Browse
Search
Agenda - 03-04-2004-9a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2004
>
Agenda - 03-04-2004
>
Agenda - 03-04-2004-9a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/18/2011 9:58:13 AM
Creation date
4/18/2011 9:57:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
3/4/2004
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
9a
Document Relationships
ORD-2004-010 - PD-1-03 State Employees Credit Union Addition Rezoning & Class A Special Use Permit
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 2000-2009\2004
RES-2004-011 2004 Rate Order Resolution for Cable Services in Unincorporated Orange Co (2)
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Resolutions\2000-2009\2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
140
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
DRAFT <br />i0~ <br />Ronald Stevenson: The issue of the short leg was addressed with NCDOT and they replied that <br />as it is a full access now, by moving the intersection you would have competing turn lanes. <br />Theresa Nicole Graysmith: When the road expands, will there be a side walks there? <br />Ronald Stevenson: Yes, there will still be sidewalk. <br />Sam Lasris (to the staff): This is an economic development area, is there anything other than <br />Waterstone project coming in the future? <br />Craig Benedict: Besides the Waterstone project, 200-300 acres of non-residential areas and the <br />remaining houses that are on the Old 86 frontage strip have been designated economic <br />development district. This 100-foot right of way on 86 is an unfunded NCDOT project, which <br />means that it is 10+ years away. <br />Hunter Schofield: Why wasn't this traffic problem considered before? <br />Craig Benedict: When Chuck Edwards evaluates each situation, technical considerations he <br />makes deals with traffic at that time. That may be a consideration in the motion that might add a <br />traffic volume that might click on in 4-5 years. <br />Hunter Schofield: There is a concern about traffic volume increasing making the exchange more <br />dangerous than it is now. <br />Craufurd Goodwin: How can you continue track the volume when you don't what the traffic <br />volume is. <br />Craig Benedict: Traffic volume is registered for Old 86 now and the estimation is 8,000 or <br />9,000. <br />Barry Katz: What is the trigger if you do not enforce a right in/right out? What traffic volume <br />should it be triggered at? <br />Hunter Schofield: 25% more traffic than there is now. <br />Renee Price: You can determine volume but what if the design is not effective. <br />Hunter Schofield (to Renee Price): Are you concerned about the stacking on Oakdale? <br />Renee Price: Even getting in and out of the credit union onto 86. It may not be only the volume <br />that should be the criteria because I'm not sure it is as much volume as design. <br />Ronald Stevenson: Maybe instead of tying it into a daily traffic volume on 86, the trigger will be <br />the level of service from intersection to intersection, which is based on traffic volume. It <br />operates fine but in the future, with increased traffic volume on Old 86, the delay for the left turn <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.