Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
19 <br /> 1 Max Bushell said there is a link to interactive maps in the Board's packets. <br /> 2 Commissioner Jacobs said he is looking at Attachment 3. <br /> 3 Max Bushell said he included the maps in Attachment 3 as a sample of the type of <br /> 4 information that is presented in the document. He said 1-40 is a major project statement, and <br /> 5 he only included minor ones. He said there is additional information. <br /> 6 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a link to that information. <br /> 7 Max Bushell said yes, it is on page 3 under "next steps". He said there is a link to major <br /> 8 project statements in the packet as well. <br /> 9 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the person who prepared the verbiage in Attachment 3 <br /> 10 could be identified. <br /> 11 Max Bushell said the previous person in his position did so. <br /> 12 Commissioner Jacobs asked if these are subject to refinement or is this the final word. <br /> 13 Max Bushell said they can be refined. <br /> 14 Commissioner Jacobs pointed out some inconsistencies: <br /> 15 - 1-40 to the Durham County line, "to relieve anticipated congestion;" <br /> 16 many would say this is already congested. <br /> 17 - South Churton street: he said it would be good to have the specific <br /> 18 vehicle count <br /> 19 - Eno Moutain Rd/Mayo St/Orange Grove Rd intersection: this does <br /> 20 not refer to the new development that has just opened at the corner of <br /> 21 Eno Mt Rd and Orange Grove, nor does it refer to the 1,000 unit <br /> 22 proposed Collins Ridge development <br /> 23 - Eubanks Road: this makes no mention of Duke Forest <br /> 24 Chair Dorosin asked if the appropriate method for getting Commissioner Jacobs' <br /> 25 comments into the record could be identified. <br /> 26 Staff said to provide them with a copy of Commissioner Jacobs' comments, and the <br /> 27 changes will be made. <br /> 28 Commissioner Price referred to the verbiage portion on page 38 with regards to NC 54, <br /> 29 and noted it says at bottom, "Orange County recommends a four lane divided cross section for <br /> 30 this facility". She said the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) opposed the <br /> 31 widening of this section of 54, in order to go along with Carrboro's traffic improvements, and <br /> 32 push public transportation with more bus lanes. <br /> 33 Max Bushell said this was written before he was here. <br /> 34 Staff said this change will be made, but the MPO is going to do a study of NC-54 from <br /> 35 Carrboro out to 1-40, and this should hopefully answer some of these questions, such as does <br /> 36 54 need to be widened, are additional lanes needed, etc. <br /> 37 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Burlington-Graham MPO is involved in this. <br /> 38 Max Bushell answered yes. <br /> 39 Commissioner Price referred to page 42, NC highway 86, and said if this is referring to <br /> 40 new highway 86, there is bus service on this road all the way to Cedar Grove. <br /> 41 Max Bushell said he would add in this information. <br /> 42 Chair Dorosin said the public comment period closes on February 24th, and Board <br /> 43 members should send comments to the Manager prior to February 21st. <br /> 44 Chair Dorosin referred to the CTP Footnote issue, and asked if the incorporation of the <br /> 45 footnote allows for the donation of right of ways in streets below minor thoroughfare. <br /> 46 Max Bushell said yes. <br /> 47 <br /> 48 9. County Manager's Report <br /> 49 Bonnie Hammersley reported on the upcoming 2/16 work session items. <br /> 50 <br />