HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB agenda 100318ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
AGENDA
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
NOTE CHANGE FROM USUAL LOCATION!!
WHITTED BUILDING
300 WEST TRYON STREET, 2ND FLOOR
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
Wednesday, October 3, 2018
Regular Meeting – 7:00 pm
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
1. CALL TO ORDER
2.
3 – 4
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a. Planning Calendar for October and November
• BOCC Public Hearing on October 16 for UDO Text
Amendment regarding the FEMA Flood Map date
(Planning Board members are encouraged to attend
public hearings for items the Planning Board has
reviewed)
• Tentative BOCC Public Hearing on November 1
regarding the Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access
Management Plan
3.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 5, 2018 Training Session Notes
September 5, 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.
1
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
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.
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.
EFLAND-BUCKHORN-MEBANE ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN - To make a
recommendation to the BOCC on updates to the Efland-Buckhorn-
Mebane Access Management Plan.
Presenter: Nish Trivedi, Transportation Planner
8. 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
< September October 2018 November>
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 4 5 6
Planning Board
Meeting
7:00 pm*
Whitted
Building
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
Encouraged
WCOB = West Campus Office
Building (131 W. Margaret Lane,
Hillsborough)
3
<October November December>
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3
Notes:
* Planning Board Member
Attendance Required or
Encouraged
WCOB = West Campus Office
Building (131 W. Margaret Lane,
Hillsborough)
BOCC Meeting
@7:00 pm*
Whitted
Building
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Planning Board
Meeting
7:00 pm*
(Training
Session
6:00pm)
WCOB 004
BOCC Work
Session
@ 7:00 pm
Whitted
Building
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
BOCC Meeting
@ 7:00 pm
Southern
Human
Services
OUTBoard
meeting @
6:30 pm
WCOB 004
Assembly of
Governments
7:00PM
Whitted
Building
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Holiday Holiday
25 26 27 28 29 30
4
SUMMARY NOTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 SEPTEMBER 5, 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; 9
10 MEMBERS ABSENT: Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township 11
Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Hunter Spitzer, At-Large, Hillsborough Township; David 12
Blankfard, Hillsborough Township Representative; Alexander Gregory, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Patricia Roberts, 13
Cheeks Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 14
15 STAFF PRESENT: Perdita Holtz, Planner III 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: Perdita Holtz, Planner III 22
23
24
Perdita Holtz conducted a training session on various aspects of planning. 25
26
Meeting was adjourned by consensus. 27
5
MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 SEPTEMBER 5, 2018 3
REGULAR MEETING 4 5
6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Randy Marshall (Vice-Chair), Bingham Township Representative; Kim Piracci, At-Large; Adam 7
Beeman, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Carrie Fletcher, Bingham Township Representative; Patricia 8
Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Hunter Spitzer, At-9
Large; 10
11
MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; David Blankfard, Hillsborough Township 12
Representative; Alexander Gregory, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel 13
Hill Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; 14
15
STAFF PRESENT: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; 16
Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Supervisor; Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Planner; Meredith Kern, Administrative 17
Assistant II 18
19
OTHERS PRESENT: Linda Griffin, Minutes Preparer; 20
21
AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 22
Randy Marshall (Vice-Chair) Called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM 23
24
AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 25
a. Planning Calendar for September and October 26
b. Information Item on September 4 BOCC Agenda Regarding Land Use Plan Amendments 27
to Expand Hillsborough Economic Development District (EDD) 28
29
Tom Altieri presented item related to conclusion of Joint Land Use Plan and County Comprehensive Plan 30
Amendments (Area of Old NC 86 and I-40, Southside) (Memo in Packet). There has been a change as result of the 31
Commissioners’ meeting last night, specifically to the schedule on second page of memo. Anticipate the steps will 32
remain the same - Public Outreach meeting in 2 parts to explain all aspects of land use and zoning (“Planning 101”) 33
and then get into specifics of the amendment and expansion of proposed area. County Manager has been asked to 34
follow up with Hillsborough Town Manager. The two things she was directed to discuss had to do with provision of 35
services -primary purpose, Town already approved in March. Then issue over annexation – timing of annexation, if 36
