HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 5-a - Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan Update 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 5, 2019
Action Agenda
Item No. 5-a
SUBJECT: Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan Update
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Public Questions & Comments Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Planner,
2. Reduced Connectivity Option requested by (919) 245-2582
the Economic Development Advisory Board Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning
Supervisor, (919) 245-2579
3. Economic Development Advisory Board Craig Benedict, Planning Director, (919)
Letter 245-2585
UNDER SEPARATE COVER
4. Draft Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access
Management Plan
ONLYAVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLYAT.-
http://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCent
er/Vie w/64 69/Re vise d-E-B-M-AMP?bid I d=
PURPOSE: To receive an overview of the Draft Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management
Plan (E-B-M AMP), continue the public hearing, and provide Board comments before the Plan is
placing is scheduled on an upcoming agenda for Board action.
BACKGROUND: On April 3, 2018 the BOCC authorized the Planning Department to update
the adopted 2011 E-B-M AMP in accordance with an approved public and advisory board
review. This update has been conducted through a comprehensive public involvement process
which included community input and recommendations from the Planning Board and Orange
Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard). Planning staff also presented the draft plan to the
Economic Development Advisory Board (EDAB) and its staff for input.
The updated E-B-M AMP is available online at:
http://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6469/Revised-E-B-M-AMP?bidld=
The E-B-M AMP is:
o A combination of the original adopted 2011 E-B-M AMP, 2017 Transportation Study, County
Planning, City of Mebane, and public comments.
o 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.
o 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.
2
The E-B-M AMP is not:
o A proposal for, nor does it seek authorization for, funding right-of-way acquisition.
o However, an AMP would be a necessary prerequisite to guide the investment to improve
access, where necessary.
o A collection of future road design and construction projects, nor does it include a schedule.
o A guarantee that future development will occur or that roads will be built.
Summary and key highlights from the E-B-M AMP
Chapter 1 - Introduction — federal, state, and local regulations authorizing such plans including
the process used in updating this plan.
0 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 the 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.
o Includes process to amend the plan through developer initiated Traffic Impact Analysis
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.
A summary of key planning areas and responses to public comments are provided below. Also
see Attachment 1, Public Questions & Comments.
o West of West Ten Road and east of Mebane city limits.
o Plan updated to avoid multiple stream crossings.
o Intersection locations updated and requiring additional study.
o Railroad crossings in Efland — Efland-Cedar Grove Road to Mt. Willing Road.
o Plan not changed; carry forward from original adopted 2011 E-B-M AMP.
o Key crossing identified by staff requiring additional study.
o NCDOT requests Orange County conduct feasibility study through MPO.
o Turner Street Extension through Center Street residential area.
o Plan not changed; carry forward from original adopted 2011 E-B-M AMP.
o Property zoned Local Commercial; UDO Section 3.4.10 requires property "have
direct access to a street classified either as an arterial or collector".
o Provide access to land locked parcels west of residential neighborhood.
o US-70 and Preston Loop Subdivision
o Plan not changed; carry forward from original adopted 2011 E-B-M AMP.
o No recommendations on US-70 or through Preston Loop Subdivision.
Appendix C of the plan provides comprehensive documentation of all public involvement
activities throughout the planning process.
Planning Board Review - September 5, 2018
Planning Board began reviewing the Draft E-B-M AMP. Following are key highlights from its
initial review:
3
o 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.
o Who contracted the study (2017 Transportation Study)?
o The County funded the study and contracted it out to Volkert, Inc.
o 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 for review. Following are key highlights from its
initial review.
o What about multimodal travel?
o The recommended NCDOT approved standard street cross sections include either a
sidewalk or wide paved shoulders. Some include both.
o 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 meetings
On September 20, 2018, approximately 1,000 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 Board Recommendation - October 3, 2018
The Planning Board recommended the BOCC approve the E-B-M AMP with the Planning
Director's recommended revisions and the following additions:
o Provide more clarity on what the plan is and is not.
o Information added to Draft E-B-M AMP
o Provide more information on how the plan meets Economic Development Objective 2.2 and
2.3 (Page 5 of Draft E-B-M AMP).
o Included a street cross section with a bicyclist and cite NCDOT guidelines
o Information added to the Draft E-B-M AMP
OUTBoard Recommendation - October 17, 2018
The OUTBoard members who were present — in the absence of a quorum - provided the
following comments:
o Include roundabouts as potential intersection improvements for both 2017 Transportation
Study and staff recommended intersections.
o Limit lane widths in the planning area to 11 feet and provide more shoulder.
o Incorporate recent advancements in Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technologies
at intersections.
o Incorporate public transit into the plan.
o BOCC proceed with its decision provided all comments are addressed.
