Browse
Search
Agenda - 01-20-1998 - 8g
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1998
>
Agenda - 01-20-1998
>
Agenda - 01-20-1998 - 8g
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/14/2013 3:53:12 PM
Creation date
7/27/2010 8:53:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
1/20/1998
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
8g
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19980120
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
4 <br />Change references from 'Division of Environmental Management' to 'Division of Water Quality`; and <br />2 . Clarify definitions for Major Variance. Minor Variance, and Discharging Landfill. <br />3 <br />4 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS <br />5 None. <br />6 <br />7 QUESTIONS ANWOR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS <br />8 None. <br />9 <br />0 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS <br />1 None. <br />2 <br />3 A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, second by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer this item to the <br />4 Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 20, <br />5 19M. <br />6 VOTE. UNANIMOUS <br />7 <br />8 4. Comprehensive Plan Amendment <br />9 Zoning OreBnance Teat Amendment <br />0 SubdivWon Regutativns Text Amendment <br />1 aI Functional! Road Classification <br />Z This item was presented by Planner Slade McCaffp in order to receive comment on the draft <br />3 ordinance and Comprehensive Plan Amendments for the update to the Functional Road Classifications of the <br />4 Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. On June 4, 1997 staff presented to the Planning Board a <br />5 pr and schedule for updating the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan including an update to <br />6 the road functional classifications. An amendment to update the functional classifications is necessary because the <br />7 maps in the Transportation Element to the Comprehensive Plan depict planned reads that are no longer planned. <br />8 Some of the current functional classifications are not referenced by other adopted plans and ordinances and the <br />09 existing Classifications have begirt applied to every road in the county's land use planning jurisdiction outside the <br />thoroughfare planning jurisdictions for the municipalities. This has made it difficult to clearly and quickly identify the <br />1 most important roads and also apply urban road classifications to the roads in 45% of the county's land use planning <br />2 area. As a part of the Functional Road Classification System update, the planned major thoroughfares adopted by <br />3 Orange County mu nic"Wes which are outside of a municipality's land use planning jurisdiction will be presented for <br />4 consideration and adoption by Orange County. In thls way Orange County can classify the proposed thoroughfares <br />5 and then protect the rights- of-way for those thoroughfares that are consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. <br />6 <br />7 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS <br />a Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification about how the roads inside the municipal jurisdiction and the <br />9 roads in Orange County compare on the colored map. She asked if they were using the same definition. She asked <br />0 for clarification about how they would be used together with the municipal plan. <br />1 <br />2 Slade McCalip indicated that they were not using the some definitions. Chapel Hill and Carrboro use the <br />3 definitions in the wdsft plan and Hillsborough is using the States functional classification. DOT was responsible for <br />4 doing the classifications. some of which are teased on maintenance. A lot of the DOT roads in urban areas were <br />5 classified as major thoroupMaros which relate to arterial roads out in the County. He agreed that there was a change <br />6 at the Town boundaries but it is coordinated in this plan. He felt that using this designation would simplify <br />7 identification so that the same classification would be used throughout the county. This would not be a <br />88 Transportation Plan. It would help in the consideration and design when the traffic projects are identified next year. <br />0 Commissioner Gordon asked what Chapel Hill's classification was for Old Lystm Road. Slade indicated that <br />1 he would have to look at Chapel Hill's classification for that information. <br />2 <br />3 There was further discussion about specific roads. Slade McCalip stated that this plan was not intended to <br />4 direct traffic but rather to include how roads are actually being used. <br />5 <br />6 Commissioner Gordon pointed out MAN the system called for certain roads to be upgraded then that would <br />7 er1 —frage traffic. She mentioned that if the assumption was that Old Lystra.15 -501 and Smith Level are all at least <br />8 eolkdom. then in order to get around laterally you would have to classify Damascus Church Road . She requested <br />9 that additional considerAion be given to Damascus Church Road and Old Greensboro out to White Cross. <br />A <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.