OUTBoard minutes 052108 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 6/18/08 Page 2 of 2 Tillman asked where private transportation providers are included in the CTP. Guthrie stated that private transportation 55 providers are part of the public transportation system. Alavi agreed. Lincoln stated that the maps are for planned 56 infrastructure and where service would be provided, and does not designate the service providers. Both private transportation 57 providers and “public” transportation systems would serve those needs. 58 59 Guthrie asked if it is legitimate to include the means of transportation as opposed to infrastructure for transportation in the 60 CTP. Alavi indicated that it is legitimate. 61 62 Grossman asked if facilities like the proposed Mountains to Sea Trail would be included. Alavi responded that those facilities 63 should be included. 64 65 Alavi stated that local jurisdictions must have a current land use plan that has been adopted (or updated) in the past five 66 years, or be in the process of developing or updating a land use plan in order for NCDOT to work with the area to develop a 67 CTP. 68 69 Lasris asked how NCDOT projected future conditions for areas that are currently undergoing change, i.e. Buckhorn and Eno 70 EDDs). Alavi stated that the projections are based on current land use plans, that’s why the local area must have a recent 71 land use vision before NCDOT undertakes assisting with the development of a CTP. 72 73 Lasris asked how soon NCDOT could assist Orange County with development of a CTP. Alavi indicated that staff should talk 74 with NCDOT and NCDOT would assign a staff person to work with the county as soon as possible, which would be in at least 75 6 months. Strong noted that the 6-month timeframe is inconsistent with NCDOT’s previously stated availability for this project 76 to the Triangle Rural Planning Organization. Alavi said that keeping staff has been an ongoing problem with the NCDOT. 77 78 VI. Draft Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 79 80 The board expressed dissatisfaction with the draft Transportation Element, noting that its comments had been included as an 81 appendix and were not evident in the element itself. Tillman noted that the draft does not include private transportation 82 providers as the OUTBoard had submitted in comments. Mittendorf noted that the draft did not include a pedestrian goal. 83 84 Guthrie reiterated that the draft is not forward looking and does not present a vision based on climate change and other 85 factors that should be addressed. He asked if the OUTBoard could write its own Transportation Element and take that to the 86 Board of County Commissioners. He stated that the June 4 deadline to get comment to the Planning Board does not allow 87 enough time to address all the issues. 88 89 Baker stated that the board should talk with Commissioner Gordon to let her know the board’s concerns and how to proceed. 90 The board agreed and asked staff to inquire of Commissioner Gordon for 2-3 dates and times she would be available. The 91 board members will respond as to their availability and staff will arrange a meeting. 92 93 VII. Future Agenda Items 94 95 Baker stated that the board should go forward with all the things it has been discussing and suggested that the board divide 96 into several groups to study the various issues. Smith said that the Commission for the Environment has such 97 subcommittees and it also has break out sessions at meetings for the committees to work on items. 98 99 Baker suggested that staff make a list of priorities land divide those into appropriate groups for the next meeting. Marsha ll 100 suggested using the CTP components to develop a work schedule for next year. The group agreed by consensus. 101 102 VIII. Adjournment 103 104 MOTION made by Marshall to adjourn. Seconded by Guthrie. 105 VOTE: Unanimous 106 _________________________ Sam Lasris, Chair