Morrisville Planning and Zoning Board Advisory Board/Committee November 9, 2017, 6:30 PM
1.
Call to Order
2.
Invocation
3.
Adoption of Agenda
4.
Approval of Minutes
5.
6.
4.a.
PZB September Draft Work Session Minutes 2017.09.21 PZB September Draft Work Session Minutes 09.21.2017.pdf
4.b.
PZB October Draft Minutes 2017.10.12 PZB Draft October Minutes 10.12.2017.pdf
Presentations 5.a.
Service Award Presentation - Esther Dunnegan
5.b.
New Employee Introduction: Dylan Bruchhaus - Transportation Planner
5.c.
Unified Development Ordinance - General Overview Courtney Tanner, Planning Director UDO Overview.pdf
Old Business - Public Comment - Please approach the microphone and state your name, community role and address.
Individual comments are limited to 3 minutes. A spokesperson for a group is limited to 6 minutes. Note that one public comment session may be continued through several meetings and speakers may present only once unless authorized by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Page 1
6.a.
Draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update Ben Howell, Long Range Planning Manager Briefing & Public Comment: September 14 Public Comment Session and Work Session: September 21 Public Comment Session & Discussion: October 12 Public Comment Session & Discussion: November 9 Next Meeting: December 14 2017-222-0 ATTH 01 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update-September 25 2017 Draft 2017-222-0 ATTH 02 Board, Council and Staff Comments Compiled by Consultant 2017-222-0 ATTH 03 Public Comments Received Through 7am on November 2, 2017
7.
Old Business - None
8.
New Business - Public Comment - None
9.
New Business 9.a.
Sign Code Update Michele Stegall, Current Planning Manager Key Issues Report.pdf
9.b.
Adoption of 2018 Meeting Schedule Courtney Tanner, Planning Director 2018 PLANNING ZONING BOARD SCHEDULE.pdf
9.c.
2018 Chair and Vice Chair Appointment Recommendations Courtney Tanner, Planning Director
10. Staff Comments 10.a.
October 2017 Planning Newsletter 2017_10_Oct.pdf
11. Planning and Zoning Board Comments 12. Upcoming Term Expirations - None 13. Upcoming Events - Visit http://www.townofmorrisville.org/calendar.apax to learn more about upcoming Town events 14. Adjournment - Thank you for attending this meeting. We hope you plan to join us again!
Page 2
Planning and Zoning Board Agenda Item Report Agenda Item No. 2017-325-0 Submitted by: Marty Saunders Submitting Department Planning Meeting Date: November 9, 2017
SUBJECT PZB September Draft Work Session Minutes 2017.09.21 Recommendation:
Updates/History of Briefing: Not Applicable Executive Summary and Background Information: Not Applicable Potential Options: Not Applicable Staff Recommendation: Not Applicable ATTACHMENTS PZB September Draft Work Session Minutes 09.21.2017.pdf
Planning and Zoning Board Comprehensive Transportation Plan Work Session September 21, 2017 at 6:30 pm WORK SESSION MINUTES 1.
Call to Order
Chairman Peter Prichard called the meeting to order at 6:36 pm.
Attendance
Board members present for the meeting were: Chairman Peter Prichard Vice-Chairman Craig Groce Member Harlean Botha Member Vinnie Goel Member Rob Taylor, Alternate Board members absent from the meeting were: Member Lee Langston, Alternate Staff members present for the meeting were: Courtney Tanner, Planning Director Benjamin Howell, Long Range Planning Manager Michele Stegall, Current Planning Manager Marty Saunders, Secretary to the Board
2.
Adoption of the Agenda
3.
Public Comment: Draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update
Motion: Member Groce made a motion to approve the September 21, 2017 agenda. Member Botha seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
No one came forward to speak. The public comment session was held open to the October 12 th meeting.
4.
Work Session: Draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan Benjamin Howell, Long Range Planning Manager, informed the Planning and Zoning Board that the goal of the work session was to bring back a revised Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) for public comment at the October 12, 2017 meeting. Ideally, the outcome of the October meeting would be to send an updated CTP along a recommendation to Town Council. Ms. Fluitt, consultant with Kimley-Horn, noted that the CTP is noted as draft in every section and that dates for the maps indicating when they were produced will be added. For chapter one, the outstanding comment was regarding the Guiding Principles statement that was related to Growth & Development, and the order of the words in the statement. 100 Town Hall Drive | Morrisville, NC 27560 | P: 919.463.6200 | F: 919.481.2907 | to wnofmorrisville.org
Member Groce questioned the order of the words of the opening statement. He did not believe the intent of the CTP is to drive land use development. He felt the Land Use Plan should take precedence over transportation. Member Taylor suggested “Make travel more efficient by complementing the transportation investments with land use decisions”. Member Groce felt that this was integrating the two key factors. Mr. Howell suggested that replacing the word “with” for “and” might clarify the two issues. There was Board consensus on that change. Member Groce also felt the phrasing of the 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence of page one needed adjusting. Member Botha suggested “laymen’s” as an alternative to “common” English. Member Botha requested that a Glossary be added to the CTP. Chairman Prichard noted that Airport Boulevard, which is shown as “Construct New Roadway” on the map on page 1-3 needs to be corrected. Member Groce added that Morrisville Parkway, between railroad overpass and NC54, is also shown on the map as “Construct New Roadway,” which is incorrect. Ms. Fluitt also brought to the PZB’s attention the addition of Appendix C. The better addresses Public Engagement. There were also comments added to Chapter Two as a result of the Council meeting. More comparisons with Wake County were requested, on the population and employment side. Mayor Stohlman requested clarity on who was maintaining what roadways within the Town. The number of Amtrak trains was corrected. Member Botha had a question about the “vacant 21%” on the land use on page 2-3. How much of that land was airport overlay? Mr. Howell further explained that vacant illustrated on 2-6 currently means there is no building on a piece of property at this time. Member Groce asked if Wake Tech and the coming Parkside Elementary could be added to Figure 2-2. Mr. Howell replied that Parkside Elementary could be added. K-12 would better identify the type of school. He was trying to determine the appropriate classification for Wake Tech. Perhaps Wake Tech could be under an icon for Public Community Colleges. Member Taylor explained that schools such as Wake Tech will definitely impact traffic at different times each day. Member Groce thought there was more recent data about major roadways on Table 2-5 than 2013. Mr. Howell said the 2015 data could be used and it would be fairly easy to update Tables 2-5 and Figure 2-16. Member Groce had a question about Figure 2-21 regarding the length of the Davis Drive bicycle facility. Will it run all the way to Parkside Valley Drive? Mr. Howell stated that it does now, but will not be extended. Member Groce asked that “Amtrak” be removed from page 2-24, 2nd paragraph, line 3 to simply read “Twelve passenger trains”.
Planning & Zoning Board September 21, 2017
Page 2 of 6
Member Groce brought up the cost benefit ratio that NCDOT uses to determine their priority program for funding. This relates to the intersection of Crabtree Crossing having an impact on NC54. Ms. Fluitt clarified that this references Crabtree Crossing Parkway’s impact on NC54. She brought up this being the perfect opportunity to take a more in-depth look at this within the framework of the Travel Demand Model, specifically using the Select Link Analysis. A model run was conducted with the extension, and one without extension, to look at the impact on peak period travel on the links of Town Hall Drive at Morrisville-Carpenter Road and section of Crabtree Crossing Parkway, south of Morrisville Parkway. The model outcome identified total additional trips during am and pm peak travel times in 2040. The model looks at speed, but not factoring in the presence of traffic control treatment in the section on Preston. A lower speed limit would affect the outcome. Member Taylor suggested that the speed limit be lowered to lower the number of trips made in a neighborhood, such as Preston. Mr. Howell added that in considering the smaller connectors, we had to be cautious about applying the model perspective. The benefit of these connectors is one more way to get around Morrisville, and stay off major roads. The model is a good way to look at traffic from a regional perspective, but not to draw the regional traffic. Mr. Howell also brought up an issue identified by Council about emergency responses and the relationship with connectors. He will contact the Fire Department before the next PZB meeting. Fire and Police look at response time from the station to the location. This could mean there may be a need for a new fire station due to traffic. Director Tanner explained that the advantage to having road, greenways, etc. in the Plan is that it allows the Town to seek funding. It is also required infrastructure improvement when property is development. If it is not on the Plan, outside funding is likely not available and private development is not required to construct. Mr. Howell added that the majority of comments from the public, regarding Millicent were in favor of a greenway or a walking path. Two comments supported the road connection. The other connection that has had comments in opposition is Green Drive, at the end of Clements and Green. Chairman Prichard wanted to use Crabtree Crossing Extension as an example. If the Board knew that the majority of the traffic that would use that extension would actually be going to Park West Village or someplace else. That kind of information about travel patterns would be important. Mr. Howell explained that for these connectors Kimley-Horn was able to run some numbers about Crabtree Crossing Parkway. Ultimately, it would be a policy decision from the Council regarding whether some of these connectors stay in the Plan or not. Member Groce brought to NC 54 to the forefront and suggested it be split into 2 action plans instead of one. Ms. Fluitt stated that Kimley-Horn has clarified Table 3-3 regarding the recommended thoroughfare improvements. This would address projects that were funded vs. not funded. The request was to identify the projects “to be” funded. The street design guide has also been cleaned up. Also, the rural designation has been removed from Table 3-2. Council has questions about prioritization scores; and therefore, removed the weighting in the Plan. Planning & Zoning Board September 21, 2017
Page 3 of 6
Member Groce just wanted to be sure that the public understands that all recommendations in the Plan are data driven. The consultants grouped projects into near, mid, and long term. The document is still at a higher policy level. Language could be added regarding the prioritization process and how it relates to the underpinning of funding. Member Taylor questioned the local vs. state prioritization process. Another project brought up at the Council Workshop was the Morrisville-Carpenter/NC 54 grade separation. There was not a lot of discussion, just attention to the issue. The comment related to the background data as to how the prioritization was made. The Council did not weigh heavily as to whether or not it be included in the plan. Council wanted to focus our prioritization of the local level, the Town does want to mimic some of CAMPO and NCDOT prioritization. Then if a project scores well and then it could move up on the list for justify potential funding. Chairman Prichard said leaving the grade separation out of the plan was the consensus. Mr. Howell said language could be added that talks about the prioritization process that does underpin the whole State funding. One problem with not having it in the plan is that NCDOT could come back with the project and the Town would lose some leverage. It was then added that NCDOT contracts out a consultant to reprioritize and re-do the data for every single project that the Town submits for STIP funding. A policy statement could be made to address a specific grade separation, due to the other grade separations around this location. Director Tanner suggested that there could be a consensus regarding intersection improvements being needed at the Aviation/Morrisville-Carpenter/NC 54. A suggestion could be to evaluate all options including at-grade options, lighting options or some other improvement. There still needs to be more attention to the intersection improvements, and typical enhancements such as signal or turn lanes. A caveat would be added regarding further engineering studies being needed. Member Taylor wanted to know if the priorities align with existing zoning and the Future Land Use Plan along the major transit routes. Member Goel asked about the grade separations at McCrimmon Parkway and Airport Boulevard at NC 54. He wanted to know what the priority is for each project by NCDOT. Mr. Howell answered that the McCrimmon Parkway is funded and committed. Airport Boulevard is being submitted in the NCDOT prioritization process that is getting ready to start. Airport Boulevard and Aviation Parkway were both submitted by CAMPO. It comes back to the point of making a policy recommendation. Ms. Fluitt expanded on Mr. Howell’s comments by adding the choices for Aviation/ NC 54 intersection recommendations: at the current location to improve safety, intersection improvements at a re-aligned location, intersection improvements in general, or advocate for the grade separation. Member Goel wanted to know what the frequency of train trips would be. If the numbers are planned to increase, that information should go in the Plan. Mr. Howell clarified that there will only be commuter rail in Wake County, not light rail. Planning & Zoning Board September 21, 2017
Page 4 of 6
Member Botha said that the Town still needs more options regarding the grade separations. Mr. Howell stated that the consultants need guidance on grade separations. Should the consultant prepare something that states that with the information currently available, suitable needs must be demonstrated or more suitable alternatives identified to the Board for a grade separation. There was consensus among the PZB member to prepare such language that addresses the current history and a recommendation to evaluate all options. Goals could be included in the form of recommendations. Chairman Prichard said that the statement could go back to the two Guiding Statements regarding Culture & Environment and Safety & Security. Member Taylor does feel that people in the community are concerned with transportation issues and talk has been generated. Chairman Prichard wanted to know if there were any comments on the connection on Grace Point Road. It did not come up Tuesday night, but one council member had previously stated that if that 147 extension were to be built, he would want to see more connectivity in this area. Mr. Howell also added that Marcom Drive was in the Plan since part of it is through the Wake Tech campus. It would be built between Wadkins Road and Paramount Parkway. There was consensus among the PZB to remove the Green Drive and Clements connection. Member Groce had a different opinion since two cul-de-sacs would be removed. The consensus ruled. Pedestrian or bicycle connections could possibly be made between the two neighborhoods in conjunction with future development. There was some clarification that there should be wide outside lanes along Morrisville-Carpenter. Also, there was a note that neighborhood connectors should include connections for pedestrians that could take the look of a greenway or sidewalk section. Changes were made to Table 4-2, on page 4-7, centered on the funding partners and making sure the potential funding was identified. In the revised version of the CTP, everything was added from the Wake Transit Plan to the transit map in the Plan for more clarification. There was also a potential secondary TOD location added east of NC 54 to add future enhanced connectivity to Wake Tech. A paragraph was added to Chapter 5 regarding electric vehicles and charging stations. The table of Near Term projects was cleaned up to remove McCrimmon Parkway, which was a committed project. Member Groce suggested that the word “Completion” be changed to “Implementation” in the 3rd sentence of the Introduction to Chapter 5. He also pointed out the word “patchwork” under Funding Opportunities needs to be changed. In the same sentence, it is not clear what “the receipt of private contributions” means. Mr. Howell stated that “development contributions” could be substituted. Member Groce added that under Action Plan, the second sentence wording needs to be strengthened. The first sentence under Policy Measures needs changes to reflect the competitive nature of these decisions, rather than tension.
5. Adjournment
Motion: Member Groce made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Member Botha seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
Planning & Zoning Board September 21, 2017
Page 5 of 6
The meeting adjourned at 9:42 p.m.
______________________ Peter Prichard, Planning and Zoning Board Chair
_______________________ Marty Saunders, Secretary to the Board
______________________ Date
_______________________ Date
Planning & Zoning Board September 21, 2017
Page 6 of 6
Planning and Zoning Board Agenda Item Report Agenda Item No. 2017-365-0 Submitted by: Marty Saunders Submitting Department Planning Meeting Date: November 9, 2017
SUBJECT PZB October Draft Minutes 2017.10.12 Recommendation:
Updates/History of Briefing: No applicable Executive Summary and Background Information: Not applicable Potential Options: None Staff Recommendation: Not applicable ATTACHMENTS PZB Draft October Minutes 10.12.2017.pdf
Planning and Zoning Board October 12, 2017 at 6:30 pm
MINUTES Attendance Board members present for the meeting were: Chairman Peter Prichard Vice-Chairman Craig Groce Member Harlean Botha Member Rob Taylor, Alternate Member Lee Langston, Alternate Board members absent for the meeting were: Member Vinnie Goel Staff members present for the meeting were: Courtney Tanner, Planning Director Benjamin Howell, Long Range Planning Manager Michele Stegall, Current Planning Manager Eliot Ward, Planner I Marty Saunders, Secretary to the Board 1.
Call to Order Chairman Peter Prichard called the meeting to order at 6:35 pm.
2.
Invocation Member Groce opened the meeting with the invocation.
3.
Adoption of Agenda MOTION: Member Botha made a motion to adopt the October 12, 2017 agenda. Member Groce seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Chairman Prichard determined that Alternate Member Taylor was the voting member due to the absence of Member Goel.
4.
Approval of Minutes MOTION: Member Langston made a motion to approve the September 14, 2017 meeting minutes. Member Groce seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Due to limited review time, action on the Planning and Zoning Board Work Session Minutes from the September 21, 2017 meeting were deferred until the November 9, 2017 meeting.
5.
Presentations None 100 Town Hall Drive | Morrisville, NC 27560 | P: 919.463.6200 | F: 919.481.2907 | to wnofmorrisville.org
6.
Public Address None
7.
Public Comment Session - Old Business 2017-222-0: Draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update Continued from September 14, 2017 meeting} Benjamin Howell, Long Range Planning Manager gave the Planning and Zoning Board a brief presentation on the process. This included an overview of the tentative schedule and more information on the draft plan received. He also described the public comment portal located on the Transportation Plan Update website. Total comments received to date were 132. The public can continue to provide comments through the portal, and an updated spreadsheet will be provided in the next meeting packet. The portal will close once the Planning and Zoning Board public comment session is closed, which is tentatively scheduled for November 9, 2017. The final draft is tentatively scheduled to be brought before the Board for recommendation at the December meeting and the Board’s recommendation will be forwarded to Town Council. Chairman Prichard then opened the floor for public comments at 6:45 pm. a. Karen Butler of 1204 Village Market Place #201, Morrisville, NC came forward to oppose the Crabtree Crossing extension. She showed a brief video and stated that Crabtree Crossing is a residential road not a connector or a thoroughfare, even by the transportation consultants own definition. The video was made at 4:00 pm Wednesday the 11th, with the exception of the video of the garbage collection on Monday the 9th, and she believes the video depicts the typical use of the road. It shows garbage collection on Monday, school bus stops, mail deliveries, bike paths, and golf cart usage. There are no pass zones in this neighborhood. b. Fran Salman of 1208 Crabtree Crossing Parkway, Morrisville, NC spoke against the Crabtree Crossing extension. She indicated that Crabtree Crossing Parkway, between Morrisville Parkway and Cary Parkway, is approximately 2 miles long. In that 2 miles, there are 13 speed bumps, 3 golf cart crossings and 11 spaces between medians for people to take u-turns to access driveways and it has a 25 mph speed limit. The street is a typical neighborhood street. Diverting traffic from thoroughfares would fundamentally change the character of the neighborhood. Traffic problems occurred during the construction of the elevated railway over Morrisville Parkway. In-coming traffic did not respect the speed limits or stop signs and traffic was regularly backed up. Crabtree Crossing cannot handle the altered traffic through the neighborhood that he believes will result if this connection is constructed c. Larry Creglow, of 125 Bending Oak Way, Morrisville, NC. He stated that heavy traffic affects Crabtree Crossing and Preston Grande Way. He too is opposed to the Crabtree Crossing extension. He thought the issue was resolved in the 2009 Plan update. The resolution at the time was to build a bicycle path, which has yet to be constructed. It was determined to be a “local” road and the reasons to keep it that way continue. The construction of the railway overpass proved that traffic will find the local roads to use as a cut through. The traffic was often at a standstill. Through traffic was dangerous. The problems seem to be tied to commuter traffic. He went on to add that due to the constrained geography, he believed that the priority should be to continue to improve NC54 and Davis Drive to move
Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2017
Page 2 of 10
commuter traffic. The next priority would be to improve neighborhood mobility and accessibility. A neighborhood road should not be turned into a collector. d. Alan Knuckles of 105 Bending Oak Way, Morrisville, NC. He stated he was the Preston Community Association (PCA) president. In the aftermath of the overpass construction, his number one concern is safety. The next issue is, a result of today’s technology, sending traffic to the shortest routes possible through a neighborhood, a community instead of a major thoroughfare like Davis Drive and NC 54. As the President of the PCA, he read into the record a statement from his association regarding their opposition to the Crabtree Crossing extension proposed in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. They believe that effects on the Preston community far outweigh the potential benefits. They urged the removal of the Crabtree Crossing extension as a connector to Town Hall Drive from the Plan. It is recommended that it remain a greenway as it was approved in 2009 Transportation Plan. e. Tony Owen of 749 Crabtree Crossing Parkway, Cary, NC. Mr. Owen, President of Preston Falls Villas Homeowners Association, asked the residents of his association to stand so the Board could see the number of concerned citizens present. By converting Crabtree Crossing into a thoroughfare, the residents are concerned about the character of their neighborhood. Crabtree Crossing was designed as a collector street and not designed to handle the type of traffic coming off 147. Commuter traffic is the number one issue. A number of improvements to roads such as NC54, from Cary to Durham, or Aviation Parkway could serve as alternatives. He also brought up technology affecting the movement of traffic. f. Laura Toombs of 613 Crabtree Crossing Parkway, Cary, NC. She agreed with all the speakers before her. She had lived in New York City and Los Angeles, CA. Residential roads are never a solution to commercial problems. She specifically brought up Hayvenhurst Avenue in Encino, CA and the problems that resulted from re-routing traffic through a residential neighborhood. She believes that NC 54 is what needs to be fixed. g. Lisa Riegel, of 104 Grey Bridge Row, Cary, NC. She said to connect Crabtree Crossing to 147 and 540 would be a bad idea. Ultimately, it was supposed to be part of the greenway, and that would better serve the community as an internal connector for bikes and walkers. h. Gary Yarbrough of 121 Bending Oak Way, Morrisville, NC. He indicated that he was in agreement with the prior comments made. He wanted to add that all the streets aren’t Crabtree Crossing with the barriers. The other streets, Ridge Creek, Preston Grande Way, and others, are residential streets with garages facing the street. Safety issues arose during the detour when people had to back their cars onto these roads. Crossing those streets at the stop signs was also difficult. i. Terry Lohman of 745 Crabtree Crossing Parkway, Cary, NC. He wanted to emphasize that the upgrade to the railway has proved that commuters will cut through neighborhoods. He believes the problem is with NC54. He too opposes the Crabtree Crossing extension. j. Renee Troy of 762 Crabtree Crossing Parkway, Cary, NC. Due to the work done on Morrisville Parkway in 2015, drivers were encouraged to use a 25 mph speed limit on Crabtree Crossing Parkway to Cary Parkway. Increased traffic, excessive speeding, and illegal passing resulted. The extension would make a previously temporary problem into a permanent one. Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2017
Page 3 of 10
k. Barry D’Amour of 1001 Kelton Cottage Way, Morrisville, NC. He represented the 27 homes in the Kelton Square Condominium Association, which borders on Crabtree Crossing. From a safety perspective, the added traffic would be a burden to the community. The 8.5 million cost is another issue. l. Ruth Dobson-Torres of 100 Pember Place, Cary, NC. She and her husband are adamantly opposed to the Crabtree Crossing extension. She believes that it would encourage a new commuter and commercial thoroughfare due to new driver technology. She believes that traffic congestion will occur, as it did during the Morrisville Parkway grade separation. She also believes that it will negatively impact property values. m. Ron Woodard of 208 Lewiston Court, Cary, NC. He strongly opposed the Town Hall Drive and Crabtree Crossing extension. He is opposed to the cut-thru traffic to Cary Parkway that will result. He believed that Crabtree Crossing is not designed to serve as a thoroughfare and Cary would not benefit from the connection. This will benefit commuters from RTP. n. Jim Matzko of 106 Hampton Pines Drive, Morrisville, NC. His main concern is the decrease in property values of their homes if the connection is made to NC147 and the Triangle Expressway. In 2009, he was assured that Crabtree Crossing was a safety issue for fire protection. This proposal included making it into a greenway with a bridge for fire truck access. o. Margaret Broadwell of 109 Stella Court, Morrisville, NC. Ms. Broadwell introduced herself as a former mayor, councilwoman, and Planning and Zoning Board member. She presented a petition from the Greenwood subdivision objecting to connecting Green and Clements Drive. The petition stated that the project was a waste of money, a safety issue and would create traffic congestion. She would like the present Town Council to maintain the 2009 Transportation Plan decision to remove the connection. p. Wayne Love of 760 Crabtree Crossing Parkway, Cary, NC. He remembers when NC 54 had about the same amount of traffic as Crabtree Crossing does today. He stated that NC 54 needs to be upgraded. The grade crossings over the railroad will make a difference. q. Charlie Wynne of 1164 Crabtree Crossing Parkway, Morrisville, NC. He too opposes the extension of Crabtree Crossing. He added that, speeding in the neighborhood has been presented as the number one problem. Police have been present in the past to monitor traffic and safety issues. He felt the proposed extension only serves commuters and not the community. r. Patty Cheng of 304 Millet Drive, Morrisville, NC. She stated that there are a couple of multimillion dollar projects that have never been fully vetted by local residents. She referenced that the 147 connector to Town Hall Drive has never been vetted. She further cited page 3-9 of the proposed Comprehensive Transportation Plan, and her concern regarding connecting 147 and 540 directly to the residential communities. Information regarding the improvements to Morrisville-Carpenter Road have not been conveyed to the individual communities.
Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2017
Page 4 of 10
s. Peter and Christina Lindross of 155 Prestonian Place, Morrisville, NC. They oppose the extension at Crabtree Crossing. Mr. Lindross re-iterated the issues, such as congestion and pollution, which occurred when the grade separation for the railroad was built along Morrisville Parkway and noted that these would be concerns again. t. Steve Grow spoke on behalf of his mother who lives at of 742 Crabtree Crossing Parkway, Cary, NC. He expressed his concern about extending Crabtree Crossing to the Town Hall Drive and McCrimmon Parkway corridor. He says as a commuter, the area will be a disaster. u. Lynn Marn of 104 Prestonian Place, Morrisville, NC. She agreed with what had already been said by the speakers before her. She too is opposed to the Crabtree Crossing extension. v. Susan Alvey of 153 Prestonian Place, Morrisville, NC. She also spoke in opposition of the Crabtree Crossing extension. Previous work on Morrisville Parkway made her street uncrossable and she does not want to see it happen again. w. Burgunde Winz of 120 Hampton Pines Drive, Morrisville, NC. Ms. Winz came forward and registered her opposition to the Crabtree Crossing Parkway. That concluded public comments. Staff noted that the public comment session will remain open until the next meeting, November 9th. Member Groce stated that he wanted to be sure the cost estimates for the various projects proposed in the plan are up to date. He also brought information about Crabtree Crossing to the meeting; specifically regarding the floodplain. He has interacted with his neighbors and has heard their concerns. He voiced his concern that sufficient opportunities for public involvement in the preparation of the plan had not been provided. He wanted to reinforce his belief that the proposed Comprehensive Transportation Plan should be data driven, and the Plan was prepared using bad assumptions. Member Langston would like more information regarding the 147 connection. It should be clarified that it is in the proposed Comprehensive Transportation Plan for informational purposes. Identifying committed projects vs. proposed projects in relationship to NCDOT projects would be beneficial. Member Taylor wanted the scenario planning clarified so the Board can see what the traffic outcome would be without these extensions. The Board would then better be able to make decisions. He continued to say that it would be desirable to see all committed projects plus potential improvements that have been discussed. Other projects could then be removed, such as local improvements like Green Drive or Crabtree Crossing. Chairman Prichard brought up 147 again. The proposal for 147 seems to be tied to continuing onto McCrimmon Parkway or a T-junction continuing onto an extension of Little Drive. He wanted to know the status of that scenario. Mr. Howell said NCDOT has not started their in depth design work. Some traffic forecasts have been proposed having 147 coming into McCrimmon Parkway as more of a local boulevard.
Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2017
Page 5 of 10
Member Groce asked if there was an alternate route that would connect into Davis Drive instead of McCrimmon Parkway. Mr. Howell said that the Hotspot Study evaluated that option. It is funded through CAMPO, not NCDOT. The ultimate design of the road and the environmental permits needed may require more studies of alternative options. The alignments may be adjusted. Member Langston said that it sounded like there was almost no chance that 147 will not connect to McCrimmon, regardless of whether there will be a connection to Little Drive. That would mean fewer commuters. Member Taylor would like to hear if we took the connection from 147 and the highway coming all the way down to Morrisville Parkway out of the proposed Comprehensive Transportation Plan what the outcome would be. If that was out of the picture, he suspected that citizens on the north side of Morrisville would want better access to south side where their children go to school. He was curious what impact that would have on the citizen’s overall opinion of the connection. Director Tanner explained that in her recent meeting with the consultants, if Crabtree Crossing was to stay in the proposed Comprehensive Transportation Plan it would need a corresponding policy action statement. That statement could state that no consideration of extending or building the road could occur until such time that the Town definitively knew what was happening with 147. . She stated that any intersection improvements also needed to be tied to an action statement that is completely clear. Member Taylor stated that the neighborhood traffic needs to be controlled to minimize the impact. He further added that it would be helpful to clarify what components the Town has control over and what NCDOT has control over. Member Groce referenced the traffic circle planned on Town Hall Drive and inquired about a conversation between Director Tanner and a resident regarding a no left turn at the potential Morrisville Parkway and Crabtree Crossing intersection. Director Tanner stated that the discussion was based on ways to mitigate cars from heading directly into the Preston neighborhood if Crabtree Crossing Parkway was built. There is a Morrisville picture, and an individual citizen’s picture. Both equally important, and the discussion was based on balancing those needs. Member Groce expressed his discontent over the conversation Director Tanner had with the resident. A recess was taken at 7:57 pm The meeting resumed at 8:16 pm 8. Public Comment Session - New Business 2017-299-0: Amendment to the Future Land Use Plan and Zoning Map for 0 Wilson Road (Wake County PIN 0754796300). Located in the vicinity of Fairbanks Road and Flip Trail Eliot Ward, Planner I, presented an Amendment to the Future Land Use Map (LUP 17-01) and the Zoning Map (REZ 17-02) as well as a Consistency Statement for REZ 17-02. The applicants are requesting amendments to approximately 0.7 acres of property, known as 0 Wilson Road, located in the vicinity of Fairbanks Road and Flip Trail. The request is to zone the property to Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2017
Page 6 of 10
Low Density Residential (LDR) District. They plan to build a new, detached single family dwelling on the property. The subject property lies within the Town of Cary’s Extraterritorial Territorial Jurisdiction, but in accordance with NCGS must be annexed into the Town of Morrisville since it is located closer to Morrisville’s corporate limits. By annexing, the site to connect to municipal utilities. Town Council will vote on the annexation as well. Town of Cary has offered a written consent for the annexation. The current Cary zoning (R-20) focuses on half-acre lots and allows a maximum density of 2.17 du/ac. The proposed zoning for the site in question is Low Density Residential (LDR) which allows a minimum of 8000 square foot lots and a density no greater than 4.5 du/ac. As shown on the map, the property is a “flag lot”, and would only permit one dwelling at this site due to the street frontage requirement. The lot fronts on Fairbanks Road with enough width to allow one driveway. Although, the petitioner has indicated that they plan to construct a single-family home on the property. If the request is approved, any use permitted in the LDR district would be permitted on the site. Chairman Prichard then opened the floor to public comment: 1. John Wilson of 1728 Fairbanks Road, Morrisville, NC. As president of the Woods at Fairbanks HOA, he was representing the neighborhood community. He wanted to welcome the applicants to the neighborhood and voice some questions and concerns on behalf of the HOA. The first item is conformity with the covenants of the existing homes. New construction could impact the existing retention pond used by this neighborhood. The maintenance of the pond is currently the responsibility of the HOA. Lastly, the existing mailboxes are placed in a hub and he wanted to know if the new homeowners will use their boxes or install a free-standing mailbox. 2. Mike Montpetit of 107 Carnie Court, Morrisville, NC. His home is adjacent to the site. He works as a realtor and questioned the timing of the sale as his contract to market the property was cancelled shortly before the sale took place. He was not sure what the intention was of the seller or the buyer. He wanted to see the design for the home, as he is concerned about its compatibility with the homes in the area and the character of the neighborhood. He also asked if there could be a driveway from Fairbanks Road. 3. Michelle and Terry Wells, property owners for the subject parcel. The Wells’ intention is to build their retirement home and reside in it. They plan to house their parents in the home, which will be a ranch “craftsman” style home. They want their home to conform to the neighborhood and they have no issue with any of the concerns of the neighbors. 4. Edoardo Tiartarahardia of 104 Carnie Court, Morrisville, NC. He wanted to know where the front of the property will be located. Will it be on Wilson Road or Fairbanks Road? 5. Susan Montpetit of 107 Carnie Court, Morrisville, NC. Her concern is the change in zoning. Cary was one house per lot, whereas Morrisville would allow up to 4.5 du/ac. She wanted to know why Medium Residential Density was not chosen. Public comment was closed.
Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2017
Page 7 of 10
Chairman Prichard asked for more information about the zoning classification. Mr. Ward explained that the requested zoning is for Low Density Residential District (LDR), which requires a minimum of 8000 square feet per lot with up to 4.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Cary’s zoning district is R-20, which focuses on half-acre lots with up to 2.17 du/ac. The Medium Residential District (MDR) permits townhomes whereas the LDR district does not. This is why the LDR, not the MDR district, is proposed. The Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) district, which has a lower density than LDR, requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 sf. The subject property is only 30,500 square feet. Therefore, if zoned to the VLDR district the property would be nonconforming. The LDR District was proposed to maintain the single-family detached character of the neighborhood. Mr. Ward explained that due to the configuration of the lot, there would be a long driveway off of Fairbanks Road. Fairbanks will be their only public access. Director Tanner explained that each parcel in the LDR district must have at least 60 feet of lot frontage on a public street, and there was not enough frontage on Fairbanks to meet this requirement, and there was no access to Gretchen Lane. Therefore, there was no way to subdivide the parcel to create more than one lot. At this time, only one home could be built on this lot. Director Tanner explained that standard soil erosion control requirements would be put into place to divert runoff from the property in question during any construction. The home would not be required to use the HOA’s stormwater pond. Member Groce wanted to know if there was adequate room at the end of Fairbanks for emergency vehicles. Director Tanner replied that there was an existing temporary turnaround for emergency ingress/egress. MOTION: Member Taylor made a motion to recommend approval of Resolution 2017-299-0-A of the Morrisville Town Council pertaining to the Amendment of the Future Land Use Plan for property commonly known as 0 Wilson Road and located in the vicinity of Fairbanks Road and Flip Trail (LUP 17-01). Member Botha seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously by a vote of 5-0. MOTION: Member Taylor made a motion to recommend to approval of Resolution 2017-2990-B of the Morrisville Town Council pertaining to the adoption of the Plan Consistency Review Statement for the proposed Zoning Map Amendment for the property commonly known as O Wilson Road and located in the vicinity of Fairbanks Road and Flip Train (REZ 17-02) as follows: The requested Zoning Map Amendment will rezone the subject property to Low Density Residential (LDR) district and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because: A. The Town of Morrisville Land Use Plan, as recently amended, recommends Low Density Residential (LDR) district zoning of the property and Low Density Residential (LDR) district zoning is proposed. B. The requested zoning map amendment will promote growth and development that contributes to and builds upon the Town’s overall image as a well-planned, attractive, livable, Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2017
Page 8 of 10
and unique community in the Triangle Region, as recommended by Policy 1A in the 2009 Land Use Plan. C. The requested zoning map amendment is consistent with Policy 1E of the 2009 Land Use Plan as it will promote detached residential land uses outside activity centers and in context with surrounding uses. As a result, the zoning map amendment is consistent with the Town of Morrisville’s adopted plans. In addition, the requested zoning map amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject property and will result in a logical and orderly development pattern and is therefore, reasonable and in the public interest. The motion was seconded by Member Langston, and approved unanimously by a vote of 5-0. MOTION: Member Taylor made a motion to recommend approval of Ordinance 2017-299-0 of the Morrisville Town Council approving a Zoning Map Amendment for property commonly known as 0 Wilson Road and located in the vicinity of Fairbanks Road and Flip Trail to the Low Density Residential District. Member Botha seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously by a vote of 5-0. 9.
Staff Comments Director Tanner announced the winner of the Summer Yard of the Season, with a theme of Sustainability. There was one entry, 104 Button Court, which won the previous year. The second issue is the Yard of the Season process. Currently, it is held four times a year. Traditionally, most of the entries are submitted by staff with little participation among Morrisville residents. There is public participation once the entries are posted on social media. Continuing the program is up to the Planning and Zoning Board. An alternative could be to hold the event once a year, specifically during the Holiday season with one larger prize. Member Botha agreed with promoting the event on an annual basis. Member Groce agreed, although specifying that the event be inclusive of all holidays. Member Langston would like to see two “Yard of the Season” events. For example, Holiday and spring events would acknowledge two “special” seasons. Member Taylor leaned in the same direction. Chairman Prichard agreed that he would like to continue the Community Appearance’s work. Director Tanner informed the Board that the Yard of the Season was promoted through the HOAs as well as email blasts and other social media. The consensus of the Board was to continue the program hosting two events annually. One in the Spring and one Holiday-themed in the winter. Director Tanner reviewed the September 2017 Planning Newsletter. There were no new applications submitted or items approved by staff. However, the Town Council did approve the funding for the Food Hub site. Director Tanner also informed the Board that the current open seat is for the Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) seat. There is also a vacant ETJ seat open on the BOA. Chairman Prichard
Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2017
Page 9 of 10
asked Director Tanner to forward the mailing list to the former ETJ member who was willing to assist with the recruitment. 10.
Planning and Zoning Board Comments Chairman Prichard informed the Board that Town Council presented a Proclamation at a recent meeting proclaiming October 2017 as Community Planning Month. It was adopted on October 10, 2017. Member Groce made a statement related to a previous item on the agenda.
11.
Upcoming Term Expirations None
12.
Upcoming Events None
13.
Adjournment Member Botha made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Member Langston seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:18 pm.
______________________ Peter Prichard, Planning and Zoning Board Chair
_______________________ Marty Saunders, Secretary to the Board
______________________ Date
_______________________ Date
Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2017
Page 10 of 10
Planning and Zoning Board Agenda Item Report Agenda Item No. 2017-366-0 Submitted by: Marty Saunders Submitting Department Planning Meeting Date: November 9, 2017
SUBJECT Service Award Presentation - Esther Dunnegan Recommendation:
Updates/History of Briefing: Not applicable Executive Summary and Background Information: Not applicable Potential Options: None Staff Recommendation: Not applicable ATTACHMENTS
Planning and Zoning Board Agenda Item Report Agenda Item No. 2017-369-0 Submitted by: Benjamin Howell Submitting Department Planning Meeting Date: November 9, 2017
SUBJECT New Employee Introduction: Dylan Bruchhaus - Transportation Planner Recommendation:
Updates/History of Briefing: Not Applicable. Executive Summary and Background Information: Not applicable. Potential Options: Not applicable. Staff Recommendation: Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS
Planning and Zoning Board Agenda Item Report Agenda Item No. 2017-267-0 Submitted by: Courtney Tanner Submitting Department Planning Meeting Date: November 9, 2017
SUBJECT Unified Development Ordinance - General Overview Courtney Tanner, Planning Director Recommendation:
Updates/History of Briefing: Not Applicable Executive Summary and Background Information: A presentation that provides a general overview of the Unified Development Ordinance. Potential Options: Not Applicable Staff Recommendation: Move the presentation to the staff report section due to the public comment session. ATTACHMENTS UDO Overview.pdf
Unified Development Ordinance
November 9, 2017
Overview Assessment Report - May 2011
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) - Started: March 2012 - Adopted: December 2013
Town-wide Rezoning - Started: Fall/Winter 2012 - Adopted: June 2014
Effective - July 1, 2014
Assessment Report: Key Themes 1. Streamline the Development Review Process
2. Create Certainty, While Allowing Flexibility and Creativity 3. Modify Zoning Districts to Implement the Land Use Plan 4. Improve Development Quality 5. Increase User-Friendliness
Regulations: Merged Ordinances Zoning Ordinance Subdivision Ordinance Design & Construction Ordinance Stormwater Ordinance
Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance
Standards: Created Manuals
UDO: Development Regulations Article 1: General Provisions Establishes the title or official name of the document. Identifies the authority of the town to adopt the UDO. Provides the general purpose and intent in establishing the UDO. Sets out who and what are subject to the UDO. Identifies the comprehensive plan as a policy guide for the UDO. Clarifies that the stricter provision applies. Incorporates by reference the Zoning Map. Establishes rules governing the rights of development approved under previous ordinances and pending applications. – Shows how previous zoning districts translate to new zoning districts. – – – – – – – –
UDO: Development Regulations Article 2: Administration – Identifies the responsibilities of different review authorities. – Features a table that provides a snapshot of the major review steps of various development related applications. – Establishes a standard set of review procedures for a variety of development applications. – Features new flowcharts for each type of development review application. – Includes post-decision actions and procedures. – Defines the public notice requirements.
UDO: Development Regulations Article 3: Zoning Districts – Establishes the different types of zoning districts. • Base, Conditional, Planned Development and Overlay
– Classifies the base districts by type. • Conservation, Residential, Activity Center, Town Center, and Commercial and Industrial
– Includes districts that correspond with the adopted Land Use Plan. – Includes user-friendly zoning district tables.
UDO: Development Regulations Article 4: Use Standards – Includes permitted principal, accessory and temporary use tables. – Includes additional requirements for some uses. – Identifies the type of review process. – Provides a cross-reference to use-specific standards in each table.
UDO: Development Regulations Article 5: Development Standards •
Includes requirements for: – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Block, lot and subdivision layout Tree preservation Common open space and public recreation Floodplain management Perimeter and streetyard buffers Access and circulation for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians, including stacking for entrances and drive-thrus Building organization and design Bicycle parking Off-street loading area requirements, including alternatives Landscaping Fencing and walls Exterior lighting Signage
UDO: Development Regulations Article 6: Riparian Buffers – Identifies when riparian buffers are required. – Establishes the zones in a riparian buffer. – States the review procedures for proposed disturbances in the riparian buffer. – Defines the variance review procedures. – Outlines the diffuse flow requirements. – Identifies the uses and activities permitted in riparian buffers. – Sets forth the allowable types of mitigation.
Riparian Buffer Development Review Step is Applicable Step is Not Applicable
Pre-Application Conference Application Submittal and Acceptance
Staff Review and Director of Development Services Decision Scheduling and Notice of Meeting Planning and Zoning Board Review and Recommendation Town Council Review and Decision
UDO: Development Regulations Article 7: Stormwater Management – Establishes the stormwater management regulations
UDO: Development Regulations Article 8: Performance and Maintenance – Addresses how development standards are met and maintained. – Provides standards for the phasing of developments. – Sets out procedures for posting guarantees for completion and initial maintenance. – Establishes who is eligible to post guarantees. – Clarifies what type of guarantees are permitted.
UDO: Development Regulations Article 9: Nonconformities – States that legally established nonconformities, which are lots, uses, structures, signs, lights, and features that do not meet current standards, can continue to operate. – Includes compliance standards for some nonconforming features when a remodeling or expansion is proposed.
UDO: Development Regulations Article 10: Enforcement – Consolidates and expands provisions related to enforcement. – Spells out what actions result in a violation. – Establishes who may be held responsible for Code Violations. – Lists an assortment of remedies that can be used against violators.
UDO: Development Regulations Article 11: Interpretation and Definitions – Contains standards for interpretation of the ordinance requirements. – Addresses the meaning and intent of commonly used phrases. – Defines the rules for interpreting zoning district boundaries. – Includes the definitions of terms used in the ordinance.
Questions?
Planning and Zoning Board Agenda Item Report Agenda Item No. 2017-222-0 Submitted by: Benjamin Howell Submitting Department Planning Meeting Date: November 9, 2017
SUBJECT Draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update Ben Howell, Long Range Planning Manager Briefing & Public Comment: September 14 Public Comment Session and Work Session: September 21 Public Comment Session & Discussion: October 12 Public Comment Session & Discussion: November 9 Next Meeting: December 14 Recommendation: Receive public comments on the draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update, and provide additional feedback, recommend changes, and ask questions. Updates/History of Briefing: November 9th: Due to the number of public comments received and requests for additional information and/or changes to the draft Plan from the October 12th Planning and Zoning Board meeting and the October 17th Town Council Work Session, a revised draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan is not included in this packet. Staff has provided the consultants all comments received as of 7am November 2nd. Staff will provide a presentation at the November 9th meeting that outlines some of the changes that are being made to the draft Plan. This presentation will also include additional information related to NC147, the scenario planning that was conducted, and additional traffic model information, as requested by the Board. Following the staff presentation, the Planning & Zoning Board will continue the Public Comment Session from the October 12th meeting. After the public comment session, the Planning & Zoning Board will have an opportunity to discuss the September 25 draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan and direct staff to incorporate changes a majority of the Board supports into the draft Plan. Following the meeting, staff and the consultants will prepare a revised Draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan for the Planning & Zoning Board to review and discuss. The following attachments have been updated: - September 25, 2017 Draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan (ATTH 01 - date of draft added to the PDF) - Board, Council and Staff Comments on the draft plan compiled by the consultant through September 20, 2017 (ATTH 02) - Public Comments received via email or through the online portal through 7am on November 2, 2017 (ATTH 03) Previous drafts of the Plan and other information is available on the Town's website: www.townofmorrisville.org/transportationplanupdate. October 12: The Planning & Zoning Board will hold a Public Comment Session on the Draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update at the meeting on October 12th. Following the Public comment Session, staff will request
that the Board close the Planning & Zoning Board Public Comment period. Following the meeting, staff and the consultants will prepare a final Draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update for the Planning & Zoning Board to consider at its November 9th meeting. Staff has provided an updated (through October 6, 2017) table of public comments received via email and through the online portal to date, and the consolidated comments spreadsheet from the consultant that was discussed at the September 21st Work Session is provided. The revised Draft Plan Update Chapters discussed at the September 21st Planning & Zoning Board Work Session are provided. September 15: The Planning & Zoning Board received a presentation at their meeting on September 14th from the Town's consultants on the Draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update. At the Work Session on September 21st, the Planning & Zoning Board will have an opportunity to discuss the draft plan in detail, and receive follow-up information from staff and the consultants from questions asked during the meeting on September 14th. Executive Summary and Background Information: The draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan is an update to the adopted 2009 Transportation Plan. The draft Plan includes new and revised recommendations for roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway facilities. In addition, the draft Plan also includes transit routes and an updated Action Plan with policy recommendations. The Plan update process began in early 2016. Since the process started, the Town has hosted four public open houses, published an online survey, and held multiple Town Council and Planning & Zoning Board work sessions. Additional public feedback, specific to the draft Plan published in September, has also been received through an online comment portal. The draft Plan review process is anticipated to take numerous months with the Planning and Zoning Board since the Board is serving dual roles in the update process. Once the Planning and Zoning Board has made a recommendation to Town Council, the draft Plan will be revised. The revised draft Plan will be forwarded to the Town Council in early 2018. Additional discussion will take place with the Town Council prior to action. During this discussion, additional changes can be made to the draft Plan. For more information about the development of the draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan, including previous draft versions of the draft Plan, Reports, Maps, past events and presentations, please visit the Transportation Plan Update webpage on the Town's website: http://www.townofmorrisville.org/transportationplanupdate. Potential Options: Not applicable at this time. Staff Recommendation: Receive public comments on the draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan update and discuss any further recommended changes to the Draft Plan. ATTACHMENTS 2017-222-0 ATTH 01 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update-September 25 2017 Draft 2017-222-0 ATTH 02 Board, Council and Staff Comments Compiled by Consultant 2017-222-0 ATTH 03 Public Comments Received Through 7am on November 2, 2017
INTRODUCTION
DRAFT
WHAT IS A COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN?
THE PLANNING PROCESS The Town of Morrisville Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update represents a collaborative effort to establish a vision for the Town’s transportation network and identify a coordinated set of
A Comprehensive
multimodal projects to achieve it. The plan addresses existing issues and anticipated concerns for
Transportation Plan, or CTP,
congestion, safety, access, and connectivity for all modes of transportation. The process began with
serves as a roadmap for how
an explanation of socioeconomic conditions, a review of plans and policies, and an assessment of the
transportation will develop in
current transportation network. A set of guiding statements were developed ahead of creating a
Morrisville. This effort will
coordinated set of multimodal recommendations. Once the full set of recommendations were
examine the many changes
developed, a prioritization process was created as a tool to help guide decision makers as they
that have occurred in the
advocate for future funding. The Town of Morrisville Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update
Town’s population,
serves as the Town’s transportation vision, characterizes current and future transportation needs, and
employment, land use and
documents multi-modal transportation strategies to address needs through the year 2040. The
development since the
graphic below outlines the planning process for the Town of Morrisville Comprehensive
adoption of the 2009
Transportation Plan Update.
Transportation Plan. It will
Figure 1-1: Planning Process
focus on all modes of transportation including roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit. WHY IS AN UPDATE NEEDED? The last CTP was adopted in 2009 and much has changed in Morrisville since that time. There have been shifts in population and employment, new developments have been built, and some transportation policies have changed as well. In addition, many transportation improvements identified in the previous plan have already been advanced to funding and implementation. With these changes in mind, the Town will work with the public to re-evaluate the vision, goals, objectives, and
ENGAGEMENT Public outreach – whether through direct engagement or by input of community proxies – is an important part of a successful transportation plan. The two primary goals of engagement for the Town of Morrisville Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update are to inform and engage the public.
strategies set forth in the 2009 plan.
INFORM
ENGAGE
Informing the public requires the thoughtful translation of engineering and planning vernacular into common English. The initial step of informing the public is to communicate the purpose of the Transportation Plan and how it affects them. Once the public understands the value of the plan and its goals and objectives, they can then engage the planning process. Engaging the public necessitates empowering them to speak up paired with listening to their thoughts and opinions. Those who have the most to gain or lose from investments in the transportation system have perspectives that must be valued when developing project, policy, and program recommendations. The planning process included several avenues of public engagement to improve the likelihood that the feedback obtained was representative of the entire community.