annexation were to occur and who’s land development ordinance (UDO) would apply. Discussion should be taking 37
place in next few weeks. Then, issue will go back to County Commissioners for discussion and rescheduling. 38
Meeting on September 26, 2018 needs to be removed from the Planning Board calendar. 39
40
41
AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 42 August 1, 2018, Training Session Notes 43
August 1, 2018, ORC Notes 44
August 1, 2018, Regular Meeting Minutes 45
46
47
MOTION by Adam Beeman to approve the August 1, 2018, Training Session Notes, August 1, 2018, ORC Notes, 48
and August 1, 2018, Regular Meeting Minutes with correction to attendance on page 13. Seconded by Laura 49
Nicholson. 50 VOTE: Unanimous 51
6
52 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA - NONE 53 54
AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 55 56
INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC CHARGE 57
The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, appoints the 58
Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development laws of the County. The 59
general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB 60
shall do so in a manner, which considers the present and future needs of its citizens and businesses 61
through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of 62
the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and 63
quality public services during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 64 65
PUBLIC CHARGE 66
The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to 67
conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any 68
time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the 69
offending member to leave the meeting until that individual Approved regains personal control. Should 70
decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to 71
this public charge is observed 72 73
74 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 75
THERE WERE NO COMMENTS 76
77 AGENDA ITEM 7: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – FEMA FLOOD MAPS - To make a 78
recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated text amendments to the UDO regarding FEMA flood maps. 79
This item is scheduled for public hearing on October 16, 2018. 80
81
PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 82
83
Michael Harvey: To remind you that we are a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program, which requires 84
the County to enforce flood damage prevention regulations including adopting and enforcing what are known as 85
Flood Insurance Rate Maps or FIRMS. There is a database maintained by FEMA and in this case also by the State 86
of North Carolina. The State of North Carolina is also unique in that they have a technical agreement in partnership 87
with Federal FEMA to update and maintain Flood Maps. In the Fall of last year we revamped our entire flood plain 88
management ordinance to address changes to make FEMA including adopting a whole new set of FIRMS. Included 89
within your packet is a sample of the online data available showing location of special flood hazard areas and other 90
map details. This is technically known as the FIRM map. This map is what staff references for local resident’s and 91
property owners when their parcels of property are encumbered by flood plain and this is the document we utilize to 92
give them information about what their development opportunities and constraints are. Last November the County 93
Commissioners’ approved amendments to adopt the new FIRM maps with an effective date of November 17, 2017. 94
We were informed in May of 2018 by FEMA that they need to update and” tweak” several maps primarily impacting 95
Durham County. FIRM maps don’t respect political boundaries and there are several Orange County FIRMs that 96
include property in Durham County. If FEMA changes flood data in this area, they are effectively changing the 97
effective date of this map. The short and sweet of why we have initiated this amendment is that in order for the 98
County to remain a member of the National Flood Insurance Program we have to update our Unified Development 99
Ordinance to properly reflect the new effective date of the new FIRMs, which is going to be October 19, 2018. If we 100
fail to do this, we will be suspended from the National Flood Insurance Program and local residents will not be able 101
to get flood insurance. It should not come to that but that’s the practical results of us not moving forward and doing 102
7
this. We are updating the effective FIRM date in the UDO as we are required to do and making a couple of “tweaks” 103
to make existing a little more user friendly. The staff recommendation is that you all take an affirmative action on 104
recommending approval of the statement of consistency and attachment to and recommend the change to the 105
ordinance amendment attachment. 106
107
Michael Harvey reviewed abstract. 108
109
Carrie Fletcher asked what this change does for policy holders 110
111
Michael Harvey said there would be no change for policy holders. If the County didn’t do anything, flood insurance 112
would not be available. If for instance you were going to do a refinance on your house, the most recent data would 113
be used, which is the best available data. We are not looking at major impacts on property owners in Orange County, 114
this is primarily dealing with flood panels that are in Durham County but because they are changing that data set the 115
