E
N
W
I
L
S
O
N
R
D
I-85/40
I-85/40
F010.5 Miles
Pods were created in areas of potential development to determine future traffic volumes based on land uses and pod size.
5
FOREST AVE
US-70
US-70
US-70
US-70
BU
C
K
H
O
R
N
R
D
B
U
C
K
H
O
R
N
R
D
MT.
W
I
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
Figure 5
14
86
FUTURE ROADWAY NETWORK
Based on the information presented in this report and taking into account functional classification, design
speed, traffic volumes, character and composition of traffic and type of right‐of‐way, the roadway
network on the following pages is recommended. NCDOT Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) counts
were used to determine the traffic volumes surrounding the study area, while traffic studies for adjacent
streets were also used to inform this analysis. In recommending these new facilities, Orange County used
the following criteria as guidelines:
1.Serve all of the future development areas
2.Keep traffic off of the existing roadway network
3.Provide access to the existing interchanges
4.Minimize stream crossings
5.Avoid historical areas, cemeteries, and archaeological resources
6.Avoid currently developed properties
7.Avoid wetlands, poor soil, and rock
8.Create better conditions for non‐automobile modes
Roads will be constructed to the design speeds provided for each cross‐section.
15
87
TYPICAL SECTIONS
Typical sections for the proposed streets were evaluated and selected based on an analysis of future
traffic volumes, the NCDOT Average Annual Daily Traffic and NCDOT’s Roadway Design Manual
guidelines. All roads are classified as local roads or minor collectors according to NCDOT Functional
Classification Maps.
A. For proposed streets A‐ F1, 2 and 4 (seen in figure 6) the cross section 2D includes 2 lanes
undivided with paved shoulders and sidewalks. Due to the proximity of the City of Mebane, the
city may consider annexation of some additional areas at a future date and then will assume the
costs of sidewalk construction and maintenance. An annexation process would include
coordination with Orange County.
Roadway Table for Typical Section 2D
Roadway
Name
Map
Identifier
Roadway
Type Responsible Party Proposed Cross‐Section
Type (Line Color)
New A A New Developer Built with Sidewalk in ROW (Future Mebane Area) Two Lane, Ditch, Sidewalk
New B B New Developer Built with Sidewalk in ROW (Future Mebane Area) Two Lane, Ditch, Sidewalk
New C C New Developer Built with Sidewalk in ROW (Future Mebane Area) Two Lane, Ditch, Sidewalk
New E E New Developer Built with Sidewalk in ROW (Future Mebane Area) Two Lane, Ditch, Sidewalk
New F1 F1 New Developer Built with Sidewalk in ROW (Future Mebane Area) Two Lane, Ditch, Sidewalk
Bowman 2 Existing State TIP Two Lane, Ditch, Sidewalk
Rock Quarry 4 Existing State TIP/Developer Two Lane, Ditch, Sidewalk
Wilson 9 Existing State TIP Two Lane, Ditch, Sidewalk
16
88
It is recommended that the above map be constructed according to cross‐section 2D
9
Figure 6
17
89
B. For proposed streets F2‐K, 6, and 7 (seen in figure 7), the cross section 2A includes 2 lanes
undivided with paved shoulders. As these roads are not anticipated to fall within the jurisdiction
of any neighboring community in the foreseeable future, no pedestrian amenities are included in
this area. The County does not build or maintain infrastructure.
Roadway Table for Typical Section 2A
Roadway
Name
Map
Identifier
Roadway
Type Responsible Party Proposed Cross‐Section
Type (Line Color)
New F2 F2 New Developer Built (Sidewalk Built Outside of ROW by Developer per Ordinance) Two Lane, Ditch Section
New G G New Developer Built (Sidewalk Built Outside of ROW by Developer per Ordinance) Two Lane, Ditch Section
New H H New Developer Built (Sidewalk Built Outside of ROW by Developer per Ordinance) Two Lane, Ditch Section
New I I New Developer Built (Sidewalk Built Outside of ROW by Developer per Ordinance) Two Lane, Ditch Section
New J J New Developer Built (Sidewalk Built Outside of ROW by Developer per Ordinance) Two Lane, Ditch Section
New K K Existing State TIP Two Lane, Ditch Section
Southern 6 Existing No Improvement Possible due to Rail Right‐of‐Way Two Lane, Ditch Section
Forest 7 Existing No Improvement Possible due to Rail Right‐of‐Way Two Lane, Ditch Section
18
90
It is recommended that the above map be constructed according to cross‐section 2A
Figure 7
19
91
C. For proposed roads 1, 3, 5, and 8 (seen in figure 8), the cross section 3A includes 2 lanes with a
two‐way left turn lane and paved shoulders. The cross sections depicted by this cross section
may also include sidewalks with the proper right‐of‐way reservation.
Roadway Table for Typical Section 3A
Roadway
Name
Map
Identifier
Roadway
Type Responsible Party Current Cross‐
Section Type
Proposed Cross‐Section Type
(Line Color)
Ben Wilson 1 Existing State TIP Two Lane, Ditch Three Lane, Ditch, Sidewalk
West Ten 3 Existing State TIP Two Lane, Ditch Three Lane, Ditch, Sidewalk
Buckhorn 5 Existing State TIP Two Lane, Ditch Three Lane, Ditch, Sidewalk
Mt Willing 8 Existing State TIP Two Lane, Ditch Three Lane, Ditch, Sidewalk
20
92
It is recommended that the above map be constructed according to cross‐section 3A
Figure 8
21
93
TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
After developing the proposed roadway network, Volkert assigned the traffic volumes generated as
discussed above to the roadway network. Information indicating the process used to generate traffic
volumes is included in Attachment D.
For the areas with future development proposed, Volkert assumed that all traffic would be going to/
coming from the closest interchange, i.e.: traffic on the west side of the study area would be going to
the interchange at Buckhorn Road and I‐40 and any traffic on the east side would be going to the
interchange at Mount Willing Road and I‐40. The Pod Traffic volumes generated in Table 1 were added
to the future 2025 AADTs of the existing roadway network based on the proposed access points. Pod
traffic volumes were assigned proportionally to each access point. Volkert assumed that fifty percent
of the project traffic going through the interchanges would be headed westbound on I‐40 and the
other fifty percent would be headed eastbound.
These volumes were added to the volumes from the NCDOT traffic volume maps for the area to give a
general idea of how many lanes would need to be created for new roads or added to existing roads.
The daily traffic volumes along with the AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are provided in the
following figures for the Buckhorn Road, W. Ten Road, and Mt. Willing Road interchanges with I‐40.