1-1 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
Engagement Strategies The Town of Morrisville Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update included a variety of strategies that intended to capture feedback from a cross-section of those who live, work, recreate, or have a stake in the Plan’s recommendations. The engagement strategies included: x
Community Event Outreach at SpringFest
x
Planning and Zoning Board Work Sessions
x
Town Council Work Sessions
x
2 Public Workshops
x
2 Public Open Houses
x
3 Plan Update Presentations
x
1 Online Survey
The following sections detail several of the engagement strategies. A full compendium of the public engagement process can be found in Appendix C.
PUBLIC WORKSHOPS AND OPEN HOUSES Gathering input from the public throughout the planning process is critical to understanding local needs, identifying projects of importance, and gaining buy-in to see projects progress from planning to implementation. Citizens recognize the strengths and shortcomings of their transportation system, and transportation decisions affect them daily. To fully utilize the knowledge of Morrisville residents, the project team conducted two public workshops and two public open houses. Meeting attendees were updated about the plan and encouraged to participate in the interactive activities.
Public Workshop #1 – October 6th, 2016 The objective of the first public workshop was to educate the public about the Town of Morrisville Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update and to obtain input regarding their priorities and goals, mobility issues, and desired routes and destinations. The open house was a drop-in session with several interactive activities.
Open House #1 – February 28th, 2017 The first open house event was structured to inform the public about the process of developing recommendations. Exhibits showed existing conditions, results from the first public workshop and online survey, and recommendations from previous planning efforts. Participants visited stations around the room to follow the “Roadway to Recommendations.”
Public Workshop #2 – June 29th, 2017 The second public workshop introduced members of the public to the preliminary recommendations for all modes of transportation, solicited feedback on prioritization metrics, and sought guidance in development of priorities for the key corridors.
Open House #2 – August 22nd, 2017 The final open house meeting focused on displaying draft multimodal recommendations and the results of the prioritization process.
ONLINE SURVEY An interactive online survey was available beginning in October of 2016. Over the next three months, more than 250 participants offered input on community preferences, opinions, and issues for the various transportation modes. Participants also identified issues and potential solutions by placing icons on a map. The online survey yielded more than 600 data points for consideration during the development of the plan. The map on the following page shows the results of the interactive mapping portion.
1-2 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
INTRODUCTION
DRAFT
Figure 1-2: Results of mappin g exercise of on line sur vey
Map Produced September 2017
1-3 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
GUIDING STATEMENTS The guiding statements in this section represent six interrelated value statements established in accordance with national, state, and regional long range planning goals. The final guiding statements have been refined with guidance provided by the Town of Morrisville’s Planning and Zoning Board, Town Council, and public and are reflective of the Town’s needs and desires for the future of the transportation system. The established guiding statements provided direction for the entirety of the planning process and served as a tool for prioritizing recommendations – an important step as the Town faces the need to balance competing interests with limited transportation dollars. The statements consist of a key phrase (i.e. guiding principle) with supporting description. Each guiding principle is further clarified by a set of three of planning goals.
CULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT Enhance the Town’s quality of life by preserving and promoting its valued places and natural assets. Local, state, and federal planning guidelines have evolved over recent decades to place additional emphasis on the role transportation plays in conserving the environment, preserving our neighborhoods, and protecting the quality of life. For the Town of Morrisville this process has been aided through land use planning, development controls, environmental planning, and socioeconomic awareness. x x
x
Protect and enhance the natural and social environment by using context sensitive transportation strategies. Minimize direct and indirect environmental impacts of the transportation system while planning and prioritizing transportation recommendations. Promote consistency between transportation improvements, land use decisions, and economic development patterns.
ECONOMIC VITALITY Support the local economy by making it easier to move people and freight around and through the Town. Ensuring transportation investments support economic vitality in the Town is critical. Good transportation investments address industry needs such as shipping goods, encouraging economic growth, and improving access to regional assets such as Research Triangle Park and the Raleigh-Durham International Airport. The intent is to identify improvements that position the Town to be competitive in local, regional, and national markets. x x x
Identify transportation recommendations that enable global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency. Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and freight within the Town and regionally. Leverage gateways and aesthetics to create an atmosphere that fosters economic investment.
GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT Make travel more efficient by coordinating transportation investments with land use decisions. Transportation facilities and networks have the influence to transform development patterns, property values, and help shape a town’s quality of life. How communities spatially assemble affects how accessible and appealing public transportation, bicycling, and walking are in the Town. x x
x
Promote denser mixed-use developments that are supportive of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian activity. Prepare for continued population growth by coordinating transportation strategies with land use initiatives to foster a vibrant and livable community. Connect people to jobs and educational opportunities through coordinated transportation and land use investment decisions.
1-4 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
INTRODUCTION
DRAFT
MOBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY Provide a balanced transportation system that makes it easier to walk, ride a bike, and take transit. As auto-oriented growth has influenced street design for the past few decades, streets have increasingly become unaccommodating, unsafe, and inaccessible for non-motorized users. Strategic investment in major roadways must be balanced with improvements to the bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and rail networks to keep people and goods moving, allow better access for residents and visitors, and enhance quality of life in the Town. This concept seeks to enhance mobility and accessibility and provide residents with transportation options by combining multimodal improvements with nearly every roadway enhancement. x
x x
Provide desirable and user-friendly transportation options for all user groups regardless of socioeconomic status or physical ability. Support a fully integrated multimodal network that advances the concept of complete streets. Expand and maintain a network of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities that connects homes, activity centers, and complementary amenities.
SAFETY AND SECURITY Promote a safe and secure transportation system by reducing crashes and improving emergency response. Reducing transportation fatalities and serious injuries includes integrating safety enhancements in all transportation projects for both motorized and non-motorized users. Additionally, encouraging a connected street network can serve to improve emergency response times. x x
x
Improve the safety of the transportation system for all user groups regardless of socioeconomic status or physical ability. Increase the reliability, predictability, and efficiency of the transportation experience through system improvements and enhanced communication. Improve safety and security by mitigating potential conflicts and delays at high-accident locations and rail crossing sites.
SYSTEM PRESERVATION AND EFFICIENCY Improve the transportation system’s longevity by emphasizing maintenance and operational efficiency. A transportation network with high mobility is critical for sustaining and extending economic development. Ensuring local and regional mobility is an exercise in maximizing the capacity of the existing transportation system through systems management approaches. These approaches include monitoring and addressing pavement quality and ensuring that ancillary facilities such as traffic signals and ITS infrastructure are properly deployed. x x
x
Increase the lifespan of existing infrastructure and ensure transportation facilities are used optimally. Maintain the transportation network by identifying and prioritizing infrastructure preservation and rehabilitation projects such as pavement management and signal system upgrades. Increase the use of innovative transportation technology to enhance the efficiency of the existing transportation system and to be better prepared for emerging vehicle technologies.
1-5 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
EXISTING
DRAFT
CONDITIONS
INTRODUCTION Transportation is not only a critical component of our daily life, but also represents a crucial part of a region’s social fabric and manmade infrastructure. Residents rely on transportation to access education, health care, and jobs, while surrounding cities, towns, and industries rely on a functioning network to keep the region moving. The Town of Morrisville Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update considers how Morrisville will grow in the next 25 years and offers strategies to guide improvements to the Town’s transportation system including its roadways, transit services, sidewalks, bike facilities, and greenways. The initial step of the planning process is establishing a robust understanding of the geographic, administrative, operational, environmental, social, and temporal context of Morrisville today. This understanding, along with input obtained during the public engagement process, will set the stage for the development of recommendations that will be responsive to the needs and values of the community. This Existing Conditions Summary is intended to present a snapshot of Morrisville as it is today and includes facts and figures depicting the land uses, development constraints, community characteristics, travel patterns, and mobility options that characterize the Town. Effective transportation planning acknowledges the critical relationship between land use and transportation: the way land is used places demands on the transportation network, and the layout and character of the transportation network drives the type, density, and location of development. The first section of the Existing Conditions Summary describes the LAND of Morrisville, how it is currently being used, and constraints on its use. This section also identifies important community facilities that the Town of Morrisville Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update will need to consider when emphasizing connectivity and accessibility. The next section describes the PEOPLE of Morrisville. Morrisville’s population is diverse, highly educated, and is continuing to grow at a rapid pace. Also included is an investigation of where Morrisville’s residents work, how they get there, and how long it takes to get there. Finally, the TRANSPORTATION section describes Morrisville’s transportation network, including its roadways, sidewalks, on-street bikeways, multi-use paths, and transit routes. Estimations of traffic volumes and congestion, an understanding of crashes occurring in the last 3 years, and an inventory of existing infrastructure will provide a foundation for the development of the Town of Morrisville Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.
LAND The Town of Morrisville is located in northwest Wake County and along the southern border of Durham County. Morrisville rests in the midst of the Research Triangle Region, which is anchored by three major universities; the cities of Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill; and Research Triangle Park (RTP). Research Triangle Park, a 7,000-acre research park west of Morrisville, employs over 50,000 people across 200 companies. Bordering the west, south, and east sides of Morrisville, the Town of Cary houses several worldwide company headquarters and, like Morrisville, has seen continual growth. Raleigh-Durham International Airport, one of North Carolina’s two primary airports, is located on the north side of I-40. Morrisville’s proximity to RTP, the interstate, and RDU has attracted several major companies including Lenovo, Time Warner Cable, NetApp, and Pharmaceutical Product Development (PPD). Paired with its community facilities including several parks and schools, it is no surprise that the Town’s population growth continues to outpace Wake County’s. Morrisville’s regional context is shown in Figure 2-1. Unincorporated Wake County and unincorporated Durham County are shown in dark gray.
2-1 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
Community Facilities The Town’s Parks, Recreation, & Cultural Resources Department maintains several greenways, parks, and facilities that offer outdoor and indoor recreation opportunities to Morrisville residents, listed in Table 2-1. Crabtree Creek Nature Park is currently a multi-purpose field, but the Town of Morrisville has plans to develop it into a more substantial Nature Park in the future. Outside of Morrisville but adjacent to the Town are Lake Crabtree County Park and William B. Umstead State Park. There are three schools located within Morrisville’s town boundary: Morrisville Elementary, Sterling Montessori, and Cedar Fork Elementary. The combined enrollment for the three schools is 2,368 students. Figure 2-2 shows Morrisville’s community facilities. Table 2-1. Parks, Recreation, & Cult u ral Resources
Greenways Indian Creek Greenway & Trailhead Shiloh Greenway Crabtree Creek and Hatcher Creek Greenway (Future) Parks Cedar Fork District Park Church Street Park Crabtree Creek Nature Park Morrisville Community Park Northwest Park Ruritan Park Shiloh Community Park Community Centers Cedar Fork Community Center Morrisville Aquatics & Fitness Center Luther Green Community Center
2-2 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
DRAFT
Land Use The Town of Morrisville classifies every parcel based on the land use classifications described in Table 2-2 and Figure 2-3. The majority of Morrisville’s land is classified as residential (33%) or vacant (21%). Table 2-2: Land Use Classi f icat i ons
Classification
Acreage Percent
Commercial
409.6
7.9%
Industrial
671.2
12.9%
Institutional
243.4
4.7%
Mixed Use
13.8
0.3%
Multifamily
393.1
7.6%
Office
365.1
7.0%
Public/Private Open Space
705.5
13.6%
Single-Family Attached
149.7
2.9%
Single-Family Detached
1154.9
22.2%
Vacant
1094.2
21.0%
Total
5200.6
100%
2-3 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
Figure 2-1: Local Jurisdictions
Map Produced September 2017
2-4 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
EXISTING
DRAFT
CONDITIONS
Figure 2-2: Commun i t y Faci l i t ies
Map Produced September 2017
2-5 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
Figure 2-3: Existi ng Land Use (October 2016)
Map Produced September 2017
2-6 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
EXISTING
DRAFT
CONDITIONS
Zoning Morrisville adopted their Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) in 2013. A Town-wide rezoning was completed in 2014 to make the Town’s zoning map consistent with the UDO. The UDO combines the Town’s zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance into one document to simplify communication and enforcement. Zoning west of NC 54 includes low, medium, and high density residential uses with a strong emphasis on neighborhood and community spaces. Zoning east of NC 54 includes the majority of Morrisville’s industrial, office, and commercial areas. The Town of Morrisville’s zoning includes two Airport Overlay Districts, a Floodplain Overlay District, and a Town Center Conservation Overlay District. The Airport Noise Overlay District restricts certain development types, resulting in the majority of residences and schools being located west of NC 54. Airport Overlay District A’s western border is NC 54, and Airport Overlay District B is located almost entirely west of NC 54. The Floodplain Overlay District encompasses the area within the 100-year floodplain, and the Town Center Conservation Overlay District includes the area surrounding Morrisville-Carpenter Road’s intersections with Town Hall Drive and NC 54, detailed in the 2007 Town Center Plan.
Development Constraints There are a number of challenges that impact the Town’s planning and development. The Town is completely bordered by other jurisdictions, leaving limited options for annexation. Crabtree Creek, which passes through the southern portion of Morrisville, does not meet Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards and is classified as a 303(d) impaired stream. This classification is supplemented with a unique management plan that may affect development near the creek. Additionally, Morrisville housed the Koppers Company, Inc. plant, a facility that processed and treated wood. The EPA found that the site was contaminated in 1980 and proceeded with cleanup efforts. While there is currently no environmental hazard on the site, it is still on the Superfund list and is being monitored by the EPA. Other environmental constraints in Morrisville include floodplains, wetlands, stream buffers, and steep slopes. The Town of Morrisville requires buffers on both intermittent and perennial streams. The Town is also a Phase II stormwater community and is in both the Jordan Lake and Neuse River watersheds. The railroad corridor running alongside NC 54, owned by North Carolina Railroad and operated by Norfolk Southern, requires that new roadway, sidewalk, and bicycle connections across the railroad must be constructed as grade-separated crossings, with some exceptions. While this requirement mitigates potential train collisions at at-grade railroad crossings, it also results in increased costs associated with new east-west connections.
2-7 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
Figure 2-4: Zoning (August 2016)
Map Produced September 2017
2-8 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
EXISTING
DRAFT
CONDITIONS
Figure 2-5: Develop ment Constraints
Map Produced September 2017
2-9 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
PEOPLE Morrisville’s population of over 23,000 people continues to grow. The number, charts, and tables in this section reflect the latest demographic data made available by the United States Census Bureau and the State Demographics branch of the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management (OSBM), which includes the 2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, the Special Census of Morrisville conducted in 2015, and OSBM’s online resources.
People & Households Morrisville has seen tremendous population growth in the last 15 years. Since 2000, Morrisville’s population has more than quadrupled, as shown in Figure 2-6. The North Carolina state demographer lists Morrisville as the 14th fastest growing municipality in the state for the period from 2010 to 2014. Figure 2-6: Population Growth
23,820
25,000 18,702
20,000 15,000
11,834
10,000 5,547 5,000
2015
2010
2005
2000
-
Morrisville’s growth corresponds to Wake County’s rapid growth as people move to the region to enjoy its high quality of life, excellent school system, and strong job market. Figure 2-7 compares Morrisville’s, Wake County’s, and North Carolina’s population growth rates between 2000 and 2014. Although Morrisville’s growth rate has slowed in more recent years, it continues to outpace Wake County and the state as a whole. Figure 2-7: Populati on Growth Rate Comparison
25% 20% 15% 10% 5%
Morrisville
2010
2005
2000
0%
Wake County
North Carolina
According to the 2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Morrisville’s population is relatively young compared to Wake County. The population older than 65 years of age comprises only 4% in Morrisville, compared to 9% in Wake County. On the other end of the spectrum, residents under 18 years of age comprise nearly 30% of the population, compared to 25% in Wake County. Figure 2-8 shows Morrisville’s age and sex distribution based on data from the Town of Morrisville’s Special Census conducted in the spring of 2015.
2-10 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
DRAFT
Figure 2-8: Percent Populat i on by Age & Sex
85 years and over 80 to 84 years 75 to 79 years 70 to 74 years 65 to 69 years 60 to 64 years 55 to 59 years 50 to 54 years 45 to 49 years 40 to 44 years 35 to 39 years 30 to 34 years 25 to 29 years 20 to 24 years 15 to 19 years 10 to 14 years 5 to 9 years Under 5 years
Female
10
8
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
Male
8
10
Morrisville is home to a racially diverse population. Approximately 47% of Morrisville’s population is identified as white, 15% African-American, and 34% Asian. About 5% of the population identifies themselves as Hispanic or Latino. Figure 2-9 shows the breakdown of Morrisville’s racial profile in comparison to Wake County and North Carolina. Figure 2-9: Race
Town of Morrisville
5%
4%
34%
2%
6%
White Black/African American
North Carolina
Wake County
47%
7%
21%
21%
Asian 68%
Other Race/Two or More Races
70%
15%
The median household income for households in Morrisville in 2014 was $84,301, which is significantly higher than Wake County’s $66,579 median income and the national median income of $53,482. Along with higher median incomes, a greater percentage of Morrisville residents have obtained higher levels of education than Wake County and North Carolina. The 2014 American Community Survey data indicate that of the residents over age 25 in Morrisville, 41% have earned a Bachelor’s degree and another 24% have a Master’s degree or higher. Table 2-3 and Table 2-4 display the number of households (owner-occupied and renter-occupied), income, and education characteristics of Morrisville, Wake County, and North Carolina. Table 2-3: Household Characteristics
Number of Households Average Size Median Income Percent Below Poverty Line Percent without Access to a Motor Vehicle
Town of Morrisville 7,905 2.62 $84,301 4.8% 1.1%
Wake County 355,647 2.62 $66,579 8.2% 2.0%
North Carolina
Town of Morrisville 10.1% 40.8% 24.0%
Wake County 16.8% 31.2% 17.1%
North Carolina
3,742,514 2.54 $46,693 17.2% 2.5%
Table 2-4: Hi ghest Education Level
High School Diploma/GED Bachelor’s Degree Graduate or Professional Degree
26.9% 18.2% 9.5%
2-11 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
Employment Morrisville is in the middle of the Raleigh/Durham/Research Triangle Park area. According to the 2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates and displayed in Figure 2-10, over a quarter of Morrisville’s employees work in the industry described as “professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services” by the U.S. Census Bureau. Educational services and health care and social assistance account for a fifth of the Town’s employment. Based on the 2014 American Community Survey, the average travel time to work for residents in Morrisville was 21 minutes, compared with 24 minutes for Wake County and the state of North Carolina. Figure 2-10 displays Morrisville employment by industry. Figure 2-11 and Figure 2-12 show residents’ commute times to work and the distance traveled to work. Figure 2-10: Employment by Industry
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining
0.0%
Construction
1.7%
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities
2.4%
Public administration
2.5%
Wholesale trade
3.4%
Information
3.5%
Other services, except public administration
3.9%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services
5.7%
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing
7.7%
Retail trade
8.9%
Manufacturing
13.8%
Educational services, and health care and social assistance
20.4%
Professional, scientific, and mgmt, and admin and waste mgmt services
26.1% 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Figure 2-11: Commute Time
Less than 10 minutes 10 to 19 minutes 18%
34%
28%
12% 4%4%
20 to 29 minutes 30 to 39 minutes 40 to 59 minutes An hour or longer
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 2-12: Commute Distance
Less than 10 miles 53%
32%
2% 13%
10 to 24 miles 25 to 50 miles Greater than 50 miles
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2-12 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
25%
30%
EXISTING CONDITIONS
DRAFT
Only 6.4% of Morrisville residents stay in Morrisville for work, while 22.3% commute to Raleigh, 18.6% to Durham, and 15.7% to Cary. Thirty-seven percent of Morrisville residents commute to other places such as RTP, Chapel Hill, and Apex. Figure 2-13 shows the jurisdictions Morrisville’s residents commute to, while Figure 2-14 shows the counties Morrisville’s residents commute to. This information indicates that a large percentage of Morrisville residents are traveling to work outside of Morrisville, emphasizing the need for safe and efficient access to the interstate and major arterials while supporting connectivity and mobility within Morrisville. Eight out of ten Morrisville residents drive alone to work (consistent with Wake County as a whole), while approximately 8% participate in a carpool. About 8% work from home and 1% walk to work. Less than 1% take transit or bike to work. A high percentage driving or carpooling to work is likely the result of Morrisville residents working outside of Morrisville, a lack of transit services, and low bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. Figure 2-15 shows a detailed breakdown of Morrisville residents’ means of transportation to work. Figure 2-13: Workp lace by City
Raleigh
22.3%
Cary 37.0%
Morrisville
Durham 15.7%
Other 18.6%
6.4%
Figure 2-14: Workp lace by County
19.8% Wake County Durham County 54.6% Other
25.7%
Figure 2-15: Commute Mo des
Drive Alone Carpool
0.63%
Take Transit Bike
0.08% 82.43%
17.57%
7.86%
1.20%
0.06%
Walk
7.73%
Other Work from Home
2-13 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
TRANSPORTATION The transportation network within and around Morrisville is primarily oriented to serve automobile travel. Several major roadways, detailed in Table , serve the Town including I-40, I-540, and the Triangle Expressway (NC 147 and NC 540) to the north; Davis Drive to the west and NC 54 to the east, which bisects the Town from north to south; and several east-west corridors including McCrimmon Parkway, Airport Boulevard, Morrisville-Carpenter Road, Aviation Parkway, Morrisville Parkway, and NW Cary Parkway. The rapid development of residential subdivisions without investment in major roadway projects has yielded a disconnected street network and stresses the Town’s major corridors. Roadways within the Town are owned and maintained by either NCDOT, the Town of Morrisville, or private entities such as neighborhood associations. NCDOT maintains the following roads within the Town of Morrisville:
x
Airport Boulevard
x
McCrimmon Parkway
x
Aviation Parkway
x
Morrisville Carpenter Road
x
Cary Parkway
x
Morrisville Parkway
x
Church Street
x
NC 54 (Chapel Hill Road)
x
Davis Drive
x
NC 540
x
Evans Road
x
Old Maynard Road
x
Holly Creek Road
x
Slater Road
x
Jerusalem Drive
x
Sorrell Grove Church Road
x
Kit Creek Road
x
Watkins Road (partial)
x
Lichtin Boulevard (partial)
x
Wilson Road
x
Louis Stephens Road
While the Town’s walking and bicycling network has seen significant growth and many opportunities for increased access to transit exist, Morrisville’s growth patterns and commuting trends continue to present significant challenges for the Town of Morrisville to overcome when considering how best to maintain and improve its transportation network.
Motor Vehicle Volumes NCDOT collects traffic volume data on state-maintained roadways every other year and develops estimates called average annual daily traffic volumes (AADTs) which represent two-way traffic volumes on an average weekday. The most recent segment level AADTs for the state-maintained roadways in Morrisville are from 2013 and are shown in Table 2-5 and Figure 2-16. NCDOT traffic volume data is not available for the roadway segments without color, and traffic volume data at the segment level is not yet been made available. Figure 2-16 also shows the percentage of traffic consisting of single-unit or trailer trucks.
Modeled Traffic Congestion Sophisticated models can simulate the interaction of estimated demand and available supply at a regional scale. The Triangle Regional Model comprises both the Raleigh urbanized area and the Durham-Chapel Hill urbanized area. For the purposes of this Existing Conditions Summary, current congestion levels are derived from the Triangle Regional Model 2010 Base Year Model and are symbolized in Figure 2-17 based on volume-to-capacity ratios. The model represents the roadway network and traffic volumes as they were in 2010 and does not necessarily reflect the impact of intersections and railroad crossings on traffic congestion. Actual congestion near these locations may be greater than what is shown in the travel demand model. However, modeled traffic congestion provides systems-level insight into overall congestion issues and can indicate corridors that warrant higher levels of study and analysis.
2-14 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
DRAFT
Table 2-5: Major Roadways
Roadway
AADTs (2013)
NCDOT Functional Classification1
Typical Cross-Section
Multimodal Features Multi-use paths and sidewalks
Davis Drive
21,000 to 28,000
Minor Arterial
4-lane median-divided
NC 147
12,000
Freeway
6-lane freeway
n/a
Town Hall Drive
4,400 to 4,600
Local
4-lane median-divided
Sidewalks
Church Street
6,900
Local
2-lane
Sidewalks
NC 54 (Chapel Hill Road)
16,000 to 22,000
Principal Arterial
2-lane
Few sidewalks
I-40
149,000
Interstate
9-lane freeway
n/a
NW Cary Parkway
18,000 to 24,000
Minor Arterial
4-lane median divided
Morrisville Parkway
13,000 to 14,000
Major Collector
4-lane median-divided
Morrisville-Carpenter Road
10,000 to 16,000
Minor Arterial
2-lane
sidewalks
Aviation Parkway
14,000 to 29,000
Minor Arterial
2-lane
Few sidewalks and multi-use paths
Airport Boulevard
12,000 to 32,000
Minor Arterial
5-lane including center turn lane
Sidewalks
Perimeter Park Drive
4,900
Local
4-lane median-divided
Sidewalks
McCrimmon Parkway
7,700 to 15,000
Local
4-lane median divided
Sidewalks and multiuse paths
NC 540
22,000 to 40,000
Freeway
6-lane freeway
n/a
Sidewalks and wide outside lanes Sidewalks and multiuse paths
1
NCDOT categorizes streets and highways into functional classes based on the character of service they are intended to provide in serving the flow of traffic through the roadway network.