map has to be updated so we have to include the new effective date it is a “bookkeeping issue”. 116
117
Carrie Fletcher asked if it will tend to raise rates or have any impact on rates? 118
119
Michael Harvey answered: it will not have any affect on rates at all. 120
121
MOTION by Kim Piracci to approve statement of consistency. Seconded by Hunter Spitzer. 122
VOTE: Unanimous 123
124
MOTION by Hunter Spitzer to approve the UDO text amendment change. Seconded by Laura Nicholson. 125 VOTE: Unanimous 126
127
128 AGENDA ITEM 8: EFLAND-BUCKHORN-MEBANE ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN - To review and comment 129
on draft updates to the Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan 130
. 131
PRESENTER: Nish Trivedi, Transportation Planner 132
I will explain the background of this plan. It was originally adopted in November 2011. A Transportation Study was 133
done in 2017. It looked at existing conditions, environmental constraints and traffic analysis. I will explain the 134
updating processes, some of the findings from the 2017 Transportation Study, show you what the next steps entail 135
and how this plan will be implemented. The Access Management Plan is the proposed long-range plan master plan 136
of existing roads and possible new roads. The main purpose is to maintain the overall safety of the transportation 137
system, minimize congestion and crash rates, provide efficient traffic flow and pedestrian safety; and provide 138
appropriate access to adjacent business properties. (included in your packet you received is a copy of the power 139
point presentation.) One slide was not included in your packet and it explains what the plan is and is not. The plan is 140
a long-range vision of the area, it is a means to get people to dedicate the right of way as development applications 141
come in. It is not a road map, it is not for buying or constructing roads. It is not to purchase the right of way, it is not 142
for design of the road and it is not guaranteed. The development may occur and this plan is subject to change over 143
the years. The plan for this started back in 1981. A comprehensive plan was done in 1981 and an area plan later in 144
1991. The water and sewer plan was done in 2002 for the area. The Efland Area Study followed by 2006 Efland-145
Mebane Small Area Plan and the 2011 E-B-M Access Management Plan was adopted by the County and we are 146
simply updating that plan. 147
In 2017 Volkert Inc did a transportation study of the area and we will hear more about in the presentation. The 148
original 2011 Access Plan included a map of the area and possible roads that will be in this area and improvements 149
that will be done. It included a variety of access management strategies including and 2 possible street cross 150
sections. In September 2011 the Planning Board and Orange Unified Transportation Board reviewed it and made its 151
recommendations. There was a public information meeting held in November of that year and the Board adopted it 152
that same month on November 15, 2011. In 2017 Volkert was contracted to do a Transportation Study for this area 153
8
and they did it with the help of Pilot Environmental Inc who studied of environmental concerns and issues including 154
existing conditions analysis, land use and traffic impacts, corridor and intersection feasibilities for this 4.25 square 155
mile area. 156
157
Randy Marshall asked a question: Who contracted this study- the State? 158
159
Nish Trivedi answered: The County paid for the study. 160
161
Nish Trivedi continued presentation. This study included a big spreadsheet with 30 rows of data that showed what 162
the various development sites might be. How much might be developed for example a 100-acre of land and only 163
about 30 acres of it could be developed due to constraints, environmental issues and market factors. What is 164
developed on these 30 acres would help determine the traffic impact in the area, traffic impact being how many cars 165
it might generate. The 2017 Transportation Study also evaluated NCDOT 24 different street cross sections; these are 166
what State routes are required to look like. It proposed 3 NCDOT cross sections of those for this area. The Study 167
also took into consideration the impact at intersections, what would be needed at those intersections such as turn 168
lanes and stop signs. The slides show some of the intersections that would need turn lanes, stops signs, etc. to 169
address the increased traffic for that development. 170
Now we are in the process of updating the original 2011 Access Management Plan using the 2017 Transportation 171
Study. On August 28, we conducted a community meeting at Gravely Hill Middle School to let the public know what is 172
going on in this process and get their feedback. The study also included recommendations and these are all 173
presented to you for your consideration as part of the draft. We are taking the original 2011 Plan, adding the 174
transportation study, with public comments, to create a whole new Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management 175
Plan. The study analyzed possible roads, these roads were carried forward from the original 2011 Access 176
Management Plan to insure everyone had access to their property while development occurs, and the circles are for 177
the various intersections. The green lines are from the study itself. The purple lines you see are where staff 178