Existing and future AADT’s are shown in figures 9 and 10 respectively. It should be noted that a future
interchange at Mattress Factory Road has been proposed by the Burlington‐Graham Metropolitan
Planning Organization (B‐G MPO) and will significantly impact traffic counts if constructed.
Recommendations for the future road network are to 2025 and may require additional technical
analysis at the time of implementation.
22
Based on future traffic forecasts, an initial 3-lane cross-section will be sufficient to handle traffic on
Buckhorn Road in the short term; however, it will likely be necessary to retain right-of-way to allow
for a four-lane with median or five-lane cross-section as warranted in the future.
94
410065
0
0
6
3
0
0
19
0
0
6000
13
3
00
1100
1700
15
0 4200 3800
2
4
0
0
2100 3000 470
640
98000
9900
0
4200
710
1400 420
7800
3400
96000 2603300
4200
290
9
1
0
1000
820 1100
410
46
0
1400
2300
18001
8
0
0
470
16
0
0
1
3
0
0
5
0
0
0
320
WEST TEN RD
INDUSTRIAL DR
M
A
T
T
R
E
S
S
F
A
C
T
O
R
Y
R
D
SOUTHERN DR
WEST TEN RD
RO
C
K
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
R
D
BOWMAN R
D
B
E
N
W
I
L
S
O
N
R
D
SOUTHERN RAILWAY
I-85/40
I-85/40
Note: This map is for presentation use only and not to be used for construction purposes.
0 10.5 Miles F
US-70
US-70
US-70
US-70
WILSON
R
D
B
U
C
K
H
O
R
N
R
D
B
U
C
K
H
O
R
N
R
D
FOREST AVE
MT
.
W
I
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
2014 AADT
Figure 9
23
95
164
6
6
23
6
1
5
4
2
1
0
9
23
6
2
25196
50
5
1
2
285
6
18
7
15026 6893
2
9
8
4
2611 3730 58
4
796
121851
123
0
9
4
5222
883
17340 522
9698
4227
119364 323
4103
5222
361 1
1
3
1
1243
1020 17450
510
57
2
3739
2860
2238
2
2
3
8
584
19
8
9
1
6
1
6
6
2
1
7
398
WEST TEN RD
INDUSTRIAL DR
M
A
T
T
R
E
S
S
F
A
C
T
O
R
Y
R
D
WEST TEN
R
D
RO
C
K
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
R
D
BOWMA
N
R
D
B
E
N
W
I
L
S
O
N
R
D
SOUTHERN RAI
L
W
A
Y
I-85/40
I-85/40
2025 AADT
Note: This map is for presentation use only
and not to be used for construction purposes.0 10.5 Miles F
Wilson R
d
.
US-70
MT
.
W
I
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
SOUTHERN DR
B
U
C
K
H
O
R
N
R
D
US-70 US-70
US-70
Forest Ave
BU
C
K
H
O
R
N
R
D
Figure 10
2640
1
4
8
8
24
96
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
To complete the intersection analysis, the traffic volumes derived from the development pods were
applied to the study intersections shown in figure 11. Travel demand was projected from 2014‐2025 by
the trend line analysis method.
This method projects Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) based on historical trends. Traffic volumes
over the past 15 years in this area has increased at 3% annually accordingly. Traffic in the study
intersections were increased to the year 2025 by that rate.
Both the 2014 and 2025 traffic volumes at the intersections are shown in the following figures. Cross
sections for the 5 intersections were determined based on the estimated traffic from the capacity
analysis, and coordination with NCDOT. The Level of Service (LOS) was calculated for each new and
existing intersection using Synchro. LOS is based on a measure of the average time delay at an
intersection and ranges from A to F, with A having the shortest delay time and F having the longest.
According to NCDOT Level of Service Definitions the six levels of service are defined as:
LOS A: Describes primarily free flow conditions
LOS B: Represents reasonably free flow conditions
LOS C: Provides for stable operations, but flows approach the range in which small increases will cause
substantial deterioration in service
LOS D: Borders on unstable flow
LOS E: Describes operation at capacity
LOS F: Describes forced or breakdown flow
The five intersections studied by Volkert were:
1)New Road A at Ben Wilson Road
2)New Road A at West Ten Road
3)West Ten Road at Buckhorn Road
4)New Road H at Mt. Willing Road
5)US‐70/I‐85 Connector
25
97
1)New Road A and Ben Wilson Road ‐ Ben Wilson Road is a two‐lane road with a speed limit of
35 mph. This roadway currently operates at LOS C and would operate at LOS A after adding
turn lanes to accommodate the anticipated traffic in 2025 on New Road A.
26
98
New Road A and Ben Wilson Road
27
99
28
100
2)New Road A and West Ten Road – West Ten Road is a two‐lane road with an existing intersection
at Rock Quarry Road. The proposed intersection with New Road A would be 1300 ft from the
intersection with Rock Quarry Road. This roadway currently operates at LOS B and would operate
at LOS D after adding turn lanes to accommodate the anticipated traffic in 2025 of the New Road
A.
29
101
New road A and W Ten Road
30
102
31
103
3)West Ten Road and Buckhorn Road ‐ West Ten Road is an existing two‐lane road with a speed
limit of 55 mph. Buckhorn Road is two‐lane road with a speed limit of 45 mph. This intersection
currently operates at LOS F and would continue to operate at LOS F after adding turn lanes to
accommodate the anticipated traffic in 2025. Based on future traffic forecasts, it will it will likely
be necessary to retain additional right-of-way to allow for a wider intersection cross-section with
additional lanes, as warranted based on technical analysis at the time of implementation.
32
104
W Ten Road and Buckhorn Road
33
105
34
106
4)New Road H and Mt. Willing Road ‐ Mt. Willing Road is a two‐lane road with a speed limit of 45
mph. This roadway currently operates at LOS C and would continue to operate at LOS C after
adding turn lanes to accommodate the anticipated traffic in 2025 at the New Road H.
35
107
New Road H and Mt. Willing Road
36
108
37
109
5)US‐70/I‐85 Connector – US‐70 is a two‐lane road with a speed limit of 50 mph. I‐85 Connector is a
four‐lane divided highway with a speed limit of 55 mph. This current configuration operates at LOS
C. Poor connectivity led to an interchange reconfiguration project which did not score well enough
to receive funding in NCDOT’s prioritization process, and a more cost effective alternative was
requested. NCDOT Highway Division 7 has studied this intersection to determine whether a
roundabout or signalization would be more effective in the realignment of the intersection and
determined a roundabout would yield better results. With the realignment and added traffic for
2025, this intersection would operate at LOS D.
2016
38
110
A conceptual map of a possible intersection improvement is shown above.