2-15 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
Figure 2-16: NCDOT 2013 Daily Traffic Volumes (Percent Trucks)
Map Produced September 2017
2-16 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
EXISTING
DRAFT
CONDITIONS
Figure 2-17: 2010 Mo deled Roadway Congestion
Map Produced September 2017
2-17 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
Crash Statistics From June 2013 to May 2016, almost 1,300 crashes were reported on state-maintained roadways within Morrisville’s jurisdiction. Of the 1,272 crashes, 7 resulted in fatalities or disabling injuries, 271 resulted in evident injuries or possible injuries, 987 resulted in property damage only, and injuries were unknown for 7. Rear end crashes accounted for nearly half of all the crashes. Angle crashes, left turn crashes, and sideswipes combined make up almost a third of the crashes in Morrisville. Figure 2-18 and Figure 2-19 depict the number of crashes by severity and by type. The 7 crashes resulting in fatalities or disabling injuries occurred between August 2014 and March 2016 and are further described in Table 2-6 and Figure 2-20. Table 2-6: Crashes Resul t in g in Fat al i t ies or Disablin g Inj uries
Location
Date
Time
Type
Severity
Morrisville-Carpenter Rd at Railroad Crossing near NC 54
8/29/2014
9:45 PM
RR Train, Engine
Fatal
I-40 WB near Airport Blvd
1/1/2015
5:22 AM
Fixed Object
Disabling Injury
I-40 WB near Airport Blvd
1/1/2015
5:23 AM
Rear End, Slow or Stop
Disabling Injury
NC 54 at Church St
4/28/2015
5:48 PM
Rear End, Slow or Stop
Disabling Injury
NC 54 at Carrington Mill Blvd
7/17/2015
10:24 PM
Bicyclist
Fatal
Morrisville-Carpenter Rd at Railroad Crossing near NC 54
11/14/2015
7:49 PM
RR Train, Engine
Fatal
3/8/2016
10:04 PM
Rear End, Slow or Stop
Fatal
I-40 WB near Airport Blvd
Crash rates for intersections are typically reported as the number of crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV) and are commonly calculated with the following equation: CRASH RATE =
1,000,000 x NUMBER OF CRASHES 365 x NUMBER OF YEARS x ENTERING AADT
Table 2-7 shows the crash rates for intersections in Morrisville where AADT data are available. Intersection crash rates are useful in gauging the relative safety of an intersection in comparison to other intersections in the study area. The crash rates are based on 2013 AADTs and 3-year crash data from June 2013 to May 2016. The average crash rate of studied intersections is 0.79 crashes per million entering vehicles. Despite an average entering AADT, the intersection of NC 54 and Morrisville-Carpenter Road has the highest crash rate, due to its higher than average number of crashes. Table 2-7: Intersection Crash Rates
Entering AADT
Number of Crashes
Crash Rate (per MEV)
NC 54 & Morrisville-Carpenter Rd
33,500
72
1.96
Davis Dr & Morrisville-Carpenter Rd
40,000
62
1.42
Davis Dr & McCrimmon Pkwy
33,850
49
1.32
NC 54 & Cary Pkwy
40,500
55
1.24
NC 54 & Morrisville Pkwy
27,500
36
1.20
NC 54 & Airport Blvd
24,000
23
0.88
Davis Dr & Morrisville Pkwy
37,050
32
0.79
I-40 NB Ramps & Airport Blvd
30,600
15
0.45
I-40 SB Ramps & Airport Blvd
40,550
9
0.20
Aviation Pkwy & Evans Rd
22,000
2
0.08
NC 540 WB Ramps & NC 54
27,400
1
0.03
NC 540 EB Ramps & NC 54
24,100
0
0.00
Intersection
2-18 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
DRAFT
Figure 2-18: Crashes by Severity
75 Fatal (4)
196
Disabling Injury (3) Evident Injury Possible Injury No Injury Unknown (7)
987
Figure 2-19: Crashes by Type
Unknown RR Train, Engine Overturn/Rollover Pedestrian Parked Motor Vehicle Rear End, Turn Other Collision with Vehicle Pedalcyclist Head On Sideswipe, Opposite Direction Backing Up Other Non-Collision Right Turn, Different Roadways Right Turn, Same Roadway Movable Object Ran Off Road - Left Ran Off Road - Right Animal
Rear End, Slow or Stop Crashes Total: 603 Resulting in no injury: 490
Fixed Object Left Turn, Different Roadways Sideswipe, Same Direction Left Turn, Same Roadway Angle Rear End, Slow or Stop 0
20 Fatal
40
Disabling Injury
60 Evident Injury
80
100 Possible Injury
120 No Injury
140
160
180
200
Unknown
Figure 2-20: Timeli ne of Crashes Result in g in Fat al i t ies or Disablin g Injur ies
AUGUST 29 9:45 PM
JUNE 2014
APRIL 28 5:48 PM
JANUARY 1 5:22 AM 5:23 AM
NOVEMBER 14 7:49 PM
JULY 17 10:24 PM
MAY 2016
MARCH 8 10:04 PM
2-19 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
Pedestrian and Bicycle Network Figure 2-21 shows Morrisville’s pedestrian and bicycle network. The network consists of sidewalks, multi-use paths (wide paths adjacent to roadways), greenways (paved trails not adjacent to roadways), and on-street bike facilities. The most recently available GIS for sidewalks in Morrisville is from 2014, so sidewalks constructed since then are not shown in Figure 2-21. The pedestrian and bicycle network includes two connected greenways. The Indian Creek Greenway is 1.8 miles in length and runs alongside Town Hall Drive from Morrisville-Carpenter Road to McCrimmon Parkway. The Shiloh Greenway is 1.7 miles in length and runs alongside and through a power easement from McCrimmon Parkway near Town Hall Drive north to Weaver Forest Way near NC 540. Additionally, construction on the Crabtree Creek and Hatcher Creek Greenways is anticipated to begin in 2017. The new greenways will provide an east-west connection through Morrisville from Lake Crabtree to the Town of Cary’s greenway system. Two North Carolina bicycle routes run through Morrisville: Mountains to Sea (NC Bike Route 2) and Carolina Connection (NC Bike Route 1). The Mountains to Sea route spans more than 700 miles from the Town of Murphy in the southwest part of the state to the Town of Manteo in the Outer Banks. In Morrisville, the route follows Morrisville-Carpenter Road, Church Street, Watkins Road, Perimeter Park Drive, and Airport Boulevard. Carolina Connection is also the North Carolina segment of US Bike Route 1, which runs from Florida to Maine. The bike route utilizes NW Cary Parkway in southeast Morrisville.
2-20 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
EXISTING
DRAFT
CONDITIONS
Figure 2-21: Pedestrian and Bicycle Net work (2014)
Map Produced September 2017
2-21 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
Public Transit Morrisville’s residents have limited options when it comes to taking public transit. GoTriangle is the only transit service provider that connects directly to the Town. GoDurham and C-TRAN offer greater connectivity to residents traveling from Morrisville to adjacent locations, while WakeTRACS is an option for non-urbanized Wake County residents to travel to Morrisville.
GOTRIANGLE GoTriangle is the transit service provider for the Triangle region, reaching as far as Mebane to the west and Zebulon to the east. Figure 2-22 and Table 2-8 present the GoTriangle routes that connect to Morrisville and their corresponding bus stops. These routes serve bus stops located in the northern part of Morrisville. Table 2-8: GoTriangle Rout es and Stops Servi ng M or risvil le
Name RTP1 Shuttle North Raleigh-RTC2 Apex-RTC2 Raleigh-Airport-RTC2 Raleigh-RTC2 Cary-Raleigh 1 2
Bus Stops in Morrisville NC 54 at Shiloh Glenn Dr Copley Pkwy at Morrisville Outlets Factory Shops Dr at Morrisville Outlets 3015-3020 Carrington Mill Blvd Carrington Mill Blvd at Paramount Pkwy Paramount Pkwy at Time Warner Cable Paramount Parkway at Perimeter Park Dr
Research Triangle Park Regional Transit Center
GOCARY GoCary, formerly known as C-TRAN, provides fixed route bus service along six routes in Cary. However, none of C-TRAN’s routes currently connect to Morrisville. Travelers wishing to ride the bus to Cary from Morrisville or vice versa must use GoTriangle RTC-Cary-Raleigh or transfer between GoTriangle and C-Tran routes.
GODURHAM GoDurham provides transit service to Durham County via 15 bus routes. Taking the bus between Morrisville and Durham requires transferring from a GoTriangle route to a GoDurham route, to GoTriangle Durham-RTC, or to GoTriangle route DRX (Durham-Raleigh Express).
WAKETRACS Wake Coordinated Transportation Services Transportation and Rural Access, otherwise known as WakeTRACS, provides demand-response transit service on weekdays to residents in non-urbanized Wake County. While WakeTRACS isn’t available to Morrisville residents, the demand-response transit service is available to visitors to Morrisville who live in non-urbanized Wake County.
2-22 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
EXISTING
DRAFT
CONDITIONS
Figure 2-22: GoTriangle Routes and St o ps
Map Produced September 2017
2-23 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
Railroads The North Carolina Railroad Company (NCRR) Corridor runs through Morrisville along the west side of NC 54. Operated by Norfolk Southern, the NCRR Corridor connects Charlotte to Morehead City with several other cities in between including Durham and Raleigh. Amtrak also runs passenger rail service along this rail line, connecting Charlotte and Raleigh via the Piedmont and Charlotte, Raleigh, and New York City via the Carolinian. The United States Department of Transportation estimates that 12 trains travel through Morrisville between 6 AM and 6 PM and 4 trains travel through Morrisville between 6 PM and 6 AM on an average day. Six Amtrak trains travel through Morrisville on a typical day. Detailed in the Crash Statistics section, the most recent motor vehicle-train collision occurred in November 2015 at Morrisville-Carpenter Road near NC 54. There are five rail crossing locations in Morrisville, shown in Figure 2-23 and Table 2-9. Two are grade-separated, two are at-grade, and one is currently under construction to become a gradeseparated crossing. The grade separation of Morrisville Parkway under the new railroad bridge is anticipated to be completed in Fall 2016. The at-grade crossing on McCrimmon Parkway has been funded as part of the STIP and is anticipated to become grade-separated in 7 to 10 years. Table 2-9: Rail Crossin g Locat i ons
Location
Type
Crossing ID
NC 540 WB between Church St and NC 54
Grade-separated
929899U
NC 540 EB between Church St and NC 54
Grade-separated
946850E
McCrimmon Pkwy near NC 54
At-grade
734750N
Truss Builders Driveway (Private Crossing)
At-grade
Morrisville-Carpenter Rd near NC 54
At-grade
734753J
Grade-separated
904436A
Grade-separated
946853A
NW Cary Pkwy SB west of Village Market Pl
Grade-separated
929902A
NW Cary Pkwy NB west of Village Market Pl
Grade-separated
946854G
Morrisville Pkwy WB east of Crabtree Crossing Pkwy Morrisville Pkwy EB east of Crabtree Crossing Pkwy
2-24 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
EXISTING
DRAFT
CONDITIONS
Figure 2-23: Rail Crossi ngs
Map Produced September 2017
2-25 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ROADWAYS
DRAFT
INTRODUCTION The interest in creating “complete streets” continues to grow in Morrisville. The National Complete Streets Coalition defines a complete street as a street that enables all users (pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders) of all ages and abilities to safely move along and across a street. Roadways with lower travel speeds and greater access points (e.g. local streets and collectors) provide the greatest opportunities for developing complete streets. However, all functional classifications warrant consideration of multimodal users. Since the Town’s last transportation plan, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has reaffirmed this approach through the development of Complete Streets Planning and Design Guidelines in 2012, and more recently in May 2014 through the development of expanded highway cross sections. The Roadways chapter directly links to the Active Travel Modes chapter to advance this complete street concept. Recommendations for the future multimodal system consider roadways at a corridor level and provide improvements for all travel modes along the corridor in a way that is compatible with surrounding land uses. The graphic below displays the topics considered when developing roadway recommendations for the Town of Morrisville Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.
TOWN GROWTH Chapter 2 (Existing Conditions) describes the current conditions and needs of the region’s transportation network. While Morrisville’s population growth rate has slowed in more recent years, it still continues to outpace Wake County and the state as a whole, which is one of many indicators that the area will continue to be attractive for potential residents and employers. Projected population and employment growth has been documented within the regional travel demand model, which was run for the future year 2040. This run was performed with the existing transportation network in place, exclusive of those roadway projects that are currently committed or underway. This model run considers the transportation network as of 2010, which is the approved base year of the model. The map that results highlights the deficiencies that the transportation network will likely be facing from a congestion perspective in 2040. The Town’s and greater Triangle Region’s growth through 2040 has a dramatic effect on the roadway network. Without improvements to the network, corridors such as McCrimmon Parkway, NC 54, and Davis Drive will experience significant congestion. The plan’s roadway recommendations were developed in part to address these congestion needs and allow the roadway network to better serve Morrisville residents. Figure 3-1 on the following page displays the modeled congestion for year 2040 with no roadway improvements.
3-1 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
Figure 3-1: 2040 Congestion wit h No Improvements
Map Produced September 2017
3-2 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ROADWAYS
DRAFT
COMMITTED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS The State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) is North Carolina’s state and federally-mandated plan that identifies the funding levels, time periods, and project phases for transportation projects throughout the state. This list is updated regularly. The most recent version of the STIP as of the time of this writing (August 2017) was considered for this plan. Several roadway projects in the Town of Morrisville are slated for design, right-of-way acquisition, or construction funding during the life of the STIP. Table 3-1 lists the projects included in the STIP during the period between 2018-2027. The funding displayed in Table 3-1 is only the STIP funds allocated to the project, and does not reflect local funds that may be dedicated to these projects. In addition to leveraging federal and state funding, the Town of Morrisville aggressively looks for additional funding sources. These local funds are used to leverage larger state and federal funding amounts, to increase competitiveness for regional grant funding such as the Locally Administered Projects Program (LAPP), and to fully fund and implement projects locally. Recent success in obtaining local funding can be partially attributed to the $20 million bond referendum approved by citizens in the Town of Morrisville in 2012 to update the Morrisville Community Park, Morrisville Aquatics and Fitness Center, and to extend McCrimmon Parkway to Aviation Parkway at Evans Road. Figure 3-2 on the adjacent page shows the location of committed roadway projects in Morrisville. to update the Morrisville Community Park, Morrisville Aquatics and Fitness Center and
The roadway projects that are currently committed within the Town of Morrisville are projected to result in a beneficial reduction in congestion levels in the future. The regional travel demand model was updated to reflect the committed projects, and then run with 2040 population and employment growth included. Figure 3-3 shows the results of this model run. Notable congestion decreases can be seen along committed corridors such as Morrisville Carpenter Road, Aviation Parkway, McCrimmon Parkway, and NC 54. Table 3-1: Town of M orr isvi lle Commi t t ed Roadway Pro ject s
STIP ID
PROJECT NAME
FROM
TO
YEAR
FUNDING
U-5747A
McCrimmon Parkway Widening
Church Street
Davis Drive
2021
13,000,000
U-5750
NC 54 Widening
NC 540
Perimeter Park Drive
2021
$25,336.000
U-5747B
NC 54 & McCrimmon Grade Separation
n/a
n/a
2021
$20,702,000
U-5828
McCrimmon Parkway Extension
Airport Boulevard
Aviation Parkway
2018
$11,870,000
U-5811
Aviation Parkway Widening
NC 54
Interstate 40
2023
$28,787,000
U-5966
NC 147 Extension
NC 540
McCrimmon Parkway
2023
$57,850,000
U-5627
Louis Stephens Drive Extension
South of Little Drive
Poplar Pike Lane
2019
$3,036,000
NC 54
Davis Drive
2018
$11,000,000
n/a
n/a
2017
$85,750
U-5618 n/a
Morrisville Carpenter Road Widening Slater Road at Airport Boulevard Traffic Signal
Source: NCDOT State Transportation Improvement Program, Adopted August 2017
Other Relevant Committed Roadway Projects In addition to the above projects that fall within Morrisville’s town limits, NCDOT has three projects along I-40 that will impact the Town. Interchange improvements at both Aviation Parkway and Airport Boulevard are scheduled to begin construction in 2018 and 2019, respectively. In addition, plans exist to widen the segment of Interstate 40 that lies between the Town of Morrisville and the Raleigh-Durham International Airport.
3-3 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
Figure 3-2: Committe d Roadway Projects
Map Produced September 2017
3-4 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ROADWAYS
DRAFT
Figure 3-3: 2040 Congestion wit h Construct ion of Commit ted Projects
Map Produced September 2017
3-5 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE The transportation system influences development patterns by dictating the fastest, most convenient, and safest routes of travel. Available travel modes also influence development patterns. People who desire daily services accessible by foot, bike, or public transit choose to live in different locations than people who prefer to drive to these destinations. As transportation corridors are improved and expanded, new development often follows. This push-pull relationship typically results in concentrated growth along major thoroughfares as residents seek to take advantage of the most convenient transportation facilities. When blended with a supportive policy and investment strategy, the transportation network can serve as an effective tool for guiding Town development. The relationship between urban form and transportation can be expressed in terms of density, diversity, design, and travel distance. The evaluation of these elements as part of the Town of Morrisville Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update contributed to the development of the Town’s transportation recommendations.
Density A diversity of housing and travel options is beneficial to the community. Residential density and nonresidential intensity can look and feel quite different based on building form and neighborhood design. As in most Towns, location is the main factor in determining density and intensity. The area of Town closest to the Raleigh-Durham International Airport has typically developed at a lower density and intensity due to the airport overlay district restricting residential uses. Managing the location and magnitude of new density or intensity within the built environment helps planners determine infrastructure needs and implementation costs, and shifts impacts away from the environmentally sensitive areas.
Diversity Mixed-use developments combine a variety of public amenities with compatible land uses, in turn creating places where people live, play, work, and shop. Mixed-use developments offer advantages over single-use developments by fostering a more efficient transportation system characterized by shorter trip lengths, more choice among modes, convenient access, and more internal trips. Recent developments such as Park West Village and Grace Park reflect the desire to accommodate mixeduse developments within the Town. The Town of Morrisville continues to work to identify and support preferred locations for these types of development.
Design Urban design shapes the blocks, neighborhoods, and districts that organize the built environment and give the Town of Morrisville an identity. Elements of urban design provide a three-dimensional physical form to locally adopted comprehensive plans or zoning ordinances. Urban design connects people, places, and buildings. Some elements of urban design (e.g. street pattern, streetscaping, block size, parking, and landscaping) directly influence travel mode choice and travel behavior. These design elements generally vary with the context of the surrounding environment, and improvements need to be tailored to rural, suburban, and city and town environments.
Distance The distance between the origin and destination is a primary factor (along with travel mode choice) for influencing travel behavior. The physical distance between complementary land uses in rural or suburban settings tends to promote automobile travel, particularly since safe, convenient facilities usually are not available for pedestrians and bicyclists. Denser mixed-use areas decrease the travel distance between complementary land uses and support transit, bicycle, and walking as viable alternatives to the automobile.
3-6 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ROADWAYS
DRAFT
CORRIDOR CHARACTERISTICS As the Town’s economy expands and people continue to relocate here, the frequency and length of trips on existing roads will increase. This increase will make current delays worse and create new delays where none exist today. Understanding the system’s existing characteristics allows us to better anticipate future areas of concern. Once these areas are identified, establishing a set of transportation recommendations requires consideration of how the Town’s roads are classified and an understanding of how to balance the needs of multiple users along a given corridor.
Functional Classification (Street Hierarchy) An effective roadway network must manage two competing demands: x
Providing access to specific destinations
x
Offering mobility between centers
These two demands are inherently adversarial (e.g. increasing access typically limits mobility along the same corridor). Therefore, it is helpful to instill diversity into the network by providing easy access on some roads and protecting the mobility on others. Balancing access and mobility creates roadways that respond to the unique context and user groups along specific corridors. A functional classification system categorizes roadways based on characteristics such as speeds, vehicular capacities, and relationships with adjacent land utilizations. Federal funding programs use traditional roadway functional classification to help determine eligibility. For this reason among others, functional classification will always be necessary and should be consistently updated. Understanding a street’s place within the hierarchy of streets offers insight to help balance competing interests between design features, travel modes, and available right-of-way. The Town of Morrisville’s street hierarchy is made up of five classes: x
Freeways
x
Major Thoroughfares
x
Minor Thoroughfares
x
Collector Streets
x
Local Streets
The following graphics and tables provide more detail about the street hierarchy. Figure 3-4 displays the future street hierarchy for roadways within the Town of Morrisville. The future street hierarchy reflects potential changes to the transportation network discussed in this chapter.