identified additional roads that would be needed and additional studies would also be required to address the 179
increased traffic issues brought on by future development. The red circles are the intersections from the 2017 180
Transportation Study. We as staff think that additional intersections will be needed and more study and possible 181
improvements needed for those intersections (see the blue circles). Mebane has also recently adopted a 182
Comprehension Transportation Plan and it was adopted in June 2018. That is shown as the yellow lines and circles 183
on the map from their recently adopted CTP. The 2017 Transportation Study proposed 3 different cross sections a 184
90-foot right-of-way that includes bike and pedestrian accommodations and sidewalks. It included a 60 ft right-of-way 185
for areas east of Buckhorn Road and an 80 ft right-of-way for some of the major areas. The study also 186
recommended improvements to various intersections, adding turn lanes for various east and westbound routes along 187
70, Buckhorn Road, West Ten Road and Ben Wilson Road. As part of community outreach, we sent out letters to 188
property owners in and around the study area. We sent out over 700 notices about the community meeting. The 189
community meeting was held last Tuesday to get public comments. An estimate of 100 people attended. The 190
meeting had nice positive feedback. People engaging in knowing what’s going on in the area. We created a website 191
to keep the public informed and involved in the process and as a means of getting more feedback as this process 192
continues. We handed out a survey at the Community meeting to get feedback about what was presented to them. 193
The next steps – we are currently at the next step phase presenting the planning process and plan before the 194
Planning Board for review. The Draft Plan is in your attachment to for your review and comment. We will come back 195
next month in October for your recommendations to include as we present this to the Board of County 196
Commissioners’ later this year, tentatively targeting November for Public Hearing. This same presentation will be 197
given to the Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) later this month and they will provide their 198
recommendations in October. A tentative Public Hearing is scheduled to go before the Board of County 199
Commissioners’ in November and depending on what they decide, they will act in November or December for their 200
decision. 201
202
Randy Marshall question: Has the Outboard seen this at all? 203
204
9
Nish responded: They will see this in two weeks on September 19. Your meeting came first, so it will be presented 205
to them at their meeting in two weeks. Both of your recommendations will go to the Board of County 206
Commissioners’ together. It is not like one is going then the other. Both packets together with all your comments 207
together and then the Board will make a decision either at the public hearing or the following meeting. 208
209
The plan will be implemented through the Unified Development Ordinance which requires development be in 210
compliance with adopted local plans like an Access Management Plan and it is through the UDO we would use this 211
plan to get people to dedicate the right-of-way in the event these roads are constructed. 212
213
Any Questions. 214
215
Hunter Spitzer asked when comments are needed by? 216
217
Nish Trivedi answered: by the 28th of September. I want to put all comments together before sitting down with staff 218
to see if there is anything to add or improve. We will add a simple Q&A at the end of the document. Those will come 219
back to you in October for your recommendations. 220
221
Tom Altieri clarified the comment period. Any comments the Board would have tonight, we will take our notes and 222
collect those comments. As Nish mentioned it is coming back to you next month and as you are reviewing the 223
document and have comments send them to him. If you want to send an email to Nish you are welcome to do that 224
and he can report out at the beginning of your next meeting what comments he has collected so far and how those 225
comments will be addressed. 226
227
At the end of the presentation is Nish’s contact information. 228
229
Randy Marshall spoke about detail of plan and mentioned the feedback forms. He stated the plan looked 230
comprehensive for such a small part of Orange County in the sense that a lot of time, energy and thought was put 231
into the preparation. Such as assessment of traffic, where traffic wants to go and to get to the different parts. I did 232
notice on the feedback forms that people were still confused, I am sure a lot of that is to be expected because it is all 233
conjecture at this point. This will hit the road so to speak when development comes in and we will have this as a 234
starting point in terms of planning purposes for that area. 235
236
Adam Beeman asked about the bridge at Buckhorn Rd. and I-85. Are there any plans of putting lights up on that 237
bridge at Buckhorn Road when you get off I-85 and come across the bridge, now there are no lights on that bridge at 238
all? You are presently at mercy of stopping and looking for traffic before making those turns. Just wonder when 239
that’s coming. 240
241
Nish Trivedi said that they will look at future improvements 242
243