2025
39
111
US 70/I‐85 Connector
40
112
41
113
±0 0.5 10.25 Miles
STUDY INTERSECTIONS
Figure 11
Legend
Planned Roads
Study Intersections
Railroad
Developable Area
WEST TEN
R
D
INDUSTRIAL DR
M
A
T
T
R
E
S
S
F
A
C
T
O
R
Y
R
D
SOUTHERN DR
WEST TEN
R
D
RO
C
K
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
R
D
BOWMAN
R
D
B
E
N
W
I
L
S
O
N
R
D
SOUTHERN RAIL
W
A
Y
I-85/40
I-85/40
US-70
US-70
US-70
US-70
B
U
C
K
H
O
R
N
R
D
MT W
I
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
FOREST AVE
WILSON RD
BU
C
K
H
O
R
N
R
D
42
114
Section 4 – Cost Analysis
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
Volkert refined the roadway networks based on the forecast future traffic volumes. Specifically turn lanes
were added at key locations with high turning volumes and signals were assumed to be located at areas
with high crossing and turning volumes. The conceptual design took all environmental features into
consideration and outlined the locations of planned roads, taking into account where the planned roads
would cross the water sources. The roads generally avoid all environmental features. The conceptual
design also includes frontage roads as access management options.
Most of these roads are intended to provide access to the areas of assumed development. Others, such
as new roads, are placed to connect existing roads to other existing roads in order to provide more
connections within the system. In order to accommodate new traffic from the pods, changes to existing
roads were also proposed.
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Using the conceptual analysis described above, cost estimates were developed for each new road and
for roadway improvements to the existing roadways. Table 2 below details the cost for each new roadway
based on the recommended typical section. The overall cost for constructing the approximately 11 miles
of roadway is $30.9 million.
Table 2 ‐ Construction Cost Estimates for New Roads
New Road Typical Section Sidewalk Length (mi) Cost Estimate
A 2D Y 1.52 $4,351,189
B 2D Y 0.69 $1,975,653
C 2D Y 1.16 $3,321,323
D 2D Y 0.47 $1,345,883
E 2D Y 0.37 $1,059,139
F1 2D Y 0.52 $1,488,508
F2 2A N 1.28 $3,520,000
G 2A N 0.23 $632,500
H 2A N 3.99 $10,972,500
I 2A N 0.34 $935,500
J 2A N 0.18 $495,000
K 2A N 0.29 $797,500
Total 11.04 $30,894,260
43
115
44
Table 3 details the cost for upgrading the existing roadways described in this report. Bowman and Rock
Quarry Roads are already the recommended typical section and therefore the costs shown are for adding
sidewalk. The overall cost for upgrading these existing roadways is $13.6 million.
Table 3 ‐ Construction Cost Estimates for Updating Existing Roads
Widened Road Typical Section Sidewalk Length (mi) Cost
Ben Wilson Rd 3A Y 0.85 $1,672,794
Bowman Rd 2D Y 1.42 $159,722
W Ten Rd 3A Y 4.33 $8,505,230
Rock Quarry Rd 2D Y 0.5 $56,372
Buckhorn Rd 3A Y 1.10 $2,156,046
Mt Willing Rd 3A Y 0.55 $1,078,023
Total 8.75 $13,628,190
Southern and Forest Roads, identified in the report, have no recommended improvements and are not
shown in either table.
Section 5 ‐ Conclusion
The primary purpose of this transportation report is to inform development of a roadway network to
support investment in the Efland‐Buckhorn‐Mebane Study Area. The new roadways identified in this
report have been located in such a way as to take into consideration environmental features and cultural
resources. Typical sections for both the new and existing roadways are recommended based on the
anticipated growth of the 18 development pods identified by Orange County.
Five key intersections were studied, forecasting future traffic volumes in the year 2025. Volkert was able
to refine the proposed roadway networks, specifically adding turn lanes at key locations. A Level of Service
(LOS) rating was calculated for each intersection. The total cost to provide the identified roadway network
and associated improvements to existing roads is approximately $44 million.
116
ATTACHMENT A
45
117
Environmental Features Map
Note: This map is for presentation use only and not to be used for construction purposes.F010.5 Miles
Legend
Project Area 1a
Project Area 1b
Project Area 2a
Project Area 2b
Project Area 2c
ATTACHMENT A 46
118
Transportation Report for the Efland Buckhorn
Mebane Study Area
ATTACHMENT B
47
119
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susan Kluttz Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
June 18, 2015
Bradley Luckey
Pilot Environmental, Inc.
PO Box 128
Kernersville, NC 27285
Re: Construct Road Network, I‐40 900 Acre Tract, Efland, PEI 1012, Orange County, ER 15‐1240
Dear Mr. Luckey:
Thank you for your letter of May 28, 2015, transmitting information for our review concerning the above
project.
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project area, although it has never been
systematically surveyed for the presence of archaeological resources. The adjacent property that has
been surveyed contains several Native American archaeological sites. Certain portions of your proposed
project area have a high probability for the presence of such resources. In addition, the Orange County
soil survey dated 1977 shows the location of a cemetery within your project area. Although cemeteries
are not ordinarily eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, they are protected by
state statutes. If the cemetery is to be affected by your proposed project, it will need to be preserved or
moved in accordance with NCGS Chapter 65.
If your project is subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we recommend that
you forward project plans to us so we can delineate those areas that should be subjected to a
comprehensive survey by an experienced archaeologist in order to identify and evaluate the significance
of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed development. Potential
effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
Two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one copy of the appropriate site
forms, should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they are available and well in
advance of any construction activities.
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in
North Carolina is available at www.archaeology.ncdcr.gov/ncarch/resource/consultants.htm. The
archaeologists listed, or any other experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the
recommended survey.
We have determined that the project as proposed will not have an effect on any historic structures.
48
120
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill‐Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919‐807‐6579 or
environmental.review@ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
49
121
June 18, 2015
Bradley Luckey bluckey@pilotenviro.com
Pilot Environmental, Inc.
PO Box 128
Kernersville, NC 27285
Re: Construct Road Network, I‐40, 300 Acre Tract, Efland, Orange County, ER 15‐1241
Dear Mr. Luckey:
Thank you for your letter of May 28, 2015, concerning the above‐referenced undertaking. We have
reviewed the materials submitted and offer the following comments.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our knowledge of the
area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources that may be eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project. We, therefore, recommend that no
archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The S.C. Forrest II House (OR1409), which may be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places is located on the north side of US 70 and within direct view of the three hundred acre tract being
considered for road construction. In addition, there are a number of surveyed properties also located
within the project area. We will offer a determination of effect once a detailed scope of work has been
submitted for environmental review.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill‐Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919‐807‐6579 or
environmental.review@ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
50
122
July 7, 2014
David S. Brame
Pilot Environmental, Inc.