4
Public Notice of BOCC Public Hearing
On October 19, 2018, approximately 1,000 notices were mailed to property owners in and within
1,000 feet of the planning area informing them of the BOCC Public Hearing.
• On November 1, 2018, the BOCC opened the Public Hearing for the E-B-M AMP but
continued it to February 5, 2019 so that planning staff could address any impacts the plan
may have on the economic development district. The primary concern raised by the
Economic Development Department is the future marketability of relatively large
properties (e.g. where new connector roads bisect the area) that have been targeted for
economic development purposes.
Economic Development Advisory Board - January 8, 2019
The Planning Department originally provided the Draft E-B-M AMP to the Economic
Development Department for their review on August 31, 2018. The EDAB provided the following
comments on January 8, 2019:
o Improve communication and coordination between the two departments.
o Provide an option in the plan with no internal road connectivity.
o A Draft Reduced Connectivity option has been provided for the BOCC's consideration
(Attachment 2).
o EDAB provided a letter (Attachment 3) recommending BOCC approve the
Reduced Connectivity option as part of the plan.
Planning Director Recommendation
Based on the input staff has received from the public, EDAB, and staff, another option for
consideration is in the Reduced Connectivity Option (Attachment 2). This option removes the
vast majority of new connectivity roadways through undeveloped properties. Although, there is a
strong merit in our AMP that supports all 4 elements (i.e. right-of-way width, intersection
placement, Frontage/Service Joint Road Access, and Master Plan Road Connections), the
perception that the connectivity aspect may encumber and/or eliminate the property from a
"short list" potential may outweigh the benefits of having the road documented on an AMP.
Without the connectivity element, staff cannot ask for these connections with "by right"
approvals, only with agreement to include them during a conditional zoning process. The
developer may find it advantageous to add the connections upon their own reflection, so the
comprehensive transportation solution may still be achieved. In any event, the "Reduced
Connectivity" option is viable and may balance the interests and unencumber development
potential.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact associated with this item. The
2017 Transportation Study was funded through the FY 17-18 budget at a cost of $35,000.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goals are applicable
to this item:
• GOAL: CREATE A SAFE COMMUNITY
The reduction of risks from vehicle/traffic accidents, childhood and senior injuries, gang
activity, substance abuse and domestic violence.
• GOAL: ENSURE ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY
5
The creation and preservation of infrastructure, policies, programs and funding necessary
for residents to provide shelter, food, clothing and medical care for themselves and their
dependents.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board:
1. Continue the public hearing and accept public comments on the E-B-M AMP;
2. Close the public hearing;
3. Discuss and comment as appropriate; and
4. Direct staff to schedule the Plan on an upcoming agenda for Board action.
6
APPENDIX C Attachment 1 1/18/2019 8:07 AM
Public Questions and Comments
# Source Description
City of Mebane shares Orange County's goal of developing the Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane study area
for economic development.The following is offered for Orange County's considerations:
*Due to environmental and cultural constraints presented in the 2017 Transportation Study,the
east-west roads between Ben Wilson and Rock Quarry be relocated further north to avoid multiple
Road network west of West Ten Road has been updated to avoid environmentally and culturally sensitive areas.Orange County staff
Mebane (5)stream crossings over Haw Creek. is working with Mebane staff to better coordinate the two models.
A north-south road crossing Haw Creek be removed in favor of a single east-west crossing.
*New intersection on West Ten Road near Rock Quarry Road,perhaps reducing the number of
intersections along West Ten Road.
*Improve data coordination between PART's Transportation Demand Model(TDM)and Triangle J
1 Council of Government's Triangle Regional Model(TRIM)
What is the railroad doing at Efland-Cedar Grove Road,will there be an overpass?Uncertainty of
railroad crossings in Efland may scare away future property buyers.Future road network attempting
to connect Efland-Cedar Grove Road to Turner Street would be better served with a roundabout NCDOT has requested Orange County conduct a Feasibility Study through the MPO and determine the best solutions necessary to
rather than T-intersections. address increasing vehicle and freight traffic along the railroad corridor in Efland.
What about Efland Village/Mt.Willing/US-70/1-85 Connector/Efland Cedar Grove Road,the entire
2 area needs to be coordinated in an effort to make it viable and useful
Common concerns expressed by all property owners:
*Will you take,condemn,purchase,etc.my property for these roads? This is clarified in the presentation-and narrative-by describing what the plan is and is not better throughout the planning process.