Tom Altieri spoke about developers and traffic impact studies. That will come when development comes. For 244
example, if a developer came in and wanted to develop a piece of property, much like the application for Settlers 245
Point, when it came in there would be forecasts done for additional traffic on the roadway, if roadway improvements 246
would be necessary, turn lanes and traffic lights could be some of those improvements. There is nothing planned 247
now for construction of the network reflected in the draft Access Management Plan. 248
249
Carrie Fletcher asked about road updates on Buckhorn Rd and bridge developments? 250
251
Tom Altieri answered. One of the recommendations, in fact, one of the only four lane cross-sections is at Buckhorn 252
Road. The cross-section for Buckhorn Road from West 10 all the way towards Hwy 70 would be for a four-lane 253
divided cross section. So, that’s something as an example of if a developer came in they may be able to ask to, at 254
least, protect the right-of-way and the right-of-way width, so, eventually when there is enough critical mass there it 255
10
could become a four-lane road in the future. I doubt that the first developer that comes in, would be asked to provide 256
four lanes unless a very large project because otherwise there would not be enough associated projected traffic there 257
to justify that type of improvement. 258
259
Adam Beeman mentioned the bridge at 86 and I-85 coming over from Wal Mart. It’s got to the point that something 260
has to happen, it’s getting pretty congested. 261
262
Nish Trivedi – The interchange at I-85 at NC-86 is a funded project in the State’s Strategic Prioritization of 263
Transportation (SPOT) 5.0. The State will eventually redo this interchange. 264
265
Hunter Spitzer asked about alternative transportation such as for cyclists, pedestrians? 266
267
Nish Trivedi answered yes. In 3 the NCDOT cross sections recommended as part of the 2017 Transportation Study 268
include bike/ped accommodations such as sidewalks and/or paved shoulders. The plans show 5 ft sidewalks, paved 269
shoulders – 5 ft paved shoulders even without sidewalks. Just for area west of I-85. Nothing planned for east other 270
than 5 ft paved shoulders. 271
272
Carrie Fletcher asked about eminent domain. If you are talking about accessing right of way are you talking about 273
private lands? 274
275
Tom Altieri. The right of way would be dedicated through future private development processes, so this is an 276
unfunded plan. There is no plan now to build these roads. I think the best way to describe the plan is like an 277
insurance policy so that, as the area is develops over time the County has the ability to then request right of way or 278
have the developer make some roadway improvements that are applicable to whatever property he or she is 279
developing. So, a lot of the roadway network you see there may not be achieved in the next ten years, even beyond. 280
It is only going to be achieved through the development process. As property owners want to sell their property for 281
development. If no one wants to sell their property, the developer is not building those roads, the County does not 282
have money to build those roads there would be no reason. So, that’s where there will be no exercising of power of 283
eminent domain or condemnation of property to build the roads. 284
285
Randy Marshall: I understand that if the developer wants to develop in this area then this plan would ask that 286
developer to reserve some of that property to develop a right of way or as a right of way for a road or other pieces of 287
this plan. It would be up to the developer whether to do that or not. The County is not taking anybody’s land as an 288
eminent domain issue. If you are going to develop it, this is what our long- range plan in this area is so that other 289
properties down the road – that the access from outside the area. I don’t know if I can make that any clearer or not. 290
291
Tom Altieri and Nish Trivedi went over the plan in more detail. The plan is designed so that no property end up land 292
locked with no access. If you are familiar with residential subdivisions and that process maybe there is a cul-de-sac 293
or stub out, there is no road going through to the adjacent parcel, it is not developing yet but there is a right of way 294
there so if and when the adjacent parcel develops you can have some connectivity. The plan done in 2011 shows 295
lines and to date only one of those roads was built and it is the road that serves Morinaga candy factory and the 296
reason for that is that we haven’t had any other development in the area. If there had been development the County 297
would have been able to look at this plan and say future development will be requested to dedicate right of way for 298
future road improvements. This plan is largely conceptual, but we need some type of right of way through this 299
property so that adjacent property owners can have access to their property. The 2011 Access management Plan 300
was done without the benefit of surveying. As Nish stated consultants from Pilot Environmental did this survey so that 301
is one of the differences between the 2011 plan and 2017 study. The 2017 Transportation Study is a more in-depth 302
analysis and environmental surveying to determine where the lines should be on the Access Management Plan. The 303
2011 plan was really done in our office, looking at boundaries of parcel lines, trying to avoid stream crossings where 304