PO Box 128
Kernersville, NC 27285
Re: Construct Roads on a 400 Acre Tract, Wilson Road/Bowman Road, Mebane, PEI 1012,
Orange County, ER 14‐1189
Dear Mr. Brame:
Thank you for your letter of June 3, 2014, transmitting information for our review concerning the above
project.
There are two previously recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project area. These two sites,
31OR640 and 31OR641, were recorded during a survey for the Buckhorn‐Mebane EDD Phase 2 water and
sewer improvements project by Orange County. The archaeological survey was conducted as a result of
Orange County policy, not for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act compliance, so our
office has not yet received a complete copy of the resulting report.
The information we do have concerning these two archaeological sites indicates that one site, 31OR640
contains a buried cultural horizon and it may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places. Site 31OR641 has been recommended as not eligible and no additional work is recommended by
the consultant. The map included with your request for comments did not indicate the proposed locations
for the roads, so we are unable to determine if either site will be affected.
If your project is subject to Section 106, we recommend that you forward specific information regarding the
locations of the proposed roads and any other plans for the property so we may determine effects. In the
meantime, we will request a copy of the archaeological report from Orange County so we have complete
site information.
We have checked our maps and files and find that there are three properties in the project area that were
identified in a 1993‐1994 county survey of historic buildings. They are the Ben Wilson House (OR1141),
Heath Log House (OR1662) and L. M. Ray House (OR1663). From our GIS, they appear to still be standing
and may have outbuildings associated with them. If your project has the potential to affect these buildings,
their potential for National Register eligibility will need to be determined.
51
123
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill‐Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919‐807‐6579 or
renee.gledhill‐ earley@ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
52
124
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susan Kluttz Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
April 21, 2015
Brad Luckey
Pilot Environmental, Inc.
PO Box 128
Kernersville, NC 27285
Re: Develop Road Network for Mixed Use Site, Project Area 2B, Buckhorn Road & West Ten Road,
Mebane, Orange County, ER 15‐0780
Dear Mr. Luckey:
Thank you for your letter of April 6, 2015, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill‐Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919‐807‐6579 or
environmental.review@ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
53
125
ATTACHMENT C
54
126
Formulas
Pod 1 Daily Traffic=(Pod 1 Area in 1000s Sq Ft)*0.5*(Rate of Daily Traffic for LUC 110)*(Floor Area
Ratio)+(Pod 1 Area in 1000s Sq Ft)*0.25*(Rate of Daily Traffic for LUC 140)+(Pod 1 Area in 1000s Sq
Ft)*0.25*(Rate of Daily Traffic for LUC 150)
Other pods are calculated the same way
Assumptions for Pod Traffic
Pod 1 (4996000 sq ft)
o 50% General Light Industrial (110)
o 25% Manufacturing (140)
o 25% Warehousing (150)
o Pod 2 (1198000 sq ft)
o 100% General Light Industrial (110)
o Pod 3 (4265000 sq ft)
o 47% General Light Industrial (110)
o 50% Manufacturing (140)
o 3% High Turnover Sit Down Restaurant (932)
o Pod 4 (7113000 sq ft)
o 90% General Light Industrial (110)
o 8% Warehousing (150)
o 1% Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru Window (934)
o 1% Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market (945)
Pod 5 (0 sq ft)
o None
Pod 6 (1032000 sq ft)
o 100% Single Family Detached Housing (210)
Pod 7 (392000 sq ft)
o 20% Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru Window (934)
o 25% Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market and Car Wash (946)
6 gas pumps
o 55% General Light Industrial (110)
Pod 8 (3803000 sq ft)
o 50% General Light Industrial (110)
o 50% Manufacturing (140)
Pod 9 (1076000 sq ft)
o 70% General Light Industrial (110)
o 2% Fast Food Restaurant without Drive Thru Window (933)
o 15% Automobile Care Center (942)
o 13% Automobile Parts and Service Center (943)
Pod 10 (2910000 sq ft)
o 50% General Light Industrial (110)
55
127
o 25% Manufacturing (140)
o 25% Warehousing (150)
Pod 11 (423000 sq ft)
o 100% General Light Industrial (110)
Pod 12 (292000 sq ft)
o 100% General Light Industrial (110)
Pod 13 (880000 sq ft)
o 100% General Light Industrial (110)
Pod 14 (501000 sq ft)
o 100% General Light Industrial (110)
Pod 15 (662000 sq ft)
o 100% General Light Industrial (110)
Pod 16 (91000 sq ft)
o 100% General Light Industrial (110)
Pod 17 (4156000 sq ft)
o 100% Business Park (770)
Pod 18 (1446000 sq ft)
o 100% Warehousing (150)
56
128
Assumptions for total traffic
3% Increase in traffic each year until 2025
Assumptions from Mattress Factory Traffic Planning Study:
Mattress Factory Road and Industrial Drive
o 50% of combined WBL and SBT traffic into Pod 2
o 50% of combined WBL and SBT traffic into Pod 3
o 50% of combined NBT and NBR traffic out of Pod 2
o 50% of combined NBT and NBR traffic out of Pod 3
At Buckhorn Road and I 40 WB Ramps:
o 100% of combined NBT and WBR traffic into Pod 7
o 100% of combined SBT and SBR traffic out of Pod 7
At Buckhorn Road and I 40 EB Ramps:
o 50% of combined SBT and EBR traffic into Pod 3
o 50% of combined SBT and EBR traffic into Pod 4
o 50% of combined NBT and NBR traffic out of Pod 3
o 50% of combined NBT and NBR traffic out of Pod 4
Daily traffic is 10 times the average of the AM and PM traffic
Assumptions from Bowman Road Residential Development TIA:
At Ben Wilson Road and Bowman Road
o NBT, NBR, EBT, and EBL are considered traffic into Pod 1
o SBT, SBL, SBR, WBT, WBL, and WBR are considered traffic out of Pod 1
o Daily traffic is 10 times the average of the AM and PM
traffic Assumptions from NCDOT AADT
AM and PM traffic are each 10% of the daily traffic
Any traffic shown on the border of a pod was assumed to go to that pod
o If traffic is shown at a point on a road that borders two pods, it was split evenly between
the two
57
129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
34
3
.
4
1
7
5
.
3
5
2
5
7
.
5
3
3
6
2
.
3
5
1
3
8
.
9
5
1
0
9
.
7
3
2
2
.
0
1
2
4
3
.
1
9
5
5
.
9
6
1
9
2
.
1
2
6
2
.
2
3
5
.
3
2
4
9
.
2
6
6
3
.
2
6
4
9
.
9
1
2
3
.