FREEWAYS x x x
Controlled access Multi-lane roadways for higher speeds and longer distance travel Carry traffic through the Triangle region
Functional Classification
Freeway & Interstate
Local Examples
I-40 & NC 540
Number of Lanes
4+ travel lanes
Other Considerations
Partial or full access control, exclusive to motorized vehicular travel
MAJOR THOROUGHFARES x x x
Controlled access Multi-lane roadways for higher speeds and longer distance travel Carry traffic through the Triangle region
Functional Classification
Principal/Minor Arterial
Local Examples
NC 54 & Aviation Parkway
Number of Lanes
4+ travel lanes
Other Considerations
Relatively high traffic volumes
3-7 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
MINOR THOROUGHFARES x x x
Offer balance between providing local land access and moving people and goods Have lower travel speeds and traffic volumes than Major Thoroughfares Tend to be limited in width by the built environment they serve
Functional Classification
Minor Arterial
Local Examples
Town Hall Drive & Morrisville Parkway
Number of Lanes
2-4 travel lanes
Other Considerations
Logical cap to number of lanes provided
COLLECTORSTREETS x x x x
Connect neighborhood traffic to points within and between existing neighborhoods Balance mobility and access by supporting local development at the neighborhood level Primarily a conduit for local traffic during off-peak periods Often include slower travel speeds
Functional Classification
Collector
Local Examples
Church Street & Parkside Valley Drive
Number of Lanes
2-3 travel lanes
Other Considerations
Logical cap to number of travel lanes provided
LOCAL STREETS x x x
Local, slow-moving streets Can be urban, suburban, or rural Exclusive purpose is to provide block-level, local access, and safe connectivity to higher order streets
Functional Classification
Local
Local Examples
Downing Glen Drive
Number of Lanes
2-3 travel lanes
Other Considerations
Logical cap to number of travel lanes provided
3-8 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ROADWAYS
DRAFT
Figure 3-4: Future Street Hierarchy
Map Produced September 2017
3-9 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
Street Design Guide As recommendations are identified for the roadway network, it is important to consider their future design and function. The Town of Morrisville Comprehensive Plan Update attempts to do this by developing a series of standardized cross-sections based on those being used by the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) and NCDOT. Table 3-2 presents a context-based guide for the application of these standardized cross-sections in the Town of Morrisville. This table offers a greater understanding how street design can complement the land use context of a given area, which in turn offers an expression of consistency with stated NCDOT policy for design elements as well as Complete Street objectives. The table is organized around the Community Types derived from the region’s Connect 2045 scenario plan (Rural, Suburban, City & Town, Industrial, and Special). Understanding that categories “Industrial” and “Special” are limited locations that take on design characteristics of the other three categories, the table has been limited to Rural, Suburban, and City & Town. While there are always exceptions, establishing these standardized cross-sections and their appropriate context will be beneficial as future improvements or growth is considered in the Town. The illustrative cross-sections matching the Section ID column can be found in the Appendix. Table 3-2: Street Design Guide
Section ID
Suburban
2A
C C < < C C C C C C C C 5
2B 2C 2D 2E 3A 4A 4B 4C 5A 6A
City & Town
< C C < <
Bike/Ped
Posted Speed
5’ Sidewalk
35 or less
5' Bike Lane, 5' Sidewalk
25-45
Parking Both Sides, 5' Bike Lane, 5' Sidewalk
25-45
Parking One Side, 5' Bike Lane, 5' Sidewalk
25-45
Median, 5' Bike Lane, 5' Sidewalk
25-45
Share the Road, 5' Sidewalk
25-45
Median, Wide Outside Lanes, 5' Sidewalks
35-45
Median, 5' Sidewalk, Sidepath
35-45
Grass Median, 5' Bike Lanes, 5' Sidewalk
35-55
Wide Outside Lanes, 5' Sidewalks
35-45
Median, Wide Outside Lanes, 5' Sidewalks
55-70
<
Primary Cross-Section Secondary Cross-Section
RECOMMENDED THOROUGHFARE IMPROVEMENTS Recommendations along thoroughfares are grouped into three categories: x
Roadway Widening
x
Access Management
x
New Location Construction
The recommendations in this section are intended to alleviate future congestion concerns by adding capacity through roadway widening or new location facilities and easing traffic flow through access management strategies. Table 3-3 lists improvements to the thoroughfare network, while Figure 3-5 displays recommended projects along with previously committed projects. More information on the recommendations can be found on individual project sheets in the Appendix. Table 3-3: Recommended Thoroughfare Improvements
CORRIDOR Airport Boulevard Access Management
TO Slater Rd
FROM Factory Shops Rd
IMPROVEMENT Access Management
LENGTH 0.25 mi
Airport Boulevard Access Management Airport Boulevard Extension Davis Drive Evans Road
Slater Rd NC 54 Wake Co Northern Limits Aviation Pkwy
McCrimmon Pkwy Current Terminus Southern Town Limits Weston Pkwy
Access Management New Location Widening Widening
0.74 mi 0.77 mi 4.60 mi 0.67 mi
International Drive Louis Stephens Drive
Southport Drive Poplar Pike Ln
Current Terminus McCrimmon Pkwy
Widening Widening
0.38 mi 1.23 mi
McCrimmon Parkway
Louis Stephens Dr
Davis Drive
Widening
0.38 mi
NC 54 NC 54 NC 54 NC 54
NW Cary Pkwy NW Maynard Rd Weston Pkwy NC 540
Weston Pkwy NW Cary Pkwy Perimeter Park Dr Northern Town Limits
Widening Widening Widening Widening
0.62 mi 1.15 mi 2.39 mi 0.35 mi
3-10 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ROADWAYS
DRAFT
Figure 3-5: Recommended Thoroughfare Im pr ovements
Map Produced September 2017
3-11 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
INTERSECTION-LEVEL IMPROVEMENTS Recommendations for the future system include improvements to critical intersections and interchanges. These locations were identified due to operational deficiencies and safety concerns. More information about each improvement can be found in the Appendix. Additional details on intersection improvements will need to be determined through more in-depth safety and traffic analyses as the project progresses to design and construction. Table 3-4 includes the list of intersection-level improvements, while Figure 3-6 displays their locations. These recommendations are in addition to those already included as committed improvements. Although the grade separation at McCrimmon Parkway and NC 54 is shown in Figure 3-6, the project is currently committed. The project is shown for the purpose of reflecting a complete network but is not a recommendation deriving from this plan. Table 3-4: Intersection-Level Improvements
CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENT
Davis Drive & Morrisville Carpenter
Intersection Improvements
Davis Drive & Morrisville Parkway
Intersection Improvements
NC 54 & Morrisville Parkway
Intersection Improvements
NC 54 & NW Cary Parkway
Intersection Improvements
Aviation Parkway & Evans Road
Intersection Improvements
Morrisville Carpenter Road & Town Hall Drive
Intersection Improvements
Morrisville Carpenter Road Grade Separation
Grade Separation
Davis Drive & McCrimmon Pkwy
Intersection Improvements
Airport Boulevard & NC 54
Grade Separation
Crabtree Crossing Parkway at Morrisville Parkway
Intersection Improvements
Town Hall Drive & Carolina Street Extension
Roundabout
Slater Road & Carrington Mill Boulevard
Intersection Improvements
3-12 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ROADWAYS
DRAFT
Figure 3-6: Recommended Intersection-Level Improvements
Map Produced September 2017
3-13 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
CONNECTIVITY ENHANCING PROJECTS Expanding Morrisville’s transportation system with an increased number of local and collector streets that connect to other collectors and thoroughfares will enhance travel for local residents. The Town of Morrisville Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update includes a series of recommendations that are primarily intended to address connectivity improvements.
Benefits of Connectivity A more connected network can relay many benefits to local residents. x
Improved options to avoid congested intersections.
x
Reduced reliance by local residents on major routes.
x
Integrated bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
x
Improved emergency response time.
x
Reduced traffic on existing roadways.
x
Fostered meaningful connections with local streets.
Recommended Roadway Extensions Enhanced connectivity within Town of Morrisville primarily takes the form of roadway extensions. Within these roadway extensions, there are projects that may serve as attractors for future development, connections between existing neighborhoods, or other linkages between currently disconnected areas. Some of these projects may not respond meaningfully to the full roadway prioritization process, simply because they represent smaller connections. Many of these types of projects can be advanced or considered on a policy level, drawing on feedback from the Town’s Planning and Zoning Board and the Town Council. The roadway extensions being considered as a part of this plan include: x
Crabtree Crossing Parkway Extension
x
Marcom Drive Extension
x
Fox Glove Drive Extension
x
Carolina Street Extension
x
International Drive Extension
x
Southport Drive Extension
x
Green Drive Extension
x
Millicent Way Extension
x
Stockton Gorge Road
x
Odyssey Drive Extension
These projects are displayed in Figure 3-7.
3-14 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ROADWAYS
DRAFT
Figure 3-7: Recommended Connectivity Enhancements
Map Produced September 2017
3-15 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION The assessment of roadway projects for the Town of Morrisville Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update includes both quantitative and qualitative metrics. The metrics used were defined using feedback received from Town staff, the Morrisville Planning and Zoning Board, CAMPO, and NCDOT. In addition, national resources such as Transportation for America’s The Innovative MPO and their Transportation Performance Measures: 2017 Survey were consulted to pull from national best practices. In addition to each metric, Town staff considered the importance of each metric to the prioritization process and how much weight each should carry. The following sections define each metric used in the prioritization process.
Relationship to Guiding Principles At the outset of the planning process, the Town identified six guiding principles to help shape the direction and outcomes of the CTP Update. Those guiding principles are: Culture & Environment Enhance the Town’s quality of life by preserving and promoting its valued places and natural assets. Growth & Development Make travel more efficient by coordinating transportation investments with land use decisions. Safety & Security Promote a safe and secure transportation system by reducing crashes and improving emergency response. Economic Vitality Support the local economy by making it easier to move people and freight around and through the Town. Mobility & Accessibility Provide a balanced transportation system that makes it easier to walk, ride a bike, and take transit. System Preservation Improve the transportation system’s longevity by emphasizing maintenance and operational efficiency. During the development of prioritization criteria, the relationship to the plan’s guiding principles was closely considered. Each of the prioritization criteria identified responds to one or more guiding principles. The relationship between prioritization criteria and guiding principles is detailed below. Prioritization Criteria
Applicable Guiding Principles
Crash History Existing Volume to Capacity Ratio Volume to Capacity Reduction Schools and Community Facilities Activity Centers Supports Transit Routes
3-16 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ROADWAYS
DRAFT
Quantitative Metrics CRASH HISTORY To ensure that project recommendations best serve areas with existing safety concerns, crash data from June 2013 to May 2016 was analyzed relative to crash severity and frequency. Crash frequency includes a raw count of crashes along roadway project segments and within 300 ft. of intersection projects. The crash severity metric was calculated using NCDOT’s methodology that converts each crash to a “property damage only” equivalency. This is called the equivalent property damage only (EPDO) index, and gives greater weight to more severe crashes. The table below shows the coefficients used by NCDOT to weight crashes by severity.
Severity Description K A B C PDO
fatality incapacitating injury evident non-incapacitating injury injury not evident, but complaint of pain or lapse in consciousness property damage only '2&1 = 7 6 . 8 ( - E #) + 8 . 4 ( $ E %) + 1 ( 2&1)
Weight 76.8 76.8 8.4 8.4 1
EXISTING VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO Existing volume-to-capacity ratios (V/C) were scored using the Locally Administered Projects Program (LAPP) methodology. The existing V/C for each linear project was obtained from the 2010 Triangle Regional Model and scaled using a point system. For new location roadways, parallel facilities that would be improved by the project were identified by Town staff, and the V/C of the parallel facility was used. The scoring system is defined below. V/C < 0.2
0.0 points
V/C < 0.4
0.2 points
V/C < 0.6
0.6 points
V/C < 0.8
0.8 points
V/C > 0.8
1.0 point
VOLUME TO CAPACITY REDUCTION Each linear project is scored based on the volume-to-capacity reduction from year 2010 to 2040. V/C ratios for the existing year were obtained from the approved regional travel demand model (Triangle Regional Model v5) base year 2010 model network with 2040 socio-economic data, and future year V/C ratios were obtained from a 2040 full build-out model.
Qualitative Measures SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES Projects within ½ mile of schools and community facilities were awarded 1 point. Community facilities include parks, community centers, and greenway trailheads.
ACTIVITY CENTERS Projects that serve an area designated as Business Activity Center, Neighborhood Activity Center, or Regional Activity Center in the Town’s existing zoning classifications were awarded 1 point.
SUPPORTS TRANSIT ROUTES Projects that align with existing and proposed transit routes were awarded 1 point.
3-17 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
Prioritization Results The outcomes of this prioritization process are reflected in Figure 3-8. It is important to note that the prioritized projects shown here are not financially constrained – this list is independent of potential revenues and should be used as a guide to help advocate for future funding. The prioritization process is intended to serve as a tool that allows for flexibility in the order in which projects are implemented. This flexibility allows funding partners such as the Town, NCDOT, and CAMPO to be opportunistic and to take advantage of future revenue as it becomes available. To this end, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit projects are not independently prioritized. Where these projects align with roadway projects, the Town should seek to implement bicycle, pedestrian, and transit improvements concurrent with roadway enhancements. This approach is most cost-effective and minimizes construction impacts to the surrounding network.
3-18 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ROADWAYS
DRAFT
Figure 3-8: Prior i t izat i on Results f or Recommended Roadway Improvements
Map Produced September 2017
3-19 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
STRATEGIC CORRIDORS The Town of Morrisville has been growing steadily in recent years, and continued growth is anticipated. The impact of future growth will affect services and reshape geographies. However, the Town’s most vulnerable asset very well may be one of the driving factors behind the growth – major transportation corridors. In the future, these roadways will serve as the backdrop for strategies associated with transportation, land use, urban design, and economic development. Profiles for five of the Town’s strategic corridors were designed to provide more detail for these important assets, including a deeper understanding of existing conditions and an assessment of growth and development along and adjacent to the corridors. This information helped shape potential solutions to ease congestion, increase safety, and reflect the vision and goals for a balanced transportation system. The five corridors shown on the next pages represent conditions found throughout the Town including typical roadway cross-sections, heavy traffic congestion, commercial development adjacent to the roadway, and potential for significant growth. As a result, the solutions illustrated in this section can be applied to other peer corridors that were not evaluated. By taking the proper steps now, these strategic corridors can support new growth, accommodate increases in traffic, and contribute to the success of the overall transportation system. For three of the strategic corridors, the linkage between land use and transportation was explored further in a scenario planning exercise. Town staff worked with the Town Council and Planning and Zoning Board to identify Town Hall Drive, McCrimmon Parkway, and NC 54 for inclusion in this exercise. Potential changes in growth patterns, densities, or intensities along each corridor were compared with the performance of a trend scenario to better understand how recommended transportation solutions would respond to these changes. Observations from this process are included in the strategic corridor writeups that follow. The scenario planning process is described in detail in the Appendix. Strategic corridor summaries have been prepared for McCrimmon Parkway, NC 54, Town Hall Drive, Airport Boulevard, and Morrisville Carpenter Road. Figure 3-9 shows the extents of these strategic corridor sections. These strategic corridor summaries include the following details:
x
Corridor Length and Federal Functional Classification
x
Existing (2010) and Projected (2040) Future Traffic Volumes (vehicles per day) and Congestion (volume to capacity ratio) – taken from Triangle Regional Model
x
Crash Summary – obtained from NCDOT crash statistics from June 2013 to May 2016
x
Priority Served – top three priorities served by the corridor, ranked by members of the public at Public Workshop #2 and by the Planning and Zoning Board
x
Existing Conditions – key observations, opportunities, and challenges currently facing the corridor
x
Recommendations – recommendations for the corridor, land use scenario planning observations, and supporting graphics
3-20 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ROADWAYS
DRAFT
Figure 3-9: Strategic Corr idor Secti ons
Map Produced September 2017
3-21 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
McCrimmon Parkway Length
Functional Classification
1.72 Miles
Urban Minor Arterial
Traffic Volume (vpd)
Crash Summary (3 year totals)
2010 – 4,352 2040 – 19,470
Total Crashes
154
Injury
29
Property Damage
124
Fatalities
1
Most Predominant
Rear End
Congestion (v/c ratio)
2010 – 0.38
Priority Served
2040 – 0.35
1. Congestion 2. Safety 3. Transit
Existing Conditions McCrimmon Parkway is in the midst of a significant change. With the extension of the roadway between NC 54 and Aviation Parkway this facility will provide a major connection through Morrisville. This extension will introduce opportunities for growth and also change the travel characteristics along the exiting section.
Recommendations The recommended cross-section for McCrimmon Parkway includes a roadway widening from 2- to 4- lanes divided by a median. The widening will include a grade separated intersection at NC 54 and McCrimmon Parkway. Scenario testing increased growth along the corridor, ultimately confirming the proposed cross-section, along with the need for multimodal connectivity. The roadway recommendations for McCrimmon Parkway are complemented by sidepaths on both sides of the roadway, accommodating both bicyclists and pedestrians. The grade separation at NC 54 and McCrimmon Parkway should include quality multimodal enhancements that continue the sidepath recommendation throughout the corridor.
3-22 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ROADWAYS
DRAFT
Figure 3-10: McCrimm on Parkway Strategic Corr idor Recommendations
Map Produced September 2017
3-23 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
NC 54 Length
Functional Classification
2.39 Miles
Urban Principal Arterial
Traffic Volume (vpd)
Crash Summary (3 year totals)
2010 – 9,773
Total Crashes
2040 – 33,374
221
Injury
51
Property Damage
169
Fatalities
1
Most Predominant
Rear End
Congestion (v/c ratio)
2010 – 1.07 2040 – 0.90
Priority Served 1. Congestion 2. Safety 3. Transit
Existing Conditions NC 54 is one of the most heavily traveled routes in Morrisville, serving a mix of local and regional uses. Congestion issues along NC 54 have spurred the development of corridor and intersection-level studies to determine future improvements to the roadway. Upcoming development such as the Wake Tech Community College campus will encourage additional future growth. In addition, the proposed transit oriented development (TOD) along NC 54 will create a multimodal transportation hub.
Recommendations Within this section, NC 54 is recommended to be widened to 4 lanes, transitioning from 6 lanes on either end. The widening will include grade separations at McCrimmon Parkway, Airport Boulevard, and Morrisville Carpenter Road. It is recommended that the Town should consider conducting a full corridor study for NC 54 focused on access management options. A sidepath recommendation is included for the length of the corridor with a strategic tie-in to the Crabtree Hatcher Greenway. Scenario testing considered the addition of the identified TOD and development growth to determine the viability of the proposed cross-section.
3-24 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ROADWAYS
DRAFT
Figure 3-11: NC 54 Strat egic Corri dor Recommendations
Map Produced September 2017
3-25 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
Town Hall Drive Length
Functional Classification
1.77 Miles
Urban Collector
Traffic Volume (vpd)
Crash Summary (3 year totals)
2010 – 39 2040 – 3,997
Total Crashes
27
Injury
3
Property Damage
24
Fatalities
0
Most Predominant
Rear End
Congestion (v/c ratio)
2010 – 0.00 2040 – 0.10
Priority Served 1. Transit 2. Walk 3. Appearance
Existing Conditions Town Hall Drive serves as the heart of the Town of Morrisville, with numerous civic uses, neighborhood connections, and multimodal accommodations. Town Hall Drive currently terminates at McCrimmon Parkway; however, a proposed extension to Town Hall Drive would connect the facility to NC 147. Proposed growth and improvements along this corridor will need to accommodate potential changes in travel patterns while remaining flexible to serve local needs.
Recommendations Recommendations for Town Hall Drive are centered around the Town Center Core Vision Plan, which aims to create a central gathering place for the larger Morrisville community. The site is planned to be anchored by various civic uses (Community Center, Library, Morrisville Town Hall) and the future Town Green. Scenario testing explored the impact of the Town Center Core, the Town Hall Drive extension, and continued mixed-use development growth along the corridor. Preliminary recommendations include a roundabout paired with a street extension at Carolina Street and shared lane markings down Town Hall Drive.
3-26 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ROADWAYS
DRAFT
Fi gure 3-12: Town Hall Drive St rat egic Cor ri dor Recommendat i ons
Map Produced September 2017
3-27 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
Airport Boulevard Length
Functional Classification
1.26 Miles
Urban Minor Arterial
Traffic Volume (vpd)
Crash Summary (3 year totals)
2010 – 5,987 2040 – 26,812
Total Crashes
32
Injury
6
Property Damage
26
Fatalities
0
Most Predominant
Rear End
Congestion (v/c ratio)
2010 – 0.25 2040 – 0.57
Priority Served 1. Congestion 2. Safety 3. Transit
Existing Conditions Airport Boulevard currently serves as one of Morrisville’s primary gateways from I-40. Airport Boulevard currently terminates at NC 54, with a small additional section near Davis Drive. This disconnect creates a convoluted travel pattern, negatively impacting roadways such as NC 54, Aviation Parkway, and McCrimmon Parkway.
Recommendations Recommendations for Airport Boulevard include a grade separation at NC 54 and an extension of the roadway to Town Hall Drive. This will lead to two new intersections at Town Hall Drive and Church Street. The construction of the new roadway may potentially include a phased process, Phase 1 – Town Hall Drive to Church Street and Phase 2 – NC 54 to Church Street. While it is preferable to create the full connection between NC 54 and Town Hall Drive, moving this project forward in phases still provides enhancements to local connectivity with reduced financial impacts. The new roadway extension will likely open the viability of the underdeveloped parcels between NC 54 and Town Hall Drive, opening opportunities for investment in and near the core of Morrisville.
3-28 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ROADWAYS
DRAFT
Figure 3-13: Air port Boulevard Strategic Corr idor Recommendations
Map Produced September 2017
3-29 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
Morrisville Carpenter Road Length
Functional Classification
0.55 Miles
Urban Minor Arterial
Traffic Volume (vpd)
Crash Summary (3 year totals)
2010 – 7,762 2040 – 17,535
Total Crashes
131
Injury
29
Property Damage
101
Fatalities
1
Most Predominant
Rear End
Congestion (v/c ratio)
2010 – 0.82 2040 – 0.56
Priority Served 4. Congestion 5. Transit 6. Appearance
Existing Conditions Morrisville Carpenter Road provides a vital link through the heart of Morrisville, providing connections for local and regional traffic between NC 55 and I-40. The majority of the roadway in Morrisville is two lanes, but in many areas additional pavement has been provided for turn lanes into neighborhoods and commercial development. Pedestrian access along the roadway has been enhanced through mid-block crosswalks featuring rectangular rapid flash beacons that can be activated by pedestrians.
Recommendations Design plans for widening are underway for Morrisville Carpenter Road. A design plan for widening is currently underway. Key recommendations for this facility include improvements to intersections throughout the section. Changes in turning movements and access will be especially notable for the section of Morrisville Carpenter Road near NC 54. Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations are recommended to include wide outside travel lanes and 5-ft sidewalks on both sides. Special consideration should be given to connections to future greenways and the trailhead along Town Hall Drive.
3-30 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ROADWAYS
DRAFT
Figure 3-14: Morrisville Carpenter Road Strategic Corri dor Recommendations
Map Produced September 2017
3-31 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ALTERN ATIVE
DRAFT
BENEFITS OF ACTIVE TRAVEL
TRAVEL MODES
INTRODUCTION Communities with successful transportation networks balance multimodal accommodations for different types of trips – recreational and utilitarian. In order to plan for multimodal elements that would enhance the Town’s overall livability, the Town of Morrisville Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update explores ways to enhance the existing transportation network to truly serve all
Health Benefits
community transportation users. This alternative travel focus embodies how local decisions can enhance the overall mobility and safety for bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users. The plan for bicyclist, pedestrian, and transit recommendations coordinates closely with other elements, notably through an emphasis on projects tied to roadway recommendations presented in Chapter 3 and regional planning efforts through the Wake County Transit Plan.
Benefits of Active Travel Transportation Benefits
The option to bike, walk, or take transit is a key element to any healthy community’s transportation system. When an environment is conducive to active transportation, these modes offer a practical transportation choice that provides benefits for both individuals and their communities. The potential for increased walking, in particular, is large since 25% of all trips in the United States are less than one mile in length. Features that contribute to making transportation more active include a healthy mix of land uses, appropriately sized and located facilities, accessibility features such as curb
Environmental Benefits
ramps, buffers between vehicular and non-motorized modes, and transit shelters. Slowing traffic, reducing unnecessary exposure to vehicles, and incorporating active transportation features (i.e. signage, crosswalks, and adequate pedestrian phasing at signals) into future roadway design plans also enhance the viability of active travel in the Town. The bicycle, pedestrian, and transit recommendations in this chapter emphasize the creation of a functional active transportation network throughout the Town. This focus recognizes the variety of benefits of active transportation and how it contributes to the community. These benefits include:
Economic Benefits
x
Health benefits - Regular physical activity helps prevent or reduce the risk of a variety of
chronic diseases, obesity, and mental health problems such as depression. x
Transportation benefits – Many streets carry more traffic than they were designed to handle,
resulting in congestion, wasted time, pollution, and driver frustration. Many of the trips that Americans make every day are short enough to be accomplished on foot or bike, and longer trips made by bus reduce the number of single occupancy vehicles. x
Environmental benefits – Motor vehicles create substantial air pollution. According to the
EPA, transportation is responsible for nearly 80% of carbon monoxide emissions in the U.S.
Quality of Life Benefits
x
Economic benefits – Car ownership consumes a major portion of many family incomes. When
safe facilities are provided to walk, bike, and take transit, more people can rely on active travel and spend less on transportation, putting more money back into local economies. x
Quality of life benefits – The availability of active travel in a community is an indicator of its
livability, which helps attract businesses and grow tourism-related activity. Providing bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities contributes to a healthy sense of identity and place. x Social Justice Benefits
Social justice – For those without the option to drive, such as adolescents, elderly, those
unable to afford a car, and people with certain disabilities, these facilities provide travel choice and break down barriers to accessing jobs, health care, education, and recreation.
SIDEWALK NETWORK Walking is a key element to a healthy community’s transportation system. Every trip begins and ends as a walking trip, yet walking often remains a lower priority mode during the planning process. The availability of pedestrian facilities and amenities plays an important role in encouraging the use of alternative modes of travel to the automobile. The success of transit greatly depends on the functionality of pedestrian facilities and amenities. While this plan does not directly recommend standalone sidewalk projects, it is emphasized that all roadway projects in Chapter 3 adhere to complete street concepts and should include accommodations for pedestrians. However, as roadways are improved and developments are built the Town should continually strive to close gaps in the pedestrian network. For stand-alone sidewalk projects the Town should seek to maximize cost-effectiveness, including whether or not to provide curb and gutter as part of the project’s scope.
4-1 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
BICYCLE NETWORK The recommended bicycle network for the Town of Morrisville Comprehensive
FACILITY TYPES
Transportation Plan Update includes a coordinated group of on- and off-street Bike Lane
facilities. Connectivity between bicycle facilities and activity centers was an important consideration as recommendations were developed. The planning process also emphasized vetting previous plans with the updated roadway recommendations. The emphasis was necessary given the limited funds available for standalone bicycle and pedestrian projects. The facility recommendations shown in the maps on the pages that follow are coordinated with the roadway recommendations provided in Chapter 3.
On-Street Bicycle Facilities On-street bicycle facilities planned for the Town of Morrisville include bike lanes, shared lane markings, and wide shoulders. Some of these treatments can be eligible for short-term implementation, while others require phased, long-term improvements ancillary to a roadway upgrade. The section below describes the recommended facility types that are shown on the following page.
BIKE LANES Bike lanes are one way treatments that typically carry bicycle traffic in the same direction as adjacent motor vehicle traffic. Bike lanes are provided for the exclusive or preferential use of bicyclists on a roadway and are identified through signage, striping, Paved Shoulder
and pavement markings. These lanes allow bicyclists of all skill levels to ride at comfortable speeds and encourage a position with the roadway where they are more likely to be seen by motorists. State and federal guidance should be referenced to handle areas where bicycle lanes may come into conflict with travel lanes such as around turn lanes or merge sections.