we knew there were streams and those kinds of things but there was no surveying and it was not really the “boots on 305
the ground” as we do not do that type of detailed site analysis of this scale in our department. So, that’s the 306
11
difference between the 2017 and the 2011. Really kind of an update. Much like the 2011 plan, if there is not a lot of 307
development in the area, we won’t see those roads getting built. I mentioned the service road to Morinaga, that was 308
partially funded by DOT and one of the things that DOT looked for, as it wanted to be very careful that it was not 309
providing funding for an individual driveway to go to a business, and one of the things they asked for was for the 310
County to demonstrate how this service road was part of a greater transportation network to serve the area and we 311
were able to demonstrate it was because we had that 2011 Plan. We were able to show them that we had an 312
adopted plan and as a result the State contributed the money and we were able to get that road built. 313
314
Randy Marshall: Vision was a very good way to describe the whole process here. A vision for how it could develop 315
and what we would want to see when it is developed, but it doesn’t mean it is going to be developed but if somebody 316
comes in and wants it developed then this is what our vision is, and they can take that into account. 317
318
Patricia asked: The yellow roads what does that mean? On Page 6? Also, what about the Richmond, Lebanon Rd 319
how it’s going to connect to the 119 bypass? Answer: Another transit route that was proposed – new bus route 320
proposed. 321
322
Nish answered: Every new state road or improvements to state road goes through the state’s SPOT process. The 323
State uses this quantitative data driven process to determine which projects are best suited for funding through the 324
State’s Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The yellow lines on the map you are referring to are Orange 325
County priorities we submitted to corresponding Metropolitan Planning Organizations to be considered for the current 326
SPOT process. The green lines on the same map are funded projects in the current adopted STIP. The yellow lines 327
you see are the County priorities. These lines did not score for the SPOT process for the State. The green ones you 328
see are funded and approved. The repaving of I-85. 329
330
Tom: for example - Buckhorn Road. The county has identified it as one of its transportation priorities and the 331
County attempted to see if that is a project could be funded through the State’s Transportation Improvement Program 332
(STIP). So, what we are looking at here in this section of the draft is just background information. 333
334
Planning Board Meeting ended by consensus at 7:50 PM 335
336
337
338
339
340
341
Lydia N. Wegman, Chair 342
12
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 3, 2018
Action Agenda
Item No. 7
SUBJECT: Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan Update
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Planning Document Amendment Outline
Form – Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane
Access Management Plan
2. Draft Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access
Management Plan
Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Planner
(919) 245-2582
Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning
Supervisor (919) 245-2579
Craig Benedict, Planning Director
(919) 245-2585
PURPOSE: To make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on an
update to the Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan (E-B-M AMP).
BACKGROUND: On April 3, 2018 the BOCC authorized the Planning Department to update
the adopted 2011 E-B-M AMP through the attached Amendment Outline Form (Attachment 1).
This update is conducted through a comprehensive public involvement process which includes
community input and recommendations from the Planning Board and Orange Unified
Transportation Board (OUTBoard) as outlined in the form.
The E-B-M AMP is:
• A combination of the original adopted 2011 E-B-M AMP, 2017 Transportation Study and
public comments.
• A long-range transportation vision for the area illustrating roadway alignment and corridor
width necessary to serve future land uses and address traffic impact as development occurs.
• A plan that assists the County in promoting economic development through its development
review process by encouraging developers to dedicate right-of-way necessary for future
roads.
The E-B-M AMP is not:
• A proposal for, nor does it seek authorization for, funding right-of-way acquisition.
• A collection of future road design and construction projects, nor does it include a schedule.
• A guarantee that future development will occur or that roads will be built.
13
Summary and key highlights from the E-B-M AMP (Attachment 2):
Chapter 1 - Introduction – federal, state, and local regulations authorizing such plans including
the process used in updating this plan.
o 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives.
o Traffic trend details in addition to the 2017 Transportation Study results.
Chapter 2 – Access Management Planning – Introduction of 2017 Transportation Study and
recommendations for the planning area. This should be a focus area for review.
o Includes Volkert Inc., County staff and recently adopted Mebane 2040 Comprehensive
Transportation Plan (June 2018).