5
9
1
4
4
.
6
1
7
2
.
7
7
O/
R
M
,
AR
A
R
O
/
R
M
,
R1
ED
B
‐2,
R1
,
PD
H
R
1
E
D
B
‐2
E
D
B
‐2,
R1
,
AR
E
D
B
‐2,
R1
E
D
B
‐2,
R1
R
1
,
EC
5
R
1
R
1
,
EC5R1R1, ARR1, EI, NC2, I2R1, AR, I1LC1, NC2, R1O/RM, AR, R1AR
Co
m
m
‐In
d
Tr
a
n
s
Co
m
m
‐In
d
Tr
a
n
s
Co
m
m
‐In
d
Tr
a
n
s
Co
m
m
‐In
d
Tr
a
n
s
;
Ec
o
n
‐De
v
Tr
a
n
s
Ec
o
n
‐De
v
Tr
a
n
s
Ec
o
n
‐De
v
Tr
a
n
s
,
Ag
r
i
‐Re
s
10
‐Ye
a
r
Tr
a
n
s
,
Ec
o
n
‐
De
v
Tr
a
n
s
Ec
o
n
‐De
v
Tr
a
n
s
,
Co
m
m
‐In
d
Tr
a
n
s
10
‐Ye
a
r
Tr
a
n
s
Co
m
m
‐In
d
Tr
a
n
s
10
‐Year Trans10‐Year Trans10‐Year TransComm‐Ind TransComm‐Ind TransComm‐Ind TransComm‐Ind TransAgri‐Res
12
9
.
4
8
1
7
.
4
1
90
.
5
13
1
.
4
3
0
7
5
.
7
2
1
1
.
6
5
1
8
8
.
4
8
8
.
3
7
1
3
4
.
9
4
1
9
.
8
8
1
5
.
7
9
1
8
.
4
9
9
.
1
3
8
.
7
9
7
.
0
9
2
0
.
4
1
0
26
.
7
6
2
.
3
5
3
0
.
7
1
2
8
.
5
1
3
8
.
9
5
0
1
.
8
6
4
9
.
5
7
0
2
5
.
8
7
1
.
3
4
3
.
1
4
0
3
2
.
6
2
1
1
.
0
3
4
.
1
0
0
18
7
.
1
6
5
3
.
5
9
1
3
6
.
2
9
1
0
2
.
4
2
0
3
3
.
9
9
8
.
4
7
5
.
1
2
4
7
.
5
7
3
1
.
3
1
4
1
.
0
3
1
3
.
3
9
3
0
.
7
8
2
1
.
5
3
0
.
0
9
1
2
.
4
1
1
2
4
.
1
9
7
2
.
7
7
54
.
7
1
4
.
3
5
4
1
.
6
4
3
2
.
8
4
1
3
8
.
9
5
1
5
.
4
4
4
.
7
1
4
9
.
8
0
1
.
3
9
2
5
.
8
7
3
9
.
3
3
1
9
.
2
8
0
.
3
1
3
2
.
6
2
1
1
.
0
3
1
8
.
8
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
28
8
.
7
0
7
1
.
0
0
2
1
5
.
8
9
3
2
9
.
5
1
0
.
0
0
9
4
.
2
9
1
7
.
3
0
1
9
3
.
3
9
5
4
.
5
7
1
6
6
.
2
6
2
2
.
8
7
1
6
.
0
4
4
8
.
9
5
3
0
.
6
4
3
8
.
8
8
4
.
7
9
1
4
4
.
6
1
7
2
.
7
7
We
t
l
a
n
d
s
X
X
X
X
‐
X
X
X
X
X
X
‐XXXXXX
Se
v
e
r
e
Sl
o
p
e
s
X
‐
XX
‐
XX
X
‐
X
‐‐X‐‐‐XX
Co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
La
n
d
s
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Fl
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
s
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
St
r
e
a
m
s
an
d
Re
q
u
i
r
e
d
Bu
f
f
e
r
s
XX
X
X
‐
X
‐
XX
X
X
X
X
‐XXXX
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Si
t
e
s
(O
n
Re
g
i
s
t
e
r
of
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Pl
a
c
e
s
)
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Ar
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
X
‐‐
X
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
X
X
‐‐
‐
XX
‐‐
X‐XX‐‐‐‐
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
Ea
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
X
X
X
X
‐
X
X
X
X
X
X
‐X‐XXXX
To
t
a
l
47
.
5
6
6
.
8
4
4
0
.
0
8
4
9
.
3
2
0
.
0
0
6
.
2
3
1
.
5
2
4
1
.
8
3
5
.
8
0
3
2
.
7
5
3
.
0
1
1
.
6
2
7
.
3
5
0
.
1
1
1
0
.
6
3
1
.
4
0
1
2
.
3
0
1
9
.
4
2
24
1
.
1
5
6
4
.
1
7
1
7
5
.
8
1
2
8
0
.
1
9
1
3
8
.
9
5
8
8
.
0
6
1
5
.
7
7
1
5
1
.
5
6
4
8
.
7
7
1
3
3
.
5
1
1
9
.
8
5
1
4
.
4
1
4
1
.
6
1
3
0
.
5
4
2
8
.
2
5
3
.
3
9
1
3
2
.
3
1
5
3
.
3
5
11
0
,
14
0
,
15
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
,
14
0
,
93
2
11
0
,
15
0
,
93
4
,
94
5
21
0
9
3
4
,
94
6
1
1
0
,
14
0
11
0
,
93
3
,
94
2
, 94
3
11
0
,
14
0
,
15
0
11
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
7
7
0
1
5
0
0%
0
%
‐5%
‐30
%
N
/
A
‐69
%
‐15
%
‐30
%
‐30
%
‐30
%
‐30%‐30%‐30%‐30%‐30%‐30%‐30%‐30%
‐39
%
‐45
%
‐31
%
‐3%
N/
A
0
%
‐21
%
‐3%
‐9%
‐5%
‐12%‐15%‐10%‐25%0%0%11%0%
14
7
.
1
3
5
.
3
1
1
2
.
5
1
8
7
.
7
0
.
0
2
7
.
3
1
0
.
1
1
0
1
.
5
2
9
.
8
8
6
.
8
1
1
.
5
7
.
9
2
5
.
0
1
3
.
7
1
9
.
8
2
.
4
1
0
7
.
2
3
7
.
3
Wa
t
e
r
/
S
e
w
e
r
?