General Considerations x
Bike lanes are preferred treatments for urban and suburban thoroughfares, and should be a minimum of five feet wide.
x
Lanes should provide a smooth riding surface and be free of debris.
x
Lanes should be provided on both sides of a two-way street.
x
Bike lanes are most appropriate on streets with higher traffic volumes and posted speeds of 30 mph or greater.
PAVED SHOULDERS Paved shoulders are often found in less dense rural areas along roadways without curb and gutter. Paved shoulders may offer convenient access to nearby communities, particularly for more experienced recreational cyclists. Some of these roads may Shared Lane Marking
eventually be reconstructed to include bike lanes, but if the road is not anticipated to be widened in the future, adding or improving striped shoulders may be a simpler bike accommodation.
General Considerations x
Paved shoulders should be provided on both sides of the roadway.
x
Paved shoulders are not considered travel lanes, but can be occupied by disabled vehicles.
x
Absent of other facilities, paved shoulders will be shared with pedestrians.
SHARED LANE MARKINGS Shared lane markings can help bicyclists position themselves appropriately in travel lanes and provide wayfinding. The signage and markings provide awareness to motorists of the likely presence of bicyclists and that they must share the road.
General Considerations x
“Share the Road” signs do not indicate a bike route to motorists.
x
Shared lanes markings are best used on streets with constraints such as
x
limited rights-of way.
Source: FHWA Small Town and Rural Design Guide, Facilities for
Shared lane markings should not be used on roads with speed limits
Walking and Biking
above 35 mph.
4-2 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ALTERN ATIVE
DRAFT
TRAVEL MODES
Fi gure 4-1: Recommended On-St reet Bicycle Faci lit i es
Map Produced September 2017
4-3 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
Off-Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Multi-use path planning incorporates transportation, recreation, and health elements.
FACILITY TYPES
Depending on the community, multi-use paths are represented by a variety of forms Greenway
and uses. Often, a well-connected system of multi-use paths is not utilized solely for recreational purposes, but offers pedestrians and bicyclists the option of using the facilities as commuter corridors. The Town of Morrisville has taken a proactive approach to the planning of multi-use paths through incorporation into the Parks and Recreation Master Plan to encourage non-motorized transportation throughout the Town and to the systems of adjoining municipalities. Multi-use paths provide a myriad of benefits to the Town: alternative transportation, health promotion, economic development, recreational opportunities, land and habitat conservation, and improved air and water quality. The Town of Morrisville Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update includes two variations of multi-use paths that will be designed to provide off-road trails that provide access to parks, neighborhoods, and commercial areas. For this plan, multi-use paths are classified as either a greenway or sidepath and are described below.
GREENWAY Greenways are trails that are found in both urban and rural settings that are typically set aside for recreational use or environmental protection. These facilities are comfortable for both bicyclists and pedestrians to travel on. Sidepath
General Considerations x
Greenways should provide a high level of comfort for both bicyclists and pedestrians.
x
Greenways can be used for commuting purposes of non-motorists if alignments are strategically placed in a community.
SIDEPATHS Sidepaths are a type of multi-use facility that is physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic, but still within the roadway right-of-way. Sidepaths provide an extra level of comfort and safety to pedestrians and cyclists from roadways with higher travel speeds and vehicular volumes.
General Considerations x
Careful consideration in design should be given to the degree of separation and driveway crossings.
x
The inclusion of sidepaths includes a wide roadside environment to provide the appropriate separation and pathway width.
NEIGHBORHOOD CONNECTORS Neighborhood connectors are similar in design and function to greenways or sidewalks, but provide connections to the primary trail system via short spurs. Neighborhood connectors may vary in width, and may take the form of a short greenway or sidewalk section.
General Considerations x
Neighborhood connectors should follow ADA accessibility guidelines.
Source: FHWA Small Town and Rural Design Guide, Facilities for Walking and Biking
4-4 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ALTERN ATIVE
DRAFT
TRAVEL MODES
Figure 4-2: Recommended Off -Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Facil i t ies
Map Produced September 2017
4-5 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
MULTI-USE PATH DESIGN GUIDANCE
Figure 4-3: Connect 2045 Place Types
This matrix serves to link a variety of multi-use path features to the types of land uses that are present within the Town of Morrisville. The matrix correlates the place types in Connect 2045 with five roll-up categories to help streamline decision making regarding the choice of surface treatments, crossing types, and amenities for multi-use paths in the Town. The various features below can help enhance the character of a place and best serve the needs of users.
HIGH APPLICABILITY
MEDIUM APPLICABILITY
LOW APPLICABILITY
Table 4-1: Mu lt i -Use Path Design Guidance Mat rix
CITY & TOWN COMMERCIAL
CITY & TOWN RESIDENTIAL
SUBURBAN COMMERCIAL
SURFACE TREATMENT Asphalt
Concrete
Decorative Surface STRIPING AND MARKING Longitudinal PERPENDICULAR CROSSING TREATMENT Decorative Crosswalk
High Visibility Crosswalk
Standard Crosswalk LIGHTING Roadway Level
Pedestrian Level AMENITIES Benches
Bicycle Parking
Waste Receptacles
Dog Cleanup Stations
4-6 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL
RURAL
ALTERN ATIVE TRAVEL MODES
DRAFT
PRIORITIZATION OF INDEPENDENT MULTI-USE PATH PROJECTS Identifying facility needs and improvement types is only one part of the recommendations development process. Given the existing and anticipated funding sources available for bicycle and pedestrian projects in the region, there is a possibility that all the projects recommended here may not be built within the next 30 years. The improvements in this plan were further analyzed using both quantitative and qualitative measures. A range of criteria were considered in the further analysis of the multi-use path network, including: x
Connections to existing and proposed facilities
x
Activity centers served
x
Feasibility of construction
x
Funding partners
Independent multi-use paths are not grouped into near-term, mid-term, or long-term priorities. Rather, the four criteria for this assessment can be used as a guide to strategically advance projects, depending on the specific needs of the Town at that time. Table 4-2 shows the results of this prioritization exercise. Prioritization criteria are scored using a star system, with five stars indicating that the facility performs very well, and one star indicating that the facility does not perform well for that specific factor. The funding partners column indicates where the Town may be able to seek additional funding opportunities to advance certain multi-use paths. State and federal partners include NCDOT, CAMPO, and FHWA, while private partners typically include the development community or private grant opportunities.
Table 4-2: Prior itization of Independent Mu l t i -Use Path Projects
Connectivity
Activity Centers Served
Feasibility of Construction
Funding Partners
Town Hall Drive Sidepath
Private
Sawmill Creek Greenway
State | Federal | Private
Morrisville Parkway Sidepath
State | Federal | Private
Airport Boulevard Sidepath
State | Federal | Private
Sorrells Grove Lake Greenway
Private
Mills Spring Greenway
State | Federal | Private
Fairview Greenway
State | Federal | Private
Green/Clements Drive Sidepath
Private
Park West Greenway Extension
Private
4-7 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
TRANSIT Like a complete system of roads, sidewalks, and bikeways, transit must provide connections to the places people need or want to go at a time when they need to get there. Potential riders are interested in transit service that is fast, frequent, dependable, and easy to use. As shown in Chapter 2, limited transit service in the Town of Morrisville is provided by GoTriangle.
Future Opportunities The Town of Morrisville is at a unique crossroads that will require balancing many challenges and opportunities to best prepare for future transit expansion. The Wake County Transit Plan (adopted in December 2015) set the stage for a county-wide vision for transit service. This plan included an aggressive public outreach effort to gain feedback from citizens, and involved intensive participation by the county’s municipalities. In the November 2016 election, Wake County residents approved a one-half cent local sales tax to fund County-wide transit, advancing the recommendations of the Wake County Transit Plan. As part of this plan, the Town of Morrisville will be home to one of the planned stops for the Durham-Wake Commuter Rail planned to stretch from Garner to Duke University. Figure 4-4 shows existing transit services in the Town along with proposed future service discussed in the Wake County Transit Plan.
Source: Wake County Transit Plan
FUTURE LOCAL SERVICE Additionally, municipalities like Morrisville are eligible to apply for financial assistance through community funding areas. Community funding areas are eligible for matching funds that will be set aside to create or accelerate new or enhanced service. The current details of the program are still being developed, but it is paramount that the Town of Morrisville plans accordingly and stays involved in the decision-making process. It is recommended that once the program details have been finalized, the Town pursue a new plan that will study and identify the most viable local option for transit in Morrisville.
TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) In 2013, the Town of Morrisville completed a local area study creating an action plan for a future transit-oriented development and transit station at the intersection of McCrimmon Parkway and NC 54, following a 2011 resolution passed by Town Council strongly supporting the station. The McCrimmon Transit Small Area Plan provides a detailed action plan of the role the Town of Morrisville will need to play to provide the McCrimmon TOD. Continual support of the McCrimmon TOD offers many benefits for the Town of Morrisville including the creation of an important hub for regional transit via the Durham-Wake Commuter Rail, increased viability of local transit through community funding areas, improved connectivity to higher education at Wake Technical Community College, and creating an environment that supports quality mixed-use development. As enhanced transit service makes its way into Morrisville, a secondary TOD could also be considered east of NC 54 to further enhance connectivity to Wake Technical Community College.
4-8 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ALTERN ATIVE
DRAFT
TRAVEL MODES
Figure 4-4: Existing and Proposed Transit Service
Map Produced September 2017
4-9 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ACTION PLAN
DRAFT
RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES
INTRODUCTION The success of the Town of Morrisville Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update will hinge on the effective collaboration of local, regional and State officials to implement its projects and policies in a meaningful way. The recommendations in the plan build upon many historic and ongoing efforts by the Town to improve the transportation network through facility improvements, close coordination
Town of Morrisville
with agency partners, and Town policies. Completion of this plan represents an important step toward implementing multimodal improvements that affect travel safety, mobility, development patterns, and the aesthetics of the Town of Morrisville. This chapter lays out a simple set of recommendations to help local staff continue to focus their efforts and seek strategic opportunities to expedite the implementation of this plan.
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Responsible Agencies To successfully implement this plan, responsible agencies have been identified that can influence and authorize recommendations. Some of the recommended improvements will be implemented at the local level through the development review process. Major infrastructure improvements most likely will be a product of State and federal funding; however, transportation improvement funds are limited and competition for them is great. The majority of responsibility for implementing these recommendations will be a coordinated effort between NCDOT, CAMPO, the Town of Morrisville, and private developers.
Funding Opportunities With tight budgets constraining municipalities across the board, the funding to implement the North Carolina Department of Transportation
recommendations in the Town of Morrisville Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update will likely come from a patchwork of local, State, and federal programs, as well as through the receipt of private contributions. The Town of Morrisville has taken the initiative to explore future funding options and their viability for the area through the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation Funding. The findings of this group and their implications for the Town are documented within this chapter.
Implementation The core of the implementation strategy for this document is contained within the Action Plan, which lays out a concrete set of steps to implement the vision of the Town of Morrisville Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update. Through well-guided transportation and land use policies as well as leveraging strategic partnerships, each set of recommendations becomes a set of achievable goals with a basis in realistic expectations.
ACTION PLAN This section discusses the appropriate steps for local leaders to implement the recommendations of this plan and key agencies that should be involved with the task. It is not expected that all of the listed items would be completed over the next several years; however, the process should be initiated to best take advantage of the momentum gained with the development of this plan. Beyond the tasks listed below, it is vital to the success of this plan that the Town of Morrisville continues to work with and educate local citizens and businesses. While public support can encourage implementation, opposition can significantly delay a project. It will be important to encourage advocacy and maintain focus on those issues identified as important during preparation of the plan.
Policy Measures Morrisville’s status as a desirable area for growth and development and as a major draw for regional traffic creates a tension between the needs of land use and transportation. The Town works closely with neighboring jurisdictions, CAMPO, and NCDOT to ensure that the integrity of transportation plans is maintained as development applications are considered. Town staff will continue to work cooperatively with these agency partners to review proposed development applications and seek reasonable alternatives where necessary. In an effort to carry this collaboration forward, copies of the adopted plan also should be forwarded to CAMPO, Wake County, NCDOT, and the Town of Cary. Additional copies should be made available for public review at Town offices.
5-1 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
Before outlining a strategy for new policy and program recommendations, it is important to first reflect on the policies and programs that are already in place within the Town or are currently under development. An inventory of plans and policies with content relevant to the advancement of the Town of Morrisville Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update was performed as part of the information gathering phase of the plan development. This information is included in the Appendix. Table 5-1 documents the policies or programs that are currently being used to address transportation needs within the Town, or are currently under development. Table 5-1: Policies or Programs that are Existi ng or Under Development
Element
Policies or Programs that are Existing or Under Development
Roadway
The Town of Morrisville is currently updating their TIA requirements. These requirements outline the level of traffic analysis and assessment required for different types and magnitudes of development. The Town of Morrisville is currently preparing a Townwide Strategic Plan. This plan is intended to assess current Town policies and practices and make recommendations on how to better coordinate, schedule, or collaborate on these efforts. The Town of Morrisville is currently preparing an update to their Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Recommendations made within the Town of Morrisville Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update will be incorporated into this plan, which will then provide additional detail about future destinations and activities. The Comprehensive Transportation Plan is used as a tool to communicate desired roadway connectivity as development projects are proposed. New developments are required to reserve right-of-way for and construct future collector streets. Bicycle safety campaigns are conducted periodically as a collaborative effort between Town departments such as Planning, Fire, and Police. The Unified Development Ordinance specifies the provision of facilities such as bike lanes and sidewalks within new developments and connecting to adjacent facilities. The Unified Development Ordinance allows for the provision of offstreet neighborhood connectors. The Town has identified a Transit-Oriented Development District (TODD) as a zoning category within its Unified Development Ordinance, and has provided details for multimodal accommodation that will support future transit implementation. The Town is actively involved with the development and implementation of the Wake County Transit Plan.
General
Bicycle & Pedestrian
Roadway
Roadway Bicycle & Pedestrian Bicycle & Pedestrian Bicycle & Pedestrian Transit
Transit
The Town of Morrisville has been proactive in incorporating these key transportation considerations into its requirements, leading to a more connected and multimodal system. Moving forward, these efforts can be continued and augmented by considering the policy or program recommendations shown in Table 5-2.
5-2 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ACTION PLAN
DRAFT
Table 5-2: Policy or Program Recommendat i ons
Element
Policy or Program Recommendation
General
Town staff should consider whether adjustments are needed to the Unified Development Ordinance to accommodate recommendations in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Support efforts by partner agencies to promote intelligent transportation systems and transportation demand management improvements. Where appropriate, consider implementation of access management strategies for both public and private sector improvements.
Roadway
Roadway Roadway
Roadway
Bicycle & Pedestrian Bicycle & Pedestrian Bicycle & Pedestrian Bicycle & Pedestrian Bicycle & Pedestrian Bicycle & Pedestrian Bicycle & Pedestrian
Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Transit Transit Transit
Review all development proposals for consistency with the approved collector street recommendations and emphasize network connectivity rather than specific alignments. Amend the Comprehensive Transportation Plan as necessary to include new streets as they are identified during the development review process. Continue to follow efforts promoting the Triangle Bikeway, and work with NCDOT to ensure proper connections to Town bike facilities on Airport Boulevard During road projects, enhance appropriate crossings to include marked crosswalks, pedestrian signal phasing, and ADA-compliant accessibility features Install rapid flashing beacons on all unsignalized greenway trail crossings or directional crossings as appropriate at major thoroughfares. Incorporate the streamlined nomenclature for multi-use paths described in Chapter 4 to other Town planning and engineering documents. Post informational signage to inform and educate the community about the purpose and rules of a sidepath, greenway, etc. Create wayfinding signage that details the trip length to community destinations by bike or on foot to encourage travelers to step outside their vehicle Following the completion of the Town’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan, revisit the non-motorized recommendations within the Comprehensive Transportation Plan to determine if adjustments should be made to better accommodate the vision of that plan. Update section 5.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance to specify the provision of supporting amenities for bicycle and pedestrian facilities that the Town desires within developments. Remain engaged with the identification and prioritization of transit improvements at the County level. Study potential routing, stop locations, ridership, and costs of a transit circulator with the intent to apply for funding through the Wake County Transit sales tax program.
Near Term Roadway Facility Improvements Using the roadway prioritization process discussed in Chapter 3, a series of near, mid and long-term roadway improvements were identified. While the full list of recommendations can be found in that chapter, near-term improvements are also laid out in Table 5-3. Prioritization is an effective way to help guide the allocation of future resources. However, the ultimate timeline for implementing these improvements is subject to funding availability. Responsibility for implementing these improvements will be a blend of State, local, and private funding and management. Table 5-3: Near-Term Roadway Improvements
CORRIDOR Aviation Parkway & Evans Road Intersection Davis Drive
TO
FROM
IMPROVEMENT Intersection Improvements
Wake County Northern Limits
Southern Town Limits
Widening
Davis Drive & Morrisville Carpenter Road Intersection Davis Drive & Morrisville Parkway Intersection
LENGTH
4.60 mi
Intersection Improvements Intersection Improvements
NC 54
NW Cary Parkway
Weston Parkway
Widening
0.62 mi
NC 54
NW Maynard Road/
NW Cary Parkway
Widening
1.15 mi
NC 54 & Morrisville Parkway Intersection NC 54 & NW Cary Parkway Intersection
Intersection Improvements Intersection Improvements
5-3 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY With its location near the Research Triangle Park and many of the Triangle’s most significant travelways, the Town of Morrisville is in a unique position to be proactive when planning for and incorporating transportation technology. This section details current applications of transportation technology within the Town, as well as considerations for the incorporation of emerging transportation technology.
Current Efforts The Town of Morrisville has numerous signalized intersections, which depending on their location are maintained either by the Town of Cary or by NCDOT. Funding has been awarded to the Town of Morrisville to develop a Townwide coordinated signal system. A coordinated signal system will allow for communication between the various signalized intersections within the Town. Signals along a corridor can be timed to maximize green time for drivers, and signal timing can be adjusted dynamically to adjust to crashes, congestion, or other changing conditions. The Town will be working closely with CAMPO as this coordinated signal system is developed by NCDOT. During this process, the Town should consider how best to manage the coordinated signal system upon its completion, potentially partnering with the Town of Cary. Residents and employees within the Town of Morrisville also can take advantage of transportation demand management programs that are active throughout the region. Strategies such as carpooling, vanpooling, flexible work hours, or telecommuting reduce the amount of single occupant vehicles on the road and help reduce congestion. The Town should continue to seek out opportunities to educate its citizens about the availability of these programs. Electric vehicles are already a part of the landscape within the Town of Morrisville. As this portion of the vehicle fleet continues to grow, communities will need to be intentional about providing charging stations at public facilities and with private development. The Town’s Unified Development Ordinance includes some considerations for the location and quantity of these charging stations. Moving forward, the Town should continue to explore adding detail to these considerations, including guidance on when private developers or the Town are responsible for installation.
Emerging Technology While the impacts of some technological developments are limited to their field, there are others—like the printing press, the telephone, and the computer—that have the capacity to introduce a much more significant impact and transform the lifestyle of a generation. The introduction and advancements of connected and automated vehicles (CAV) is one such development. Connected vehicles are defined as vehicles equipped with technology for communication with other vehicles and roadside infrastructure. Autonomous vehicles are defined as vehicles that can perform driving functions without a driver at any time. As CAV advancements expand daily and are introduced into existing transportation systems, it becomes more challenging for agencies to prepare and plan for these advancements. CAV will introduce changes in the way states and local agencies implement transportation projects and future developments. Figure 5-1 captures a sampling of the opportunities and impacts that many agencies have recently identified with respect to CAV.
Figure 5- 1: Opportun ities and Impacts of CAV Technologies
With the development and introduction of CAV technologies, the infrastructure, investments, and planning to support CAV’s increasing presence will need to be thoroughly strategized for the future. Within each travel mode, there are potential strategies and challenges that can be considered now to help facilitate the eventual incorporation of CAV technologies. In many instances, these planning issues will need to be assessed at a regional level to make their implementation feasible. The Town of Morrisville can serve as an advocate to encourage the consideration of these issues. Future updates to the Comprehensive Transportation Plan should continue to update both the current state and future outlook for CAV and other emerging transportation technologies.
5-4 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ACTION PLAN
DRAFT
Table 5-4: Near-Term Planning Issues for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CAV)
Travel Mode General Roadway
Roadway Roadway
Parking Bicycle & Pedestrian Bicycle & Pedestrian Bicycle & Pedestrian Transit Transit
Near-Term Planning Strategies Consider the future impacts of autonomous vehicles on land development and zoning bylaws. Consider design requirements to enhance detection equipment and controller equipment to collect and broadcast speed and safety information. Consider how to begin accommodating autonomous vehicles within a mixed vehicle fleet. Assess the safety and mobility impacts of providing two-way left turn lanes in a CAV setting. Consider the implications of converting on-street parking into pick up and drop off lanes. Consider impacts of greenway crossings at surface streets in a CAV setting. Consider the design impacts to bike lanes as autonomous vehicles are introduced into the fleet. Explore additional education and outreach programs designed for both bicyclists and motorists. Consider future impacts of potential design requirements to accommodate autonomous transit vehicles. Consider dynamic routing and agility in transit stops in response to realtime ridership needs.
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES The construction of a comprehensive transportation network can occur through incremental adoption of local policies and initiatives supplemented by State and federal programs and assistance from the private sector. It will be important for the Town of Morrisville, in collaboration with Wake County and CAMPO, to continue pursuing funding resources to implement the recommendations of this plan. The Town of Morrisville has long understood this reality. Through the creation of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation Funding, the Town prepared a report exploring this issue. The report, finalized in December 2014, provided a review of potential transportation financing strategies and funding sources drawn from examples both locally and in other peer communities. The report then assessed the viability of these financing strategies and funding sources for use within the Town of Morrisville. The financing strategies and funding sources considered as a part of this study are identified and defined in Tables 5-5 and 5-6. Table 5-5: Pot ent ial Transport at io n Financin g St rat egies
FINANCING STRATEGY
General Obligation Bonds
Installment-Purchase Debt Revenue Bonds Tax Increment Debt Special Assessment Debt
DEFINITION
A form of financing that generally has a lower interest rate than other municipal debt, is generally the only form of financing that requires a voter referendum, and is secured by the Town’s unlimited taxing power and full faith and credit. A form of financing that does not require voter approval (via referendum), and is secured by non-tax revenue or property. Secured by and paid for by user revenues, such as user fees or tolls on roadways. Secured by additional property tax revenue produced by private development. Also known as Tax Increment Financing. Financing secured by and paid for from assessments levied against private property. Source: Town of Morrisville Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation Funding Report, page i, December 2014.
5-5 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
Table 5-6: Potent ial Transportat ion Funding Sources
FUNDING SOURCE
DEFINITION
Property Tax
Motor Vehicle License Fee
Powell Bill
Development Requirements
NCDOT STIP Funding
CAMPO/Federal Funding CDBG Infrastructure Grants Local Sales Tax
Special Assessments – Private Property
Impact Fees State Transportation Grants
Permits/Fees/Sales/Service
The primary source of revenue for many municipalities and counties. Levied on private property, including land, buildings, and vehicles each year, and is based on the value of the private property. A fee charged each year when a resident registers a vehicle with the state. Funds, generated by the state gasoline tax, distributed by the state to municipalities to help fund transportation projects on municipally-maintained roads. Also known as State Aid to Municipalities funding. Requirements the Town places on new development to construct infrastructure to serve that development, including thoroughfare requirements from the adopted Transportation Plan. The traditional source of transportation funding in North Carolina for state roads – most of this funding comes from vehicle sales tax and state and federal gasoline tax revenues. These funds are generally distributed through competitive grant processes, and are generated from the federal budget. Provides some infrastructure to the Town for use in areas with low-to-moderate incomes. Levied by the county, and collected by the state, on purchases made within a county. Assessments levied on property to pay for public improvements benefitting that property with no related outside financing. Fees charged by some jurisdictions to fund certain public infrastructure and facilities. These fees are generally charged per unit. Miscellaneous funds distributed by the state to municipalities through a competitive grant process. Miscellaneous revenue generated by many different functions within the Town, such as facility rentals, recreation programs, development fees and privilege license taxes for businesses operation within the Town.
Source: Town of Morrisville Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation Funding Report, page ii, December 2014.
Following the identification of these potential financing methodologies and funding sources, the Blue Ribbon Commission conducted an assessment of their viability within the Town of Morrisville. Financing methodologies and funding sources were assessed based on their performance against a series of evaluation criteria. These criteria included considerations such as sufficiency, timeliness, predictability, equity, suitability, and cost. Figure 5-2 is taken from the report and summarizes the findings of this assessment. Figure 5-2: Summary Evaluati on Mat ri x – Transport ati on Financing Met hodologies and Funding Sources
Source: Town of Morrisville Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation Funding, page iii, December 2014.