Chapter 3 – Enforcement (aka Implementation) – lists the various resources, roles and
responsibilities of state and local officials as well as property owners.
Chapter 4 – Appendix – 2011 E-B-M AMP, 2017 Transportation Study and remarks collected
throughout the planning process.
o Contains survey results and specific comments provided by the public.
Public Involvement: - August 28, 2018
Planning staff conducted a community meeting at Gravely Hill Middle School which an
estimated 100 people attended. Notices were mailed out to over 700 property owners in and
around the planning area. Following are highlights from the public discussion:
• Can you tell us about the 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?
o There is an agreement in place for that area’s connection to Mebane’s water and sewer.
Coordination with the City of Mebane is needed with regard to its annexation policies.
• When will all these roads occur?
o As development occurs. There is no set year when the network will be realized. Even
since the 2011 E-B-M AMP, only one road, the one to Morinaga, has actually been
constructed.
• What about US-70? What are the findings along that road and are there any
recommendations for it?
o Staff will be studying this corridor in more detail to determine what is most needed. It has
been identified by NCDOT and the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan (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.
• What are you planning around the Preston Loop (off W. Ten Rd.) area?
o Nothing in the subdivision. There will be a 100-ft buffer between the residential area and
the surrounding large parcels should any 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 any new development.
Planning Board: - September 5, 2018
Planning Board began reviewing the Draft E-B-M AMP. Following are key highlights from its
initial review:
• What is planned for the area, where will development occur, and will County take property
for roads?
o The AMP is similar to the Future Land Use Map; it expresses a vision, has no financial
component, and is achieved over an indefinite time period.
o The plan gives the County legal standing to request right-of-way dedication during the
development review process. If development does not occur, neither do new roads.
14
• Who contracted the study (2017 Transportation Study)?
o The County paid for the study and contracted it out to Volkert Inc.
• Does it include alternative transportation such as cyclists and pedestrians?
o Yes, the 2017 Transportation Study recommended 3 of NCDOT’s standard street cross
sections. Each includes either a 5-foot sidewalk or wide paved shoulder or both.
OUTBoard Review: - September 19, 2018
The OUTBoard received the Draft E-B-M AMP and will provide its recommendations on October
17, 2018. Following are key highlights from its initial review.
• What about multimodal travel?
o The recommended NCDOT approved standard street cross sections include either a
sidewalk or wide paved shoulders. Some include both.
• Bicycle safety needs to be included in the scope of the project.
o The street cross sections address Bicycle and Pedestrian safety by including 5-foot
sidewalks and/or wide paved shoulders. The plan does not include specific road
design/engineering but does accommodate sufficient right of way in several cases for
future bicycle and pedestrian improvements.
Public notice of Planning Board and OUTBoard meeting
On September 20, 2018, approximately 1,009 notices were mailed to property owners in and
within 1,000 feet of the planning area informing them of the October Planning Board and
OUTBoard meetings.
Planning Director’s Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Planning Director recommends the Planning Board:
1. Complete its review and deliberate on the E-B-M AMP,
2. Consider the Planning Director’s recommendation, and
3. Recommend the BOCC approve the E-B-M AMP.
15
PLANNING DOCUMENT
AMENDMENT OUTLINE FORM
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan (E-B-M AMP) Update
A. AMENDMENT TYPE
Map Amendments
Future Land Use Map
From:
To:
Zoning Map
From:
To:
Other:
Text Amendments
Comprehensive Plan Text:
Section(s):
Other Amendments
Type: E-B-M AMP Update
B. RATIONALE
1. Purpose/Mission
In order to better promote economic development opportunities and help preserve
planned sewer and road 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.
2. Analysis
Proposed Changes
Update to the E-B-M AMP. This update will utilize a 2017 Transportation Report 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. The final E-B-M AMP Update is scheduled for a
Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) public hearing on November 1, 2018.
Background
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 aspects of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan (2008).
Attachment 1 16
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 growth in Hillsborough and commercial expansion in Mebane, especially
growth’s impact on traffic, demonstrates the plan’s importance.
A thorough existing conditions, environmental, and traffic analysis was conducted
through an engineering-based transportation study by Volkert Inc., based in Raleigh,
NC. 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.
The original Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan should be updated
by incorporating the latest transportation study recommendations.