Se
w
e
r
W
a
t
e
r
Wa
t
e
r
/
Se
w
e
r
W
a
t
e
r
/ Se
w
e
r
Wa
t
e
r
/
Se
w
e
r
W
a
t
e
r
/ Se
w
e
r
Wa
t
e
r
/
Se
w
e
r
W
a
t
e
r
Wa
t
e
r
/
Se
w
e
r
N
o
n
e
Wa
t
e
r
/
Se
w
e
r
Water / SewerWaterWater / SewerNoneWater / SewerWater / SewerWater / Sewer
Pr
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
of
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
In
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
?
‐‐
XX
‐
XX
X
‐‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
XXX
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
Ex
p
o
s
u
r
e
?
X
‐
XX
X
X
X
X
‐
X
‐‐X‐XXX‐
Pr
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
to
Ra
i
l
?
‐‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fu
t
u
r
e
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
?
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
XXXX‐‐‐‐
41
%
4
6
%
2
8
%
2
8
%
N
/
A
2
8
%
2
6
%
3
1
%
3
9
%
4
4
%
3
8
%
3
8
%
3
9
%
3
8
%
4
4
%
2
6
%
2
6
%
3
5
%
86
.
8
1
9
.
1
8
1
.
0
1
3
5
.
2
0
19
.
7
7
.
5
7
0
.
1
1
8
.
1
4
8
.
6
7
.
1
4
.
9
1
5
.
2
8
.
5
1
1
.
1
1
.
8
7
9
.
3
2
4
.
3
IT
E
Tr
i
p
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Co
d
e
s
Po
d
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
fo
r
Tr
i
p
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
‐
Me
b
a
n
e
/
B
u
c
k
h
o
r
n
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Transportation Plan
Po
d
ID
Gr
o
s
s
Ac
r
e
a
g
e
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Zo
n
i
n
g
Fu
t
u
r
e
La
n
d
Us
e
Pl
a
n
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
De
v
.
No
n
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ac
r
e
a
g
e
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
De
v
.
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ac
r
e
a
g
e
TO
BE
PR
E
S
E
R
V
E
D
:
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
No
n
‐Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
s
/
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
,
Ot
h
e
r
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
Ar
e
a
s
Gr
o
s
s
Re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
b
l
e
Ar
e
a
(A
c
r
e
s
)
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
Co
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
of
De
v
e
l
o
p
a
b
l
e
Pa
r
c
e
l
s
Gr
o
s
s
Re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
b
l
e
Ar
e
a
mi
n
u
s
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
Co
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
(A
c
r
e
s
)
Un
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
La
n
d
IT
E
Co
d
e
s
:
11
0
(G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Li
g
h
t
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
)
,
14
0
(M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
)
.
15
0
(W
a
r
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
)
,
21
0
(S
i
n
g
l
e
‐Fa
m
i
l
y
De
t
a
c
h
e
d
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
)
,
93
2
(H
i
g
h
‐Tu
r
n
o
v
e
r
Si
t
‐Do
w
n
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
)
,
93
3
(F
a
s
t
‐Fo
o
d
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
wi
t
h
o
u
t
Dr
i
v
e
‐Th
r
u
Wi
n
d
o
w
)
,
93
4
(Fast‐Food Restaurant with Drive‐Thru Windown), 942 (Automobile Care Center), 943 (Automobile Parts and Servic
Ce
n
t
e
r
)
,
94
5
(G
a
s
o
l
i
n
e
/
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
St
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
Co
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
c
e
Ma
r
k
e
t
)
,
94
6
(G
a
s
o
l
i
n
e
/
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
St
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
Co
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
c
e
Ma
r
k
e
t
an
d
Ca
r
Wa
s
h
% Wa
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
/
I
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
Su
r
f
a
c
e
Re
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
% Se
t
b
a
c
k
s
,
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
,
Et
c
.
(a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
fo
r
do
u
b
l
e
‐
co
u
n
t
i
n
g
)
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Ac
r
e
a
g
e
of
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Ot
h
e
r
At
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
s
Ma
r
k
e
t
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Fa
c
t
o
r
Bu
i
l
d
a
b
l
e
Ar
e
a
(A
c
r
e
s
)
58 130
ATTACHMENT D
59
131
Po
d
Ac
r
e
s
1
0
0
0
Sq
.
Ft
.
Da
i
l
y
Da
i
l
y
In
D
a
i
l
y
Ou
t
A
M
AM
In
A
M
Ou
t
P
M
P
M
In
P
M
Ou
t
PodDailyTotal AMTotal PM
1
8
6
.
8
3
7
8
1
4
3
3
4
2
1
6
7
2
1
6
7
7
0
5
5
7
7
1
2
8
6
8
5
2
3
1
4
5
3
174409861025
2
1
9
.
1
8
3
2
9
8
9
4
9
5
4
9
5
1
4
3
1
1
9
2
4
1
3
9
3
1
1
0
8
22781338302
3
8
1
.
0
3
5
2
8
1
7
0
0
6
8
5
0
3
8
5
0
3
1
7
3
1
1
1
4
7
5
8
5
1
6
5
7
8
6
6
7
9
2
32191722272144
4
1
3
5
.
2
5
8
9
3
3
7
4
5
9
1
8
7
3
0
1
8
7
3
0
3
7
8
0
2
2
4
2
1
5
3
8
3
0
0
9
1
2
8
2
1
7
2
8
4 & 54043241143270
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5000
6
1
9
.
7
8
5
8
5
1
3
2
5
6
2
5
6
4
1
1
3
2
8
5
4
3
6
1
8
61998189203
7
7
.
5
3
2
7
2
5
8
2
6
1
2
9
1
3
1
2
9
1
3
2
3
6
3
1
2
1
9
1
1
4
4
1
7
5
2
8
9
8
8
5
4
73695534762865
8
7
0
.
1
3
0
5
4
3
1
7
8
1
5
8
9
1
5
8
9
5
2
4
4
6
1
6
3
5
4
7
2
1
1
3
3
6
85088715738
9
1
8
.
1
7
8
8
1
4
3
9
4
7
1
9
7
7
1
9
7
1
1
9
9
6
6
9
5
3
1
1
1
5
8
5
0
9
6
5
0
91773615341492
10
4
8
.
6
2
1
1
7
2
4
2
6
1
2
1
3
1
2
1
3
3
9
5
3
2
3
7
1
3
8
3
1
3
0
2
5
4
104336586574
11
7
.
1
3
0
9
3
6
8
1
8
4
1
8
4
5
3
4
4
9
5
2
1
1
4
0
114516468466
12
4
.
9
2
1
3
2
5
4
1
2
7
1
2
7
3
7
3
1
6
3
6
8
2
8
123925149
13
1
5
.
2
6
6
2
7
8
7
3
9
4
3
9
4
1
1
4
9
5
1
9
1
1
0
2
4
8
6
13925128124
14
8
.
