Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
14 <br /> 1 Contains survey results and specific comments provided by the public. <br /> 2 <br /> 3 A summary of key planning areas and responses to public comments are provided below. Also <br /> 4 see Attachment 1, Public Questions & Comments. <br /> 5 o West of West Ten Road and east of Mebane city limits. <br /> 6 • Plan updated to avoid multiple stream crossings. <br /> 7 • Intersection locations updated and requiring additional study. <br /> 8 o Railroad crossings in Efland — Efland-Cedar Grove Road to Mt. Willing Road. <br /> 9 • Plan not changed; carry forward from original adopted 2011 E-B-M AMP. <br /> 10 • Key crossing identified by staff requiring additional study. <br /> 11 • NCDOT requests Orange County conduct feasibility study through MPO. <br /> 12 o Turner Street Extension through Center Street residential area. <br /> 13 • Plan not changed; carry forward from original adopted 2011 E-B-M AMP. <br /> 14 • Property zoned Local Commercial; LIDO Section 3.4.10 requires property "have <br /> 15 • direct access to a street classified either as an arterial or collector". <br /> 16 • Provide access to land locked parcels west of residential neighborhood. <br /> 17 o US-70 and Preston Loop Subdivision <br /> 18 • Plan not changed; carry forward from original adopted 2011 E-B-M AMP. <br /> 19 • No recommendations on US-70 or through Preston Loop Subdivision. <br /> 20 <br /> 21 Appendix C of the plan provides comprehensive documentation of all public involvement <br /> 22 activities throughout the planning process. <br /> 23 <br /> 24 Planning Board Review- September 5, 2018 <br /> 25 Planning Board began reviewing the Draft E-B-M AMP. Following are key highlights from its <br /> 26 initial review: <br /> 27 o What is planned for the area, where will development occur, and will County take property <br /> 28 for roads? <br /> 29 • The AMP is similar to the Future Land Use Map; it expresses a vision, has no financial <br /> 30 component, and is achieved over an indefinite time period. <br /> 31 • The plan gives the County legal standing to request right-of-way dedication during the <br /> 32 development review process. If development does not occur, neither do new roads. <br /> 33 o Who contracted the study (2017 Transportation Study)? <br /> 34 • The County funded the study and contracted it out to Volkert, Inc. <br /> 35 o Does it include alternative transportation such as cyclists and pedestrians? <br /> 36 • Yes, the 2017 Transportation Study recommended 3 of NCDOT's standard street cross <br /> 37 • sections. Each includes either a 5-foot sidewalk or wide paved shoulder or both. <br /> 38 <br /> 39 OUTBoard Review- September 19, 2018 <br /> 40 The OUTBoard received the Draft E-B-M AMP for review. Following are key highlights from its <br /> 41 initial review. <br /> 42 o What about multimodal travel? <br /> 43 The recommended NCDOT approved standard street cross sections include either a <br /> 44 sidewalk or wide paved shoulders. Some include both. <br /> 45 o Bicycle safety needs to be included in the scope of the project. <br /> 46 The street cross sections address Bicycle and Pedestrian safety by including 5-foot <br /> 47 sidewalks and/or wide paved shoulders. The plan does not include specific road <br /> 48 design/engineering but does accommodate sufficient right-of-way in several cases for <br /> 49 future bicycle and pedestrian improvements. <br />