5-6 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ACTION PLAN
DRAFT
For those financing methodologies and funding strategies deemed as viable candidates for application in the Town of Morrisville, the Blue Ribbon Commission considered the potential level of investment and recommended project types. Table 5-7 shows the outcome of this consideration. Table 5-7: Level of Investment Matr ix
Financing Methods
FINANCING METHODOLOGIES AND FUNDING SOURCES General Obligation Bonds Installment-Purchase Debt Property Tax Motor Vehicle Registration Fee Powell Bill Development Requirements NCDOT STIP Funding CAMPO/Federal Funding CDBG Infrastructure Grants
Funding Sources
Local Sales Tax Special Assessments – Private Property Impact Fees State Transportation Grants
APPROXIMATE LEVEL OF INVESTMENT
RECOMMENDED TYPE(S) OF PROJECTS
$10,000,000+
New roads; major road widening
$1,000,000 - $5,000,000
Land acquisition; bike/ped
$0.01 generates $373,000 (FY 2015 est.) $15 generates $255,000 (FY 2015 est.)
Bond debt; maintenance; bike/ped; transit Maintenance; bike/ped; transit
$502,929 (FY 2015)
Maintenance; bike/ped
$2,274,000 (FY 2014 est.)
Thoroughfare improvements; bike/ped
2015-2025 draft STIP: $86,386,000
New roads; road widening; bike/ped; transit
Up to $5,000,000/project
Road widening; bike/ped; transit
$333,000 FY 16-FY 21
Bike/ped; small roadway projects
$3,810,000 (FY 2015 est.)
Bond debt; maintenance; bike/ped; transit
Unknown
Targeted improvements
Unknown
Capacity improvements
Unknown
Bike/ped; transit
Source: Town of Morrisville Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation Funding, page iv, December 2014.
Going forward, the Town of Morrisville can look to the information generated in the Blue Ribbon Commission report as well as funding guidance provided by CAMPO and NCDOT to continue to assess how best to leverage and implement various transportation financing and funding strategies. Remaining nimble and open to considering different types of funding strategies will enable the Town to be opportunistic and to take advantage of funding as it becomes available. Taking this approach will help Morrisville continue to advance its transportation vision through the strategic advancement of projects, programs, and policies both now and into the future.
5-7 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
APPENDIX
DRAFT
STANDAR DIZED CROSS-SECTIONS As recommendations are identified for the roadway network, it is important to consider their future design and function. The Town of Morrisville Comprehensive Plan Update attempts to do this by developing a series of standardized cross-sections based on those being used by the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Table A1 presents a context-based guide for the application of these standardized cross-sections in the Town of Morrisville. This table offers a greater understanding how street design can complement the land use context of a given area, which in turn offers an expression of consistency with stated NCDOT policy for design elements as well as Complete Street objectives. The table is organized around the Community Types derived from the region’s Connect 2045 scenario plan (Rural, Suburban, City & Town, Industrial, and Special). Understanding that categories “Rural,” “Industrial,” and “Special” are limited locations that take on design characteristics of the other two categories, the table has been limited to Suburban and City & Town. While there are always exceptions, establishing these standardized cross-sections and their appropriate context will be beneficial as future improvements or growth is considered in the Town. Table A-1: Street Design Guide
Section ID
Suburban
2A
C C < < C C C C C C C C 5
2B 2C 2D 2E 3A 4A 4B 4C 5A 6A
City & Town
< C C < <
<
Bike/Ped
Posted Speed
5’ Sidewalk
35 or less
5' Bike Lane, 5' Sidewalk
25-45
Parking Both Sides, 5' Bike Lane, 5' Sidewalk
25-45
Parking One Side, 5' Bike Lane, 5' Sidewalk
25-45
Median, 5' Bike Lane, 5' Sidewalk
25-45
Share the Road, 5' Sidewalk
25-45
Median, Wide Outside Lanes, 5' Sidewalks
35-45
Median, 5' Sidewalk, Sidepath
35-45
Grass Median, 5' Bike Lanes, 5' Sidewalk
35-55
Wide Outside Lanes, 5' Sidewalks
35-45
Median, Wide Outside Lanes, 5' Sidewalks
55-70
Primary Cross-Section Secondary Cross-Section
The pages that follow display the standardized cross-sections that have been developed for use within the Town of Morrisville Comprehensive Plan Update. Specific dimensions have not been provided within the cross-sections. Coordination with the Town will be needed to determine the preferred details for each corridor, and their application within the Town’s existing and proposed roadway network. The Town’s standard cross-sections include curb and gutter. However, the Town may choose to proceed with curb and gutter on one side of the road with shoulder on the other side, such as in instances where the roadway parallels the railroad. A range of different bicycle and pedestrian accommodations are displayed in the cross-sections. Coordination with Chapter 4 of this document as well as with Town staff will be needed to determine the most appropriate bicycle and pedestrian accommodations for a corridor. When a sidepath is included on one or both sides of the road, it will take the place of a sidewalk in that location. The lane widths provided below are preferred by the Town. Narrower dimensions may be considered based on coordination with Town staff and are subject to approval by NCDOT. Similarly, the typical right-of-way dimensions may be influenced by the ownership, context, or function of the road.
A-1 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
A-2 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
APPENDIX
DRAFT
A-3 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
A-4 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
PROJECT SHEETS
DRAFT
PROJECT SHEET DATA This page outlines further information about the data displayed in the following project sheets. Where applicable the data source, definitions, and process are described.
Traffic Volumes (VPD) Traffic volumes for the project sheets were obtained from the regional travel demand model. Volumes for the year 2010 were obtained from the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Triangle Regional Model for the current 2010 base year. Traffic volumes for the year 2040 were obtained from a final run of the CTP network and considers the construction of the proposed project and the returned improvements.
Congestion (V/C Ratio) Congestion values for the project sheets were obtained from the regional travel demand model. Congestion values for the year 2010 were obtained from the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Triangle Regional Model for the current 2010 base year. Anticipated congestion for the year 2040 was obtained from a final run of the CTP network and considers the construction of the proposed project and the returned improvements. Congestion is identified by using volume-tocapacity (V/C) ratios. V/C ratios are calculated by dividing the traffic volume of a roadway segment by the theoretical capacity of the roadway. Although V/C can be tied to level of service (LOS), V/C allows for a more specific analysis. The result is a universal quantitative measurement. The table below provides the V/C categories that were used in analyzing corridor improvements. CATEGORY Under Capacity V/C < 0.85 Approaching Capacity or At Capacity V/C = 0.85 to 1.0 Above Capacity V/C > 1.0
DESCRIPTION A roadway with a V/C less than 0.85 typically operates with efficiency and is not considered congested. As the V/C nears 1.0, the roadway is becoming more congested. A roadway approaching congestion may operate effectively during non-peak hours but be congested during peak travel periods. Roadways operating at capacity or slightly above capacity are heavily congested during peak periods and moderately congested during non-peak periods. A change in capacity due to incidents greatly impacts the travel flow on corridors operating within this V/C range.
Street Hierarchy The street hierarchy reflects potential changes to the transportation network discussed in Chapter 3. Street hierarchy allows the Town to balance competing interests between design features, travel modes, and available rights-of-way. Definitions of each category are below.
FREEWAYS x x x
Controlled access Multi-lane roadways for higher speeds and longer distance travel Carry traffic through the Triangle region
Functional Classification
Freeway & Interstate
Local Examples
I-40 & NC 540
Number of Lanes
4+ travel lanes
Other Considerations
Partial or full access control, exclusive to motorized vehicular travel
B-i | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
MAJOR THOROUGHFARES x x x
Controlled access Multi-lane roadways for higher speeds and longer distance travel Carry traffic through the Triangle region
Functional Classification
Principal/Minor Arterial
Local Examples
NC 54 & Aviation Parkway
Number of Lanes
4+ travel lanes
Other Considerations
Relatively high traffic volumes
MINOR THOROUGHFARES x x x
Offer balance between providing local land access and moving people and goods Have lower travel speeds and traffic volumes than Major Thoroughfares Tend to be limited in width by the built environment they serve
Functional Classification
Minor Arterial
Local Examples
Town Hall Drive & Morrisville Parkway
Number of Lanes
2-4 travel lanes
Other Considerations
Logical cap to number of lanes provided
COLLECTOR STREETS x x x x
Connect neighborhood traffic to points within and between existing neighborhoods Balance mobility and access by supporting local development at the neighborhood level Primarily a conduit for local traffic during off-peak periods Often include slower travel speeds
Functional Classification
Collector
Local Examples
Church Street & Parkside Valley Drive
Number of Lanes
2-3 travel lanes
Other Considerations
Logical cap to number of travel lanes provided
LOCAL STREETS x x x
Local, slow-moving streets Can be urban, suburban, or rural Exclusive purpose is to provide block-level, local access, and safe connectivity to higher order streets
Functional Classification
Local
Local Examples
Downing Glen Drive
Number of Lanes
2-3 travel lanes
Other Considerations
Logical cap to number of travel lanes provided
B-ii | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
PROJECT SHEETS
DRAFT
Planning Cost Estimates Planning cost estimates were obtained using NCDOT’s per mile cost tables and approved methodology for long range planning. This method is to prepare planning level estimations only, and are subject to change as the project move into preliminary engineering, design, and delivery phases. Step 1: Multiply the proposed typical section by the total project length. Step 2: Add the costs for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, bridges, and grade separations. Step 3: Add the cost for water and sewer line relocations. Cost estimates are determined by multiplying the project length by the NCDOT provided costs per linear foot. Step 4: Sum the values for Steps 1-3 and multiply by 0.30 (30%). This is the NCDOT approved Miscellaneous Factor, added to reflect potential additional cost categories (e.g. historical preservation, archaeology, etc.) that may impact the project. This subtotal is the contract cost. Step 5: Multiply Step 4 by 15% on Federal funded projects and 10% on State funded projects. These values represent the engineering and contingency costs. Step 6: Apply the Terrain Adjustment Factor by multiplying the factor by the sum of Step 4 and Step 5. Morrisville falls within the Piedmont region, which has a Terrain Adjustment Factor of 1.15. This factor is added to account for additional project costs typically associated with topography, and differs for North Carolina’s mountain and coastal regions. This is the Construction Cost. Step 7: Apply NCDOT’s Right-of-Way “Rule of Thumb” calculation to include right-of-way costs equivalent to 40-50% of the project cost. This range was vetted through discussions with roadway design engineers with recent experience in the Town of Morrisville. Step 8: Sum the results of Step 6 and Step 7 to obtain an overall project cost. This is the value shown on the project sheets in Appendix B.
Crash History To ensure that project recommendations best serve areas with existing safety concerns, crash data from June 2013 to May 2016 was analyzed relative to crash severity and frequency. Crash frequency includes a raw count of crashes along roadway project segments. The crash severity metric (EPDO Score) was calculated using NCDOT’s methodology that converts each crash to a “property damage only” equivalency. This is called the equivalent property damage only (EPDO) index, and gives greater weight to more severe crashes. The table below shows the coefficients used by NCDOT to weight crashes by severity.
Severity Description K A B C PDO
fatality incapacitating injury evident non-incapacitating injury injury not evident, but complaint of pain or lapse in consciousness property damage only '2&1 = 76.8(- E #) + 8.4($ E %) + 1(2&1)
Weight 76.8 76.8 8.4 8.4 1
Cross Section Each project sheet has a cross section that is reflective of the specific roadway elements proposed as a part of that project. These specific cross sections were developed to be consistent with recommendations shown in Chapters 3 and 4, and by relying on past plans and coordination with NCDOT. The generalized cross sections shown in Appendix A were used as a reference point during this exercise.
B-iii | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
PROJECT SHEETS
Airport Boulevard Extension
New Location and Grade Separation
Length
Project Extents
0.77 Miles
Phase 1: Church Street to Current Terminus in Cary
Traffic Volume (vpd)
Phase 2: NC 54 to Church Street
2010 – n/a 2040 – 28,971
Street Hierarchy Major Thoroughfare
2010 – n/a
Planning Cost Estimate Phase 1: $5,525,520
2040 – 0.63
Phase 2:$25,383,000
Congestion (v/c ratio)
CROSS-SECTION
B-1 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
PROJECT SHEETS
McCrimmon Parkway Widening
Length
Project Extents
0.38 Miles
From: Louis Stephens Drive To: Davis Drive
Traffic Volume (vpd)
2010 – 5,979
Street Hierarchy Major Thoroughfare
2040 – 14,930
Planning Cost Estimate $ 4,916,000
Congestion (v/c ratio)
Crash Summary (3 year totals)
2010 – 0.25
Total Crashes
3
EPDO Score
10.4
2040 – 0.46 CROSS-SECTION
B-2 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
PROJECT SHEETS
NC 54 (Chapel Hill Road) Widening
Length
Project Extents
1.15 Miles
From: NW Maynard Road To: NW Cary Parkway
Traffic Volume (vpd)
2010 – 19,714
Street Hierarchy Major Thoroughfare
2040 – 27,867
Planning Cost Estimate $22,907,000
Congestion (v/c ratio)
Crash Summary (3 year totals)
2010 – 1.05
Total Crashes
27
EPDO Score
226.8
2040 – 1.5 CROSS-SECTION
B-3 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
PROJECT SHEETS
NC 54 (Chapel Hill Road) Widening
Length
Project Extents
0.62 Miles
From: NW Cary Parkway To: Weston Parkway
Traffic Volume (vpd)
2010 – 22,412
Street Hierarchy Major Thoroughfare
2040 – 36,398
Planning Cost Estimate $7,822,000
Congestion (v/c ratio)
Crash Summary (3 year totals)
2010 – 0.96
Total Crashes
28
EPDO Score
193.2
2040 – 0.82 CROSS-SECTION
B-4 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
PROJECT SHEETS
NC 54 (Chapel Hill Road) Widening
Length
Project Extents
2.39 Miles
From: Weston Parkway To: Perimeter Park Drive
Traffic Volume (vpd)
2010 – 19,737
Street Hierarchy Major Thoroughfare
2040 – 32,783
Planning Cost Estimate $30,519,000
Congestion (v/c ratio)
Crash Summary (3 year totals)
2010 – 1.05
Total Crashes
51
EPDO Score
489.4
2040 – 0.88 CROSS-SECTION
B-5 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
PROJECT SHEETS
NC 54 (Chapel Hill Road) Widening
Length
Project Extents
0.5 Miles
From: NC 540 To: Northern Town Limits
Traffic Volume (vpd)
2010 – 21,956
Street Hierarchy Major Thoroughfare
2040 – 51,730
Planning Cost Estimate $10,302,000
Congestion (v/c ratio)
Crash Summary (3 year totals)
2010 – 0.60
Total Crashes
15
EPDO Score
120.4
2040 – 0.68 CROSS-SECTION
B-6 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
PROJECT SHEETS
Davis Drive Widening
Length
Project Extents
4.60 Miles
From: Wake Co Northern Limits To: Southern Town Limits
Traffic Volume (vpd)
Street Hierarchy
2010 – 28,224
Major Thoroughfare
2040 – 36,607
Planning Cost Estimate
Congestion (v/c ratio)
Crash Summary (3 year totals)
2010 – 0.71
Total Crashes
64
EPDO Score
606
$62,595,000
2040 – 0.73 CROSS-SECTION
B-7 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
PROJECT SHEETS
International Drive
Widening and New Location
Length
Project Extents
0.58
From: Southport Drive To: Morrisville East Connector
Traffic Volume (vpd)
Street Hierarchy
2010 – 12,557
Collector Street
2040 – 34,128
Planning Cost Estimate
Congestion (v/c ratio)
Crash Summary (3 year totals)
2010 – 0.37
$5,495,000 Total Crashes
0
EPDO Score
0
2040 – 0.39 CROSS-SECTION
B-8 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
PROJECT SHEETS
Louis Stephens Drive Widening
Length
Project Extents
1.23 Miles
From: Poplar Pike Lane To: McCrimmon Parkway
Traffic Volume (vpd)
Street Hierarchy
2010 – n/a
Major Thoroughfare
2040 – 3,263
Planning Cost Estimate
Congestion (v/c ratio)
Crash Summary (3 year totals)
2010 – n/a
$15,252,000 Total Crashes
1
EPDO Score
8.4
2040 – 0.07 CROSS-SECTION
B-9 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
PROJECT SHEETS
Airport Boulevard Access Management
Length
Project Extents
0.25 Miles
From: Slater Road To: Factory Shops Road
Traffic Volume (vpd)
Street Hierarchy
2010 – 26,972
Major Thoroughfare
2040 – 41,374
Planning Cost Estimate
Congestion (v/c ratio)
Crash Summary (3 year totals)
2010 – 0.69
$712,500
Total Crashes
15
EPDO Score
126
2040 – 1.06 CROSS-SECTION
B-10 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
PROJECT SHEETS
Crabtree Crossing Parkway Extension New Location
Length
Project Extents
0.31 Miles
From: Morrisville Carpenter Road To: Stardale Road
Traffic Volume (vpd)
Street Hierarchy
2010 – n/a
Collector Street
2040 – 2,426
Planning Cost Estimate
Congestion (v/c ratio)
Crash Summary (3 year totals)
2010 – n/a
$8,524,000
Total Crashes
0
EPDO Score
0
2040 – n/a CROSS-SECTION
B-11 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
PROJECT SHEETS
Airport Boulevard Access Management
Length
Project Extents
0.74 Miles
From: Slater Road To: McCrimmon Parkway
Traffic Volume (vpd)
Street Hierarchy
2010 – 26,972
Major Thoroughfare
2040 – 41,374
Planning Cost Estimate
Congestion (v/c ratio)
Crash Summary (3 year totals)
2010 – 0.69
$1,953,000
Total Crashes
11
EPDO Score
92.4
2040 – 0.90 CROSS-SECTION
B-12 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
DRAFT
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
PUBLIC OUTREACH SUMMARY Public outreach – whether through direct engagement or by input of community proxies – is an important part of a successful transportation plan. The two primary goals of engagement for the Town of Morrisville Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update are to inform and engage the public.
Community Event Outreach at SpringFest May 14, 2016
INFORM
Town Council Work Sessions
ENGAGE
August 23, 2016 October 17, 2017
Informing the public requires the thoughtful translation of engineering and planning vernacular into Planning and Zoning Board Work Sessions September 8, 2016 February 16, 2017 September 21, 2017
common English. The initial step of informing the public is to communicate the purpose of the Transportation Plan and how it affects them. Once the public understands the value of the plan and its goals and objectives, they can then engage the planning process. Engaging the public necessitates empowering them to speak up paired with listening to their thoughts and opinions. Those who have the most to gain or lose from investments in the transportation system have perspectives that must be valued when developing project, policy, and
Town Council Plan Update Presentations
program recommendations. The planning process included several avenues of public engagement to improve the likelihood that the feedback obtained was representative of the entire community.
February 28, 2017 August 22, 2017 September 19, 2017
Engagement Strategies The Town of Morrisville Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update included a variety of strategies that intended to capture feedback from a cross-section of those who live, work, recreate, or have a stake in the Plan’s recommendations. The engagement strategies included are shown to the left.
Public Workshops and Open Houses October 6, 2016 February 28, 2017 June 29, 2017
The following sections provide details about information conveyed and the data collected using these engagement strategies. Presentations used at the listed Planning and Zoning Board and Town Council meetings are attached at the end of this Appendix. A summary of the public engagement process is also contained in Chapter 1.
August 22, 2017
Community Event Outreach at SpringFest The Town of Morrisville Planning Department had a booth at SpringFest, held on May 14, 2016. Online Survey
Information was provided at this booth to introduce the update to Comprehensive Transportation
October to December 2016
Plan. In addition, attendees were asked to complete a short exercise intended to better understand their perception of existing conditions and vision for the future.
C-1 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
TRANSPORTATION IN MORRISVILLE TODAY Good Congested Roads Lack of Public Transportation Traffic Congested Busy Intersections Too much traffic congestion Bus Transportation Automobiles Traffic Traffic (Town Hall, MorrisvilleCarpenter, NC 54) Congestion All cars and Trucks More Traffic Bottle Neck Roads Morrisville-Carpenter Illustrations of bottleneck Remote Bottleneck Congested One Lane Slow Busy Beautiful McCrimmon Parkway at the tracks Disastrous!
MY VISION FOR THE FUTURE Expecting More Greenways Broader Roads Transportation to local Universities would be awesome Separate Bicycle lanes on Church St/54 Less Traffic More Lanes No Bus Depot or Train/Light Rail Station Light Rail to RTP & Downtown More green trails, more lanes Options Widening major roads Less Traffic Connected Trains, Trolleys, Trams, Walks Town of Morrisville will overcome it easily Widen Roads, Train Trestle Greenways!! Illustration of straighten alignment Star Network Expand Chapel Hill Road, not for buses, for cars Transit to RTP (so we can have one car) Greenways!!! Convenient Ease I'll like this place!! Under the tracks and 54 Wish you would stop approving apartment complexes/housing projects before making sure the roads are big enough
Town Council Work Session #1 The purpose of the first Town Council work session was to provide an overview of the planning process, discuss existing conditions, and to complete a series of interactive activities. Each activity is shown here along with a summary of comments received.
PRIORITY PYRAMID Activity: Rank the guiding statements of the plan, with your highest priority at the top and your lowest priorities at the bottom.
Results:
C-2 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ENGAGEMENT
DRAFT
SUMMARY
THOUGHT CARDS Activity:
Results:
THOUGHT CARD RESULTS NC 54 Hwy NC 54 Hwy Airport Blvd Church to Davis Drive ID more road connection opportunities TOD Transit NC 54 Hwy Funding Bus Access to/along Church Street Greenway and Sidewalks 147 Toll Road Commuter Rail Station We need buses too small for budget to fund state road projects (communicating to public) McCrimmon Parkway Widen NC 54 Train and Rapid Transport Less pass thru traffic Crabtree Crossing an alternative to cars; bus routes safe bike and pedestrian connectivity more connections to parallel 54, Davis, 40
CATCH PHRASES Activity: List key considerations that should be explored within each guiding statement.
C-3 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
Results:
Planning and Zoning Board Work Session #1 The purpose of the first Planning and Zoning Board Town Council work session was to provide an overview of the planning process, discuss existing conditions, and to complete a series of interactive activities. The activities mirrored those used in the first Town Council work session. Each activity is shown here along with a summary of comments received.
PRIORITY PYRAMID Activity: Rank the guiding statements of the plan, with your highest priority at the top and your lowest priorities at the bottom. Results:
THOUGHT CARDS Activity:
C-4 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ENGAGEMENT
DRAFT
SUMMARY
Results:
T H O U G HT CARD RESULTS there are no intersections on North Church Street to get to NC 54 There are no walk overs for pedestrians to cross NC 54 & the RR in the northern parts of town Through traffic is destroying the small town character of Morrisville Reducing congestion %/# of roads under state control is very high; don't seem to be high on State DOT priority list System Preservation - Perimeter Park Road Not enough alternatives to private (car) transport Hate share the lane bike routes not convinced there have been bus routes added great light rail plans; no idea when they will actually occur Not enough emphasis on alternative transportation more sidewalks completion of the greenway networks sidewalks on all streets and roads in Morrisville
CATCH PHRASES Activity: List key considerations that should be explored within each guiding statement.
Online Survey Results An online survey was developed and made available between October 2016 and December 2016. Notification of the public survey was made available on the Town of Morrisville’s website and social media, as well as at the October 6, 2016 public workshop and the October 17, 2016 town council work session. The online survey was prepared using the platform Wikimapping, a survey tool that enables respondents to provide input on community preferences, opinions, and issues for the various transportation modes. Participants also identified issues and potential solutions by placing icons on a map. Respondents were also given a chance to enter their email address. Those that provided this information were notified of future outreach opportunities for the plan. This section includes a summary of the results of the transportation improvement online survey. A total of 276 participants responded to the survey during the development of the Town of Morrisville Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update. The results of the question-based portion of the survey are included first, followed by two maps that display the results of the map-based portion.