5
3
7
0
4
4
0
2
2
0
2
2
0
6
4
5
3
1
1
6
2
1
4
4
8
144896509507
15
1
1
.
1
4
8
4
5
7
5
2
8
7
2
8
7
8
3
6
9
1
4
8
1
1
8
6
3
151010127124
16
1
.
8
78
9
3
47
4
7
1
4
1
1
2
1
3
3
1
0
167728181
17
7
9
.
3
3
4
5
4
1
1
8
7
8
5
9
3
9
5
9
3
9
1
4
9
6
1
2
7
1
2
2
4
1
3
3
5
2
6
7
1
0
6
8
171622819311770
18
2
4
.
3
1
0
5
9
1
3
9
1
6
9
5
6
9
5
2
4
4
1
7
5
6
8
2
1
1
7
4
1
3
7
185422647614
63
8
.
3
12
1
9
1
3
1728441810716348
La
n
d
Us
e
Co
d
e
s
D
a
i
l
y
D
a
i
l
y
In
Da
i
l
y
Ou
t
A
M
A
M
In
A
M
Ou
t
P
M
P
M
In
P
M
Ou
t
11
0
5
1
.
8
0
2
5
.
9
0
2
5
.
9
0
7
.
5
1
6
.
2
3
1
.
2
8
7
.
2
6
1
.
6
0
5
.
6
6
14
0
3
8
.
8
8
1
9
.
4
4
1
9
.
4
4
7
.
4
4
6
.
9
2
0
.
5
2
8
.
3
5
4
.
4
3
3
.
9
2
15
0
5
7
.
2
3
2
8
.
6
2
2
8
.
6
2
1
0
.
0
3
7
.
2
2
2
.
8
1
8
.
6
9
3
.
0
4
5
.
6
5
21
0
2
6
.
0
4
1
3
.
0
2
1
3
.
0
2
2
.
0
6
0
.
6
4
1
.
4
2
2
.
7
4
1
.
8
1
0
.
9
3
77
0
1
4
9
.
7
9
7
4
.
8
9
5
7
4
.
8
9
5
1
8
.
8
6
1
6
.
0
3
1
2
.
8
2
9
1
6
.
8
4
3
.
3
6
8
1
3
.
4
7
2
93
2
1
2
7
.
1
5
6
3
.
5
8
6
3
.
5
8
1
0
.
8
1
5
.
9
5
4
.
8
6
9
.
8
5
5
.
9
1
3
.
9
4
93
3
7
1
6
.
0
0
3
5
8
.
0
0
3
5
8
.
0
0
4
3
.
8
7
2
6
.
3
2
1
7
.
5
5
2
6
.
1
5
1
3
.
3
4
1
2
.
8
1
93
4
4
9
6
.
1
2
2
4
8
.
0
6
2
4
8
.
0
6
4
5
.
4
2
2
3
.
1
6
2
2
.
2
6
3
2
.
6
5
1
6
.
9
8
1
5
.
6
7
94
2
2
6
.
8
0
1
3
.
4
0
1
3
.
4
0
2
.
2
5
1
.
4
9
0
.
7
7
3
.
1
1
1
.
4
9
1
.
6
2
94
3
4
4
.
6
0
2
2
.
3
0
2
2
.
3
0
4
.
4
6
1
.
8
7
2
.
5
9
4
.
4
6
1
.
8
7
2
.
5
9
94
5
1
6
2
.
7
8
8
1
.
3
9
8
1
.
3
9
1
0
.
1
6
5
.
0
8
5
.
0
8
1
3
.
5
1
6
.
7
6
6
.
7
6
94
6
1
5
2
.
8
4
7
6
.
4
2
7
6
.
4
2
1
1
.
8
4
6
.
0
4
5
.
8
0
1
3
.
8
6
7
.
0
7
6
.
7
9
Po
d
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Total Traffic 60
*P
o
d
A
c
r
e
a
g
e
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
u
s
e
d
t
o
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
t
h
e
A
A
D
T
.
132
Po
d
D
a
i
l
y
A
M
AM
In
A
M
Ou
t
P
M
P
M
In
P
M
Ou
t
Po
d
D
a
i
l
y
A
M
P
M
Po
d
D
a
i
l
y
A
M
AM InAM OutPMPM InPM Out
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
6
6
4
4
1
1
0
6
6
4
4
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1645361619933261
2
7
9
5
9
3
5
1
4
2
6
6
3
6
3
0
2
8
2
0
8
2
8
2
2
3
3
5
5
5
4
0
1
1
8
6
2
1
5
3
1
0
1
7
0
1
4
0
3
7
4
5
2
9
1
2
0
3
4
4
6
0
7
8
3
4
4
4
1
4
8
6
4
2
3
0
0
2
3
0
2
3
0
4
5
50
0
0
5
6
6
1
4
0
0
1
4
0
1
4
0
6
7
5
4
0
5
4
1
5
3
9
5
4
3
3
2
1
7
9
9
0
0
9
9
0
9
9
0
7
8
8
1
8
0
0
1
8
0
1
8
0
8
9
9
3
1
5
0
3
1
5
3
1
5
9
10
10
1
8
0
0
1
8
0
1
8
0
10
11
11
3
9
1
0
3
9
1
3
9
1
11
12
12
1
3
0
1
3
1
3
12
13
13
1
3
0
1
3
1
3
13
14
14
4
2
0
0
4
2
0
4
2
0
14
15
15
4
1
0
4
1
4
1
15
16
16
6
4
0
6
4
6
4
16
17
17
4
1
0
0
4
1
0
4
1
0
17
18
18
3
8
0
0
3
8
0
3
8
0
18
Po
d
D
a
i
l
y
20
1
6
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
(3
%
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
/
y
e
a
r
)
AM
AM
In
AM
Ou
t
PM
PM
In
P
M
Ou
t
Po
d
D
a
i
l
y
A
M
P
M
Po
d
D
a
i
l
y
A
M
AM InAM OutPMPM InPM Out
1
1
2
7
5
1
2
8
7
7
5
1
1
2
8
7
7
5
1
1
1
1
6
7
1
1
7
1
1
7
1664371720963363
2
9
2
2
1
0
8
5
9
4
9
7
7
4
2
3
5
2
8
7
0
8
7
8
7
2
3
4
1
2
1
4
6
5
2
1
6
2
4
9
3
5
9
1
9
7
1
6
2
3
7
9
0
3
1
1
2
7
3
4
5
3
3
9
0
4
0
5
1
1
6
9
7
4
2
4
4
0
2
4
4
2
4
4
4
5
50
0
0
5
6
6
1
4
8
5
1
4
9
1
4
9
6
7
6
2
6
6
3
1
8
4
5
6
3
3
8
2
4
7
1
0
5
0
3
1
0
5
0
1
0
5
0
7
8
8
1
9
1
0
1
9
1
1
9
1
8
9
9
3
3
4
2
3
3
4
3
3
4
9
10
10
1
9
1
0
1
9
1
1
9
1
10
11
11
4
1
4
8
4
1
5
4
1
5
11
12
12
1
3
8
1
4
1
4
12
13
13
1
3
8
1
4
1
4
13
14
14
4
4
5
6
4
4
6
4
4
6
14
15
15
4
3
5
4
3
4
3
15
16
16
6
7
9
6
8
6
8
16
17
17
4
3
5
0
4
3
5
4
3
5
17
18
18
4
0
3
1
4
0
3
4
0
3
18
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
20
1
6
NC
D
O
T
AA
D
T
20
1
4
NC
D
O
T
AA
D
T
20
1
1
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
fr
o
m
Me
b
a
n
e
TI
A
& Wi
l
s
o
n
Rd
2015 Existing Traffic from Bowman Road Residential TIA 2016 Existing Traffic from Bowman Road Residential TIA 61 133
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
APPENDIX C
Community Meeting
134
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Tuesday, August 28, 2018 Orange County Planning Department hosted a community meeting at Gravely Hill
Middle School Auditorium. An estimated 100 property owners, residents, and businesses attended the meeting
where they received information on the planning process and current analysis of the area. People signed in,
picked up a copy of the agenda, map, survey, explored the boards, saw a brief presentation and spoke with staff.