3. New Statutes and Rules
N/A
C. PROCESS
1. TIMEFRAME/MILESTONES/DEADLINES
a. BOCC Authorization to Proceed
April 3, 2018
b. Planning Board Review:
September 5, 2018 – Introduction and review
October 3, 2018 - Recommendation
c. Public Hearing
November 1, 2018 (and possible BOCC decision)
d. BOCC Updates/Checkpoints
October 3, 2018 (BOCC receives September 5 Planning Board agenda materials)
e. Other:
2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
Mission/Scope: Planning staff held a Community Meeting on August 28, 2018 at
Gravely Hill Middle School. Notices for the Community Meeting were mailed out to
747 property owners in and around the planning area. Notices were also mailed out to
1009 property owners in and around the planning area informing them of the October
Planning Board and OUTBoard meetings. Notices will be mailed out again for the
November 1, BOCC Public Hearing. A website was also created keeping the public
17
informed of the planning process and providing them a copy of the draft plan.
a. Advisory Boards:
Orange Unified Transportation Board
(OUTBoard)
September 19, 2018 Review/Comment
October 17, 2018 Recommendation
b. Local Government Review:
City of Mebane attended the August 28, 2018 Community Meeting to answer
questions and provide comments. They also provided comments on the draft plan
Their comments are included in Appendix C of the plan.
c. Notice Requirements
d. Outreach:
D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS
Staff is proposing the update be approved as a whole so that the County can better
promote this area to economic development prospects and help preserve planned
sewer and road capacities for all uses within the designated planning area.
General Public: Community meeting, August 28, 2018, Gravely Hill Middle
School, 4:30 – 6:30 pm, approximately 100 interested
persons attended.
Small Area Plan Workgroup:
Other:
18
2018
Orange County Planning Department
Orange County, NC
5/17/2018
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
19
20
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
21
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
22
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.
23
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
24
• 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.
25
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
26
Figure 3: E-B-M AMP Planning Area
27
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.
28
Figure 4: Transportation Projects Map
29
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
30
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
31
Figure 7: Traffic Count Stations
32
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
33
Figure 10: Rural vs Urban Crashes
34
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
35
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
36
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).
37
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
38
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.
39
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
40
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.
41
Figure 16: E-B-M AMP
42
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.
43
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.
44
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
45
IV. Appendix
A. 2011 E-B-M EDD AMP
B. 2017 E-B-M Transportation Study
C. Community Meeting
46
APPENDIX A
2011 Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
47
48
49
50
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
51
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.
52
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.
53
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.
54
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.
55
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.
56
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.
57
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.
58
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
59
APPENDIX B
2017 Transportation Study
60
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
61
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
62
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
63
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
64
·
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
65
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.
66
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.
67
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
68
Legend
Riverines
Ponds
NWI Wetlands
Lakes
Endangered Species
Elevation Contours
0 0.5 1
Miles
Note: This map i s for pr esentation 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
69
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.
70
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.
71
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
72
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.
73
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.
74
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
75
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.
76
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
77
It is recommended that the above map be constructed according to cross‐section 2D
9
Figure 6
78
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
79
It is recommended that the above map be constructed according to cross‐section 2A
Figure 7
80
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
81
It is recommended that the above map be constructed according to cross‐section 3A
Figure 8
82
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.
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.
83
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
84
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
85
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
86
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.
87
New Road A and Ben Wilson Road
88
89
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.
90
New road A and W Ten Road
91
92
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.
93
W Ten Road and Buckhorn Road
94
95
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.
96
New Road H and Mt. Willing Road
97
98
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
99
A conceptual map of a possible intersection improvement is shown above.
2025
100
US 70/I‐85 Connector
101
102
±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
103
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
104
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.
105
ATTACHMENT A
106
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
107
Transportation Report for the Efland Buckhorn
Mebane Study Area
ATTACHMENT B
108
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.
109
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
110
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
111
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.
112
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
113
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
114
ATTACHMENT C
115
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)
116
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)
117
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
118
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
17
.
4
1
90
.
5
1
3
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
)
58 119
ATTACHMENT D
120
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
*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
.
121
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 122
APPENDIX C
Community Meeting
123
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.
124
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
125
126
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
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
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?
151
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.
152