Browse
Search
Agenda - 08-21-1990
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1990
>
Agenda - 08-21-1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/1/2017 4:10:58 PM
Creation date
11/1/2017 4:06:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
8/21/1990
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
216
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
25 <br />[7 <br />Waddell expressed concern that the Traffic Impact <br />Analysis is just another entanglement that the <br />developer must deal with, and it will not make <br />Orange County an attractive place for good <br />economic development. Collins responded that the <br />Planning Staff is not opposed to development, <br />particularly economic development which will <br />benefit the County. He noted that the fiscal <br />impact analysis had indicated that residential <br />development alone cannot support the school <br />system. He stressed the fact that, even though <br />there is an expense involved in a Traffic Impact <br />Study, it is a study that is needed if a <br />determination is to be made of major impacts. <br />Collins continued, citing Churton Street as a <br />perfect example of why Traffic.Impact Studies are <br />needed. He noted that too much reliance is <br />placed on NCDOT to make massive corrections after <br />development and traffic problems have already <br />occurred. <br />The cost of a Traffic Impact Study was discussed. <br />Larry Meisner, Kimley -Horn consultant, stated <br />that the cost for a TIS is $3,000.00 to <br />$5,000.00. He indicated that the profit a <br />developer makes on a subdivision would far <br />outweigh the cost of the TIS. Meisner continued <br />that the recommended modifications in the <br />ordinance are to insure that the right things are <br />being done as development occurs in order to <br />improve the quality of life and traffic in the <br />area. This includes improvements which insure <br />adequate capacity for road; turn lanes, and <br />proper location for driveways. He continued that <br />he views the TIS as a decision- making and <br />information tool for the County. <br />Best stated that the TIS should be viewed as <br />part of the entire transportation package. The <br />TAS feels that the County can become more <br />involved in the Transportation Improvement <br />Program with the State. The TIS will help in <br />requesting funds from the State for needed <br />improvements. In the long term, all of this is <br />designed to try to provide a better <br />transportation network. <br />Reid expressed concern with the possibility of a <br />developer investing in a TIS and then losing that <br />investment due to the inability to complete the <br />project because of disapproval or additional <br />costs. Collins responded by explaining again the <br />situations whereby a TIS would be required. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.