Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 8/17/11 <br />1 <br />MEETING MINUTES 1 ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD REGULAR MEETING 2 JULY 20, 2011 3 <br /> 4 5 MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Cole Baker, Pedestrian Access & Safety Advocate; Julian (Randy) Marshall, Bingham Township; 6 <br />Alan Campbell, Planning Board Representative; Paul Guthrie, Chapel Hill Township; Dan Barker, Hillsborough Township; 7 <br />Annette Jurgelski, Eno Township; Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township; 8 9 10 MEMBERS ABSENT: Amy Cole, Transit Advocate; Jeff Charles, Bicycle Advocate; Renee Price, CFE Representative; 11 <br />Al Terry, Transportation Services Board; Economic Development Commission -Vacant; Cheeks Township - Vacant; 12 <br />Little River Township-Vacant; 13 <br /> 14 <br /> 15 <br />STAFF PRESENT: Karen Lincoln, Transportation Planner; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Tina Love, 16 <br />Administrative Assistant II 17 <br /> 18 <br /> 19 <br />I. Call to order 20 21 <br />Chair Nancy Baker called the meeting to order. 22 <br /> 23 24 <br />II. Consideration of additions to the agenda 25 <br /> 26 <br /> 27 <br />III. Approval of Minutes 28 <br /> 29 <br />The OUTBoard approved the May 18, 2011 minutes by affirmation. 30 <br />The OUTBoard approved the June 15, 2011 with change by affirmation. 31 <br /> 32 <br /> 33 <br />IV. UDO Amendment 34 <br /> 35 <br />Michael Harvey reviewed an abstract regarding a proposed amendment scheduled to go to the August quarterly public 36 <br />hearing adding additional language. He noted it basically states site plans will demonstrate compliance with County adopted 37 <br />access management and transportation connectivity plans; all projects requiring site plan approval will have to demonstrate 38 <br />compliance. He further explained this could be single use (permitted by right) non -residential (i.e. commercial or industrial) 39 <br />development, Special Use Permit application, Conditional Zoning District application, and Conditional Use Permit applications 40 <br />that require a site plan. Subdivisions are different as there is language within Article 7 of the UDO requiring subdivisions to 41 <br />comply with all plans and special studies adopted by the BOCC. Michael advised this amendment is an effort to broaden 42 <br />existing language to ensure that site plans approved by staff show all easements proposed by adopted plans and studies and 43 <br />the easements are preserved through the site plan approval process. Michael further noted this amendment will actually 44 <br />require people to demonstrate compliance with County adopted access management plans. In response to pedestrian 45 <br />connectivity Michael talked about Pedestrian Open Space Access (POSA) easements and how this provides multi-modal 46 <br />pedestrian access system within a development. 47 <br /> 48 <br />The OUTBoard endorsed the proposed amendments by consensus. 49 <br /> 50 <br /> 51 <br />V. Review of UDO regarding transportation issues 52 <br /> 53 <br />The OUTBoard continued its review of the proposed amendments to the parking regulations in the UDO. 54 <br /> 55