*When will County build these roads?If not County,who will? IKEA pulled out of Cary after getting its approval.No news is found concerning where they will locate.As an economic development
*Will existing roads be removed? area,anything from small shops to medical clinics,from schools to shopping malls,from big box stores to warehouses may locate
3 *What and when will development occur?Will IKEA come here? here.
What are you planning around the Preston Loop area?
4 What about US-70,any recommendations for that corridor? Nothing is planned for either area.There are buffer requirements between commercial and residential development.
Public Can you tell us about the sewer and water infrastructure north of 1-85 and Buckhorn Road mainly for
5 Comments several residents there that are not tied to any lines even though they should be? There is an agreement in place for that area's connection to Mebane's water and sewer.
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
6 When will Mebane expand into this area with all its growth? area on its own.Developers and property owners must petition to annex into the city due to changes in state law.
The 2017 Transportation Study used the POD analysis to determine how much traffic would be generated(Table 1 p.13).These
values"were added to the future 2025 AADTs of the existing roadway network based on the proposed access points."(p.22).The
7 What is the traffic in this area going to be like in the future and how was it determined? results are presented in Figure 10 p.24 of the 2017 Transportation Study.
Please develop this part of Orange County(Buckhorn Road),nothing changes.Orange County is very
8 slow or no development at all. We are conducting this planning exercise in an effort to address future development anticipated in the area.
Traffic will continue to increase throughout the planning area as development continues to occur,especially along those roads
providing direct access to the 1-40/1-85 interchange as Mt.Willing does.Mt.Willing road is minor collector road(NCDOT)and is used
by commuters and trucks traveling north and south from Efland-Cedar Grove Road.It provides more immediate access than US-70
Center Street Neighborhood concerns: connector.
*Opposes Turner Street Extension connecting it to Efland-Cedar Grove Road and new service road. 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
*Does not want to see more traffic along Mt.Willing Road,too long to get out of neighborhood. way still in existence passed on from the original owner.We are studying how to address the growing traffic in the area;especially if
9 *Deviate traffic to other properties like those along the 70 connector so neighborhood is safe. Ithe large property to the east is fully developed.
1oft
Ell
11113
�.1 ►:=� Ili��� �'�■11�� � r �
NO
110
-�4+H
i Not �
�� ��►�- l� { I nne a n+�nmiin ` `� nm
40
- Ill=.�� r
� ri i
� �l�BM� FwnF.. ,,t.r Fes` e ■
.: .
r
=1400ffeet
ORANGE Feet
w 000
Orange County Planning-
8
January 25, 2019
Orange County Board of Commissioners
200 South Cameron Sheet
Clerk's Office,Link Building
Hillsborough,NC 27278
Dear Board of County Commissioners:
Please include and consider this letter along with any other public comments received during the
public hearing on the Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan(EBMAMP)Update,
scheduled for February 5,2019.
On January 8,2019, Orange County Planning staff, including Director Craig Benedict,Tom
Altieri and Nish Trivedi, attended our Orange County Economic Development Advisory Board's
regularly scheduled meeting,presented key aspects of the updated draft,responded to questions and
collected our comments. In general,the Economic Development Advisory Board(EDAB) specifically
requested:
1) Heightened coordination between the Planning Department and Economic Development Department
in all future endeavors involving areas targeted by the County for economic development initiative;
and,
2) Consideration of an alternative to the draft 2018 Plan,which would remove or eliminate new
corridors for future interior roads that would require the dedication of right-of-way by future
developers for connectivity.
As the Economic Development Advisory Board understands,based on the above comment,the
Planning Department has developed a"Reduced Connectivity"option that removes the majority of new
connectivity roadways through undeveloped properties (i.e., 1 of the 4 elements of an Access
Management Plan). We understand the Planning Department's Director supports this option as his
recommendation to the Orange County Board of Commissioners,which he intends to convey at the public
hearing on February 5th. The Economic Development Advisory Board supports the Reduced
Connectivity option as the only viable alternative over the original, and requests that the Board of County
Commissioners also support the "Reduced Connectivity"option for inclusion in what would become the
adopted Plan.
The Economic Development Advisory Board understands the balancing of planning and
economic development goals, and looks forward to continued mutual coordination between its Economic
Development staff and advisory board, and that of the Planning Department. Thank you for the
opportunity to offer comments on the Plan.
f
Sincerely,
I
Jim Kitchen
Chair, Orange County Economic Development advisory Board
i
i
i