Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
145 <br /> • <br /> location of driveways along major roadways, <br /> reducing conflicts between through traffic and <br /> turning vehicles, and maintaining the safety <br /> and traffic carrying capacity of major <br /> streets . <br /> Szymik stated that the basis of the amendment <br /> is to change some of the terminology in <br /> Section IV paragraph 8 both to strengthen the <br /> amount of control that can be placed on the <br /> location of driveways and to change some of <br /> the terminology so that it is more consistent <br /> with other planning documents with regard to <br /> development control in Orange County. (Copy <br /> of proposed amendments as attachment pages <br /> of these minutes) . <br /> Eddleman asked what the controlling document <br /> was for the traffic volume used. Szymik <br /> responded that the number of 5000 vehicles per <br /> day was derived by the level of service as <br /> indicated for level of service C by NCDOT. <br /> Best indicated that he felt a count of 5000 <br /> was too high and noted he would like for it to <br /> be lowered to 3000. He expressed concern with <br /> the difficulties of getting up-to-date traffic <br /> counts. <br /> Eddleman expressed concern with those roads on <br /> which no traffic count was available and <br /> possible future development would be <br /> requested. He continued that selecting a <br /> lower number could possibly help alleviate <br /> such a problem. <br /> Yuhasz indicated that there is a proposal <br /> before the Ordinance Review Committee to <br /> require a traffic analysis on projects of a <br /> certain level or those projects where the <br /> concerns would justify a traffic study. <br /> There was much discussion about volume and how <br /> to define traffic volume with the majority of <br /> the Board being uncomfortable with any par- <br /> ticular number being chosen as a base for <br /> number of vehicle trips per day. <br /> Kramer noted that he felt that traffic counts <br /> were often incorrect due to the locations at <br /> which they were taken. With the Board so <br /> concerned about traffic counts, he felt this <br /> amendment was not ready for a vote. <br /> MOTION : Eddleman moved approval with deletion of artd <br /> when the arterial pr collector that the <br /> • U .• - . - . 10 # - . <br />