Here are some key highlights from the meeting:
• People spoke one-on-on with staff regarding specific properties and neighborhoods.
• Some submitted comments in person and through email and filled out a survey.
• NCDOT’s Division Engineer Chuck Edwards attended the meeting to answer any questions.
• Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) Aaron Cain attended.
• Cy Stober, Mebane’s Development Director, also added to address any questions for Mebane.
• People wanted to know more about future sewer and water infrastructure planned for the area.
The following is a collection of all the material, comments, surveys, questions and answers provided during the
community meeting and public review.
135
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Community Meeting
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
August 28, 2018, 4:30 – 6:30 pm
Gravelly Hill Middle School Auditorium
4801 W Ten Rd, Efland, NC 27243
What is an Access Management Plan?
Access Management Plans are proposed long-range master plans of possible new roads and
connections to existing roads. These plans promote an orderly, cost effective, efficient and
environmentally sensitive roadway program, which help guide development decisions and investment.
Ultimately, Orange County seeks to develop an access management plan in order to maintain the
functionality of the transportation network as the Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Study Area develops over
time.
Purpose:
• Gain information on the current 2011 plan and 2017 Transportation Study
• Provide comments, get answer to your questions, and see next steps
Format:
The meeting is primarily open house with the following agenda:
• 4:30 – 5:45 pm – open discussion with staff
• 5:45 – 6:15 pm – presentation with question and answer
• 6:15 – 6:30 pm – complete surveys and provide comments
How can I participate tonight?
Review the material, ask questions, and provide comments directly to staff, complete survey and leave
with staff.
Next Steps
Orange County Planning Board – September 5, 2018
Orange Unified Transportation Board – September 19, 2018
A formal public hearing on a proposed Access Management Plan will be held by the Board of County
Commissioners later this year, currently targeted for November. You will receive another written notice
about the public hearing closer to the hearing date.
Staff Contact:
Nishith Trivedi, Orange County Planning Department
131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 201
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
E-mail: ntrivedi@orangecountync.gov Phone: (919) 245-2582
Website: http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/planning_and_inspections/efland-buckhorn-
mebane_access_management_plan/index.php
136
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
137
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
What mode of travel do you use most often?
How long is your commute?
What roads do you use most often?
Do you support the analyzed street network?
If not, what street network do you suggest?
Do you support the analyzed street cross section?
If not, what street cross section do you suggest?
Any additional comments:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Car Bike
Transit Walk
5 – 15 min 16 – 30 min
31 – 60 min > 1 hour
Yes No
Yes No
138
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
139
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
140
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
141
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
142
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
143
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
144
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
145
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
146
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
147
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
148
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
149
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
150
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
151
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
152
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
153
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
154
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
155
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
156
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
157
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
158
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
159
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
160
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
161
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Questions and Answers
The following questions and answers are paraphrased as the meeting was not recorded.
Question: Will any of the current roads be removed?
Answer: No
Question: So all existing roads will stay?
Answer: Yes
Question: What are you planning around the Preston Loop area?
Answer: Nothing in the subdivision. There will be a 100’ buffer between the residential area and the
surrounding large parcels should future development occur. We also want to make sure a road
network through that development will be sufficient to address the increased traffic brought on
by that new development.
Question: Can you tell us about the sewer and water infrastructure north of I-85 and Buckhorn Road mainly
for several residents there that are not tied to any lines even though we are supposed to?
Answer: There is an agreement in place for that area’s connection to Mebane’s water and sewer.
Question: What about US-70? What are the findings along that road and are there any recommendations
for it?
Answer: While there are no findings in the 2017 Transportation Study, we has staff will be studying this
corridor more in determining what is best needed to ensure safe access along this route. It has
been identified by NCDOT and DCHC MPO as a Strategic Freight Corridor. There are several
intersections identified by staff that may require improvements to address the increasing traffic
especially around Efland-Cedar Grove Road, I-85 connector, and Buckhorn Road. The map will be
updated as more information is collected and appropriate access management solution is
determined.
Question: What is actually going to develop in this area?
Answer: The 2017 Transportation Study, economic development nature of the area and an ever expanding
water and sewer services have primed this area for all manner of residential and non-residential
growth. The 2017 Transportation Study documents future residential, commercial, industrial,
retail, restaurants, business parks and warehouses all along 18 different sections of the area.
Future land use designations allow for commercial-industrial transition, economic development
transition, agriculture-residential, and 10-year transition.
Question: When will all these roads occur?
162
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Answer: As development occurs. There is no horizon or set year when this transportation network will be
realized. Even since the 2011 E-B-M AMP, only one road, the one to Morinaga, has actually been
constructed.
Question: Why do you have a road cutting through the residents along Center Street?
Answer: This is part of the planned Turner Street which calls for a 50’ right of way and extends it Ben
Johnston Road. It is the current right of way still in existence passed on from the original owner.
We are studying how to address the growing traffic in the area; especially should the large
property east of the neighborhood be fully developed.
Question: When will Mebane expand into this area with all its growth?
Answer: The western portion of the planning area, to Buckhorn road, is seen as how far the city will grow.
However, the city cannot annex the area on its own. Developers and property owners must
petition to annex into the city due to changes in state law.
163