SURVEY QUESTION RESULTS 1. What is your relationship to Morrisville? (pick all that are applicable) a. I live in Morrisville b. I work or go to school in Morrisville c. I recreate or shop in Morrisville d. I travel through Morrisville
C-5 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
I live in Morrisville 25.70% I work or go to school in Morrisville 32.20%
I recreate or shop in Morrisville I travel through Morrisville
86.50%
24.60%
2. Over the last five years, transportation in Morrisville has… (choose one) a. Significantly improved b. Slightly improved c. Stayed the same d. Slightly worsened e. Significantly worsened
Significantly improved Slightly improved
18.1%
Stayed the same
7.9% Slightly worsened
9.7%
64.1%
Significantly worsened
3. In general, what is the biggest transportation need in Morrisville? (pick one) a. Sidewalks b. Transit service c. Bike facilities d. Multi-use paths e. Roadways
C-6 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
DRAFT
5.7%
Sidewalks Transit service
3.2% 11.9% Bike facilites
3.2% Multi-use paths Roadways
75.7%
Safety and Security 4. Which of the following is the most important to you? (choose one) a. Improving transportation safety at the Town’s most dangerous intersections b. Making the transportation network more reliable and travel times more predictable c. Reducing emergency response times d. Investing in smart transportation technologies
Improving transportation safety at the Town's most dangerous intersections
1.4% 6.5%
Making the transportation network more reliable and travel times more predictable Reducing emergency response times
23.1%
68.4%
Investing in smart transportation technologies
Mobility and Accessibility 5. Which of the following is most important to you? (choose one) a. Investing in bicycle-specific facilities (e.g. bicycle lanes) b. Investing in pedestrian-specific facilities (e.g. sidewalks and crosswalks) c. Investing in multi-use facilities (e.g. greenways and multi-use paths) d. Investing in public transportation (e.g. bus routes and bus stop amenities)
C-7 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
Investing in bicycle-specific facilites (e.g. bicycle lanes)
10.5% Investing in pedestrianspecific facilites (e.g. sidewalks and crosswalks)
27.1% 28.2%
Investing in multi-use facilites (e.g. greenways and multi-use paths)
32.6%
Investing in public transportation (e.g. bus routes and bus stop amenities) Economic Vitality 6. Economic growth in the study area should prioritize… (choose one) a. Housing opportunities for new arrivals b. Capturing an increased share of jobs c. Striking a balance between housing and jobs d. Promoting only modest growth
1.8% Housing opportunities for new arrivals Capturing an increased share of jobs
6.8%
42.7%
Making it easier to travel between homes and jobs
47.8%
Strengthening regional connections
Land Use and Transportation 7. When planning transportation improvements, we should focus on… (choose one) a. Supporting economic development and job creation b. Increasing access to parks and natural resources c. Making it easier to travel between homes and jobs d. Strengthening regional connections
C-8 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
DRAFT
5.0% Supporting economic development and job creation
10.8%
8.6%
Increasing access to parks and natural resources Making it easier to travel between homes and jobs
74.6%
Strengthening regional connections
Culture and Environment 8. When planning transportation improvements, we should focus on… (choose one) a. Design streets based on the land use and urban design features of the surrounding area b. Considering cultural features and amenities c. Protecting the environment d. Preserving existing neighborhoods e. Providing access to people of all socioeconomic backgrounds and physical abilities
Design streets based on the land use and urban design features of the surrounding area
11.5%
Considering cultural features and amenities
Protecting the environment
46.7%
17.0%
20.6% Preserving existing neighborhoods
Providing access to people of all socioeconomic backgrounds and physical abilites
3.6%
System Preservation 9. Which of the following is most important to you? (choose one) a. Constructing a few important large projects (e.g. highways and bridges) b. Constructing numerous smaller projects (e.g. short street connections and bicycle and pedestrian facilities) c. Enhancing travel within the Town d. Focusing on ways to improve the conditions of our existing roads e. Focusing on building new roads
C-9 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
Constructing a few important large projects (e.g. highways and bridges)
Constructing numerous smaller projects (e.g. short street connections and bicycle and pedestrian faciites)
16.6%
8.6% 15.9%
Enhancing travel around Town
34.7%
23.5%
Focusing on ways to improve the conditions of our existing roads
Focusing on building new roads
Thanks for your input! You have the option to answer these demographic questions to help us understand your input better. 10. What is your gender? a. Male b. Female c. Prefer not to answer
0.7%
Male
45.4% Female
Prefer not to answer
53.9%
11. What is your age? a. 19 years and under b. 20 to 34 years c. 35 to 54 years d. 55 to 64 years e. 65 years and over
C-10 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
DRAFT
1.4% 6.5% 19 years and under 20 to 34 years
13.0%
9.0%
35 to 54 years 55 to 64 years 65 years and over
69.9%
12. What is your race? a. African American b. American Indian or Alaska Native c. Asian d. Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander e. White
African American
8.3%
American Indian or Alaska Native
25.0%
Asian Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
66.3%
White
SURVEY MAPPING INPUT The online survey included an opportunity for respondents to select lines or points that represent transportation issues or opportunities. Once these facilities were mapped, respondents were given the opportunity to specify the travel mode and to leave comments. The instructions below are taken directly from the online survey. The maps on the following pages document the points and lines that were noted as part of the online survey.
C-11 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
Online Survey Mapping Results – Point Features
Map Produced September 2017
C-12 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ENGAGEMENT
DRAFT
SUMMARY
Online Survey Mapping Results – Line Features
Map Produced September 2017
C-13 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
Public Workshops and Open Houses Gathering input from the public throughout the planning process is critical to understanding local needs, identifying projects of importance, and gaining buy-in to see projects progress from planning to implementation. Citizens recognize the strengths and shortcomings of their transportation system, and transportation decisions affect them daily. To fully utilize the knowledge of Morrisville residents, the project team conducted two public workshops and two public open houses. Meeting attendees were updated about the plan and encouraged to participate in the interactive activities.
PUBLIC WORKSHOP #1 – OCTOBER 6TH, 2016 The objective of the first public workshop was to educate the public about the Town of Morrisville Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update and to obtain input regarding their priorities and goals, mobility issues, and desired routes and destinations. This workshop was promoted through flyers that were posted on the Town’s website and social media accounts. 11 people attended and participated in the workshop. This workshop was a drop-in session with several interactive activities. Activities used at this workshop mirrored those used in earlier Planning and Zoning Board and Town Council work sessions, as well as the SpringFest Community Event. Participants were provided with a handout to help guide them through the activities and to provide additional information on how to participate.
C-14 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ENGAGEMENT
DRAFT
SUMMARY
One Word Exercise Results: TRANSPORTATION IN MORRISVILLE TODAY Frustrating Hindered Disconnected Grid Lock Stuck Challenging Private Vehicles Private Vehicles Inefficient Bottleneck
MY VISION FOR THE FUTURE Options Sufficient Integrated Connectivity Accessible Connectivity Integrated Transit Transit Flowing Options
Priority Pyramid Results:
Thought Wall Results:
T H O U G HT CARD RESULTS get traffic to slow down. Become more pedestrian friendly sidewalks all along Church Street Build roads big enough to facilitate the volume coming through at peak times being able to access places in Raleigh. My daughter goes to a magnet school; I can see someday a child take public transportation to school. close the town center walking loop need more road connections to enhance accessibility and movement across and through town McCrimmon & 54 need additional lanes and turn lanes Improve NC 54 Alleviate Congestion Congestion: additional lanes for peak travel time movements Connectivity - connecting all the segments of highways already constructed improve traffic congestion on 54 and Morrisville Carpenter Road Connect Town Hall Drive to Crabtree Crossing Parkway more greenways and bike path connections to get to work NC 54 is horribly congested more connectivity greenway or motorized Sidewalks everywhere safe cycling ADA stds for blind on greenways are good for bikes too Develop/Educate on traffic Route alternatives Don't penalize current residents by adding new increases to already overcrowded streets Make roads strong enough to support volume. Louis Stephens between Morrisville Carpenter and Breckenridge is a constant mess
Issues Identification The issues identification exercise invited participants to record their feedback on issues and opportunities on a map. Scanned copies of these maps are included on the following pages.
C-15 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
C-16 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ENGAGEMENT
DRAFT
SUMMARY
C-17 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
C-18 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ENGAGEMENT
DRAFT
SUMMARY
OPEN HOUSE #1 – FEBRUARY 28TH, 2017 The first open house event was structured to inform the public about the process of developing recommendations. Participants visited stations around the room to follow the “Roadway to Recommendations.” Stations included a series of exhibits showing the following information:
Public Outreach: x
Results of the public input exercise from the first public workshop.
x
A map depicting the results of the online survey map component.
Previous Planning Efforts: x
A map showing the summary findings from the Wake County Transit Plan.
x
Maps showing roadway, bicycle and pedestrian, and transit recommendations from the 2009 Morrisville Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
Existing Conditions: x
Maps showing existing bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities within the Town.
x
A map with existing traffic volume levels within the Town.
x
A map with existing congestion levels within the town, based on 2010 congestion levels reflected in the Triangle Regional Model.
x
A figure showing information about crashes within the Town, including crash locations, crash severity, and crash types.
Next Steps: x
Opportunity to speak with Town and consultant team members about the recommendations development process for the plan.
C-19 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
PUBLIC WORKSHOP #2 – JUNE 29TH, 2017
The second public workshop introduced members of the public to the preliminary recommendations for all modes of transportation, solicited feedback on prioritization metrics, and sought guidance in development of priorities for the key corridors. Draft versions of roadway, bicycle and pedestrian, and transit recommendations were displayed at this meeting for attendees to view and offer comments. 31 people attended this workshop. Participants were asked to participate in a prioritization exercise that sought to explore how different types of criteria should be weighted for roadway recommendations. Participants were also asked to provide their thoughts on recommendations for strategic corridors within the Town. Each of these activities and results are summarized in this section.
Roadway Project Prioritization Activity: Participants were shown a board with prioritization criteria for roadway projects, and their relationship to the guiding statements of the plan. This exercise asked participants to weigh in on which prioritization criteria they felt were the most important. Participants were given three dots to put on their top choices, with their number one choice noted in a different color. The Planning and Zoning Board was also given the chance to engage in this activity during a meeting in July 2017. Results from both groups are shown here.
C-20 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
DRAFT
Results: PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA
PUBLIC PRIMARY
Crash History Existing Conditions Future Congestion Reduction Access to Schools and Community Facilities Access to Activity Centers Supports Bus Routes
1 9 4
2
WEIGHTED PERCENTAGE
PZB
SECONDARY 2 7 2 2 2
PRIMARY
SECONDARY
1
1
2
2
1 2
8% 33% 35% 3% 13% 7%
Strategic Corridors Activity: The information below was provided to participants to guide the strategic corridors exercise. Participants were asked to select a corridor, and then prioritize the key considerations for each corridor.
C-21 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
Results: RESPONDENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61
CORRIDOR Aviation Parkway NC 54 NC 54 NC 54 NC 54 NC 54 NC 54 NC 54 NC 54 NC 54 Airport Boulevard NC 54 McCrimmon Parkway McCrimmon Parkway McCrimmon Parkway McCrimmon Parkway McCrimmon Parkway McCrimmon Parkway McCrimmon Parkway Town Hall Drive Town Hall Drive NC 54 NC 54 NC 54 NC 54 Airport Boulevard Aviation Parkway Aviation Parkway Aviation Parkway Aviation Parkway Aviation Parkway Aviation Parkway Aviation Parkway Aviation Parkway NC 54 Aviation Parkway Airport Boulevard Aviation Parkway NC 54 McCrimmon Parkway Town Hall Drive Town Hall Drive McCrimmon Parkway NC 54 Aviation Parkway Airport Boulevard Town Hall Drive McCrimmon Parkway Airport Boulevard Aviation Parkway NC 54 NC 54 Aviation Parkway Airport Boulevard Town Hall Drive McCrimmon Parkway Town Hall Drive McCrimmon Parkway NC 54 Aviation Parkway Airport Boulevard
PRIORITY 1
PRIORITY 2
PRIORITY 3
Congestion Congestion Congestion Safety Congestion Safety Congestion Congestion Congestion Congestion Congestion Transit Walk Congestion Congestion Walk Congestion Walk Congestion Congestion Transit Safety Congestion Congestion Congestion Congestion Congestion Congestion Safety Congestion Congestion Safety Bike Congestion Congestion Congestion Congestion Congestion Congestion Congestion Walk Appearance Congestion Congestion Congestion Appearance Transit Walk Congestion Congestion Congestion Safety Safety Safety Safety Safety Safety Safety Safety Safety Safety
Transit Safety Transit Congestion Safety Walk Safety Safety Safety Safety Safety Congestion Appearance Bike Bike Bike Transit Congestion Safety Safety Congestion Congestion Walk Bike Bike Safety Transit Safety Congestion Transit Safety Bike Transit Bike Transit Walk Safety Safety Safety Safety Congestion Safety Safety Safety Safety Safety Walk Transit Transit Walk Walk Congestion Transit Congestion Walk Congestion Walk Congestion Appearance Walk Congestion
Appearance Bike Bike Transit Transit Congestion Bike Transit Bike Transit Transit Appearance Bike Walk Safety Safety Bike Transit Walk Bike Bike Transit Bike Walk Safety Transit Bike Transit Transit Appearance Transit Congestion Congestion Safety Bike Bike Appearance Appearance Appearance Walk Appearance Transit Transit Transit Appearance Congestion Congestion Congestion Safety Transit Transit Transit Congestion Transit Appearance Transit Appearance Transit Walk Transit Appearance
C-22 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ENGAGEMENT
DRAFT
SUMMARY
Public Comments Attendees were encouraged to also provide written comments if they had specific items they wished to discuss. The written comments received as part of this workshop are included below.
C-23 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
DRAFT
OPEN HOUSE #2 – AUGUST 22ND, 2017 The final open house meeting focused on displaying draft multimodal recommendations and the results of the prioritization process. Attendees were invited to provide comments about the content of the mapping and to interact with Town and consultant team members. Comments related to the content of the open house were received before, during, and after the meeting. These comments have been scanned in and are included on the following pages.
Written Comments
C-24 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
ENGAGEMENT
DRAFT
SUMMARY
C-25 | P A G E
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DRAFT
PZB, Council and Staff Comments Entity
Page
Comment
Response
Presentations Council
ScrogginsrJohnson – make sure figures in presentation give source data
General PZB PZB Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council Council PZB PZB PZB PZB PZB
Groce r make sure document clearly says “DRAFT” Peter Prichard – Information for next week: r Provide information on where traffic is coming from/going to (model info?) TJ: Lots of projects – if we do all of them, would we be in our “endr state”? Is there a number of them that we could do to get to our Liz: Important to understand criteria – why are projects on list, in nearr/midr/longrterm? 147 Connection – need further discussion Vicki – Bikeway from Morrisville to Raleigh in Wake County plan – This is being addressed by the addition of a program/policy check with Wake Co. planners on any impact to the Town. statement in Chapter 5. For this project as well as our other small connectors, there is very Vicki – More data/information on Clements/Green Drive connector little data available. These connection opportunities can be explored Vicki – More data/information on MorrisvillerCarpenter Road access management (was it taken into account in the model) Vicki – More data/information impact of Airport Blvd. grade separation on MorrisvillerCarpenter Road flyover Vicki – doublercheck mapping with Airport Blvd Extension (make sure both phases are on list). Phases 1 and 2 have been more clearly noted through the document. Steve – Crabtree Crossing Pkwy Ext. and Green Drive/Clements Connector – need more data about it. Potential traffic impacts of Michael – 147 Extension, is NCDOT still looking at connecting it to Davis; make sure connections are provided to neighborhoods along Satish – sidewalk on Louis Stephens Road near Redwood? Millicent Drive connection as greenway/sidewalk connector. Church Street – Mayor – like to see data on proposed CCPE; 147 Extension discussion may play into CCPE – if 147 Ext. connects to Little, would that pull TJ – provide data to address residents’ concerns about CCPE – counteract claims in emails? Wait for PZB to discussion. Liz – want to be clear what the facts are on the issue. Validate comments received? Groce r Would the following link be helpful in the presentation of the Draft Updated Transportation Plan? Craig Groce – all the maps should have a title and date in the legend Harlean Botha – question about McCrimmon Protected Green Space in Scenario Planning Report Card Craig – Questions the categories/place types in Scenario Planning Report Cards. Rob Taylor – Question about scenario maps, if there are maps that show the information from the report cards
The scenario planning exercise was intended to push the limits of growth for these corridors r can the proposed recommendations Place types for the Scenario Planning Report Card were developed at a regional level. To assign the place types within Morrisville, we These maps are contained within the Scenario Planning Documentation, now included in the report as Appedix D.
September 20, 2017
Notes/Carryover to Other Sections
PZB, Council and Staff Comments Chapter 1 PZB
1r2
PZB Staff
1r4
Craig Groce – Shouldn’t the public comment map reflect the number A reference to Appendix C r Engagement Summary has been added of comments – need more information on number of public to direct readers that need more information. Craig Groce – Does not agree with Growth and Development Guiding Principle statement – land use should be based on transportation, **Page 1r4, last sentence of Intro paragraph – revise?**
This sentence has been reworded.
Chapter 2 Cawley – compare Morrisville to Wake County in Existing Conditions Population growth for Morrisville is compared with Wake County Report and NC on page 2r10, while other demographic and household Schlink – address commuters that work in Morrisville but don’t live here r Can we see where commuters come from to travel to or
Council Council Council
2r14
PZB
2r24
Mayor – clarify if thoroughfares are state roads or Town roads Craig Groce – Page 2r24, 2 nd paragraph – only 6 Amtrak trains come through per day, not 12
A list of NCDOTrmaintained roadways has been added to this page
Staff
3r3
Craig Groce – Question differences in weighting of roadway This process attempted to focus on the comprehensive nature of the Appreciated response about trying to remove bias and keeping plan prioritization criteria between PZB and consultant team? Why do transportation plan, and remove any inadvertent bias. comprehensive Craig Groce – how were roads selected for Travel Demand Model? Is Roads are determined for inclusion in the Travel Demand Model at a Crabtree Crossing Parkway a Major Collector? What about James regional level. Lee Langston – question about V/C used in mapping of Travel Demand Model. This material is included in Appendix B Road materials are not included directly in the model. Road Rob Taylor – are road materials taken into account in the model? materials can sometimes dictate the speed limit on a roadway, 2nd paragraph r ... to update the Morrisville Community Park, Morrisville Aquatics and Fitness Center and ... This change has been made.
Staff
3r3
Staff
3r3
Staff
3r3
Staff
3r3
Staff
3r5
Staff
3r6
Staff
3r8
Staff
3r9
Staff
3r9
Staff
3r9
This has been corrected
Chapter 3 PZB PZB PZB PZB
2nd paragraph r to Aviation Parkway at Evans Road. Table 3r1 r Clarify that this table ONLY shows funds that are in the STIP, and does not reflect local funds dedicated to these projects.
This change has been made.
Ur5827 r Current terminus = this should be Poplar Pike Lane Slater Road at Airport Boulevard Traffic Signal r Is this project in the STIP r is it worth including here? Does this model run include the extension of Airport Blvd? If so, should we note that? Density r maybe say lower density AND intensity here? Or clarify that the area of Town closest to the airport has developed with no Local Streets r Use a different Street here r Downing Glen Drive (Between Town Hall Drive and Church Street) Perimeter Park Dr east of Airport Blvd r Remove Minor Thoroughfare label r should just be local road
This change has been made.
This change has been made.
Project is not in the STIP but it is funded This model run does not include the extension of Airport Bouelvard, since it is not committed.
Carolina Street should be Local Road r may be future "Main Street" This change has been made. Section of Downing Glen Drive between Town Hall Drive and Church Street should be classified as a Local Road, not a Collector Street.
September 20, 2017
PZB, Council and Staff Comments Make section of Treybrooke Drive between Town Hall Drive and Trolley Car Way a Local road, not a collector Should this section of NC 147/Triangle Parkway should be shown as This section has been noted as a Major Thoroughfare. This is Freeway? No access will be provided; but the section below this to consistent with how it is included in the Triangle Regional Model. Need to think about a "Main Street" or "Town Center" type of crossr section that would match Jeremiah Street, future Foxglove and I don't think we'll widen International Drive (and I don't know that it needs it) r it should remain 2r3 lanes... I do think we at least need to Updated to show only widening from Southport to current terminus Revise Project Sheet Table 3.4 r Morrisville Carpenter Road grade separation r We may want to discuss this a little further, or be prepared to revise it... I'm Mayor – MorrisvillerCarpenter Road/Aviation Grade Separation: the Council has not made a decision on that; do we want to include it on Mayor – Provide data behind connectivityrenhancing projects (Public input) Rao – provide information about how larger road improvements may impact connectivityrenhancing projects Johnson – Emergency response times for connectivity projects (specifically Crabtree Crossing Parkway Ext)? ScrogginsrJohnson – take into account MrC Road widening with Crabtree Crossing Pkwy Ext? List of roadway extensions r Add Stockton Gorge Road (connection to Triangle Parkway Extension)?? The prioritization process we selected intentionally has similarities Mayor – prioritization weighting proposed is similar to CAMPO with the CAMPO process, while also staying responsive to the Garimella – want more information about prioritization – data Data underlying the prioritization process is discussed in Chapter 3. backbone? Additional data can be made available if desired by the Council. It is our recommendation that the prioritization weighting not be Schlink – show scores with prioritization weighting? shown directly in the plan. The plan should encourage people to stay Mayor – remove funded projects from near/mid/longrterm priorities list? Or designate as funded?
Staff
3r9
Staff
3r9
Staff
3r10
Staff
3r10
Staff
3r12
Council
3r12
Council
3r14
Council
3r14
Council
3r14
Council
3r14
Staff
3r14
Council
3r16
Council
3r16
Council
3r18
Council
3r19
Staff
3r19
Staff
3r19
Staff
3r20
Council
3r21
3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence r were, or were not? Schlink – why is McCrimmon Parkway Ext. not included in a strategic corridor?
Staff
3r25
Crossrsection r Bike lanes?
Staff
3r30
Staff
3r30
Recommendations r Design plans for widening are underway. Recommendations r Only a 5' sidewalk is under consideration, because of the proximity of the Crabtree/Hatcher Creek greenway
Staff
3r31
Crossrsection r only sidewalks?
McCrimmon widening from Davis to NC 54 is committed Wilson Road realignment and connection to Cary Parkway is being constructed now... but it would be best to remove it from the Plan.
Council
Garimella – add costs to thoroughfare projects
Council
Rao – include dollar figures for road projects
Changed in maps
Carry this change through to Chapter 3 and Project Sheets
Removed from maps
Changed in NCr54 Crossrsection
Carry change into Appendix A/B
Changed in Morrisville Carpernter Rd Cross Section
Carry change into Appendix A/B
September 20, 2017
PZB, Council and Staff Comments Garimella – for intersection improvements (and roadway?) note if projects are funded or not, and for intersections, if they will be Provide additional detail on intersectionrlevel improvements. What might they consist of? Add caveat about need for engineering study For thoroughfare and intersection recommendation tables, add a note to state where things are receiving funding. Note where intersections are part of a committed corridor project. Further investigation may be needed following completion of
Council Staff Staff Staff
Chapter 4 Staff PZB PZB PZB Council
Add a general policy statement for when the Town is doing a standalone sidewalk project. Curb and gutter is not automatically Craig – Question about greenways in plan – why include them? If you include them, be prepared to “jump onboard” the use of Peter – happy greenways are included. Question about sidepath vs. sidewalk. Lee – question about Connector between Crabtree Crossing Parkway and Crabtree/Hatcher Creek greenway. Garimella – add in Sidewalk Prioritization Policy information in Plan? Clarify neighborhood connectors and provide prioritization? Bike Lanes, general considerations, first bullet r Include general width characteristics? Requirement that NCDOT requires minimum
The CTP and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan will be closely coordinated on the subject of multiruse paths. The CTP was allowed Sidepaths are intended to represent facilities that parallel the street but accommodate both pedestrians and bicyclists. In past plans We confirmed that the neighborhood connector running between NC 54 and Crabtree Crossing Parkway has been completed. A clarification of neighborhood connectors has been added. The CTP chose to focus its prioritization efforts on the multiruse path system The minimum 5' width has been added to this section.
Staff
4r2
Staff
4r3
Staff
4r3
Staff
4r4
Staff
4r4
Staff
4r7
Staff
4r7
Staff
4r7
Staff
4r7
**Rertitle Page 4r4 “Off Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities”??** Table 4r2 r Add some type of legend to indicate what the number of stars indicate Table 4r2, funding partners r Since this column is "Funding Partners", remove Morrisville from this column Table 4r2, Town Hall Drive sidepath r With Town Hall Drive being a Townrmaintained road, is State funding really feasible here? Table 4r2, Sawmill Creek greenway r I think state/federal funding could be feasible for the Sawmill Creek Greenway r it would probably
Staff
4r7
Table 4r2, Morrisville Parkway sidepath r Change CAMPO to Federal This change has been made.
Staff
4r7
Table 4r2, Airport Boulevard Sidepath r Change CAMPO to Federal
This change has been made.
Staff
4r7
Table 4r2, Mills Spring Greenway r Add Federal and State
This change has been made.
Staff
4r7
Staff
4r7
Table 4r2, Fairview Greenway r Add Federal and State Table 4r2 r Schlink – what is Private funding (Alternative Transportation Chapter Prioritization)? Is the list complete?
This change has been made. A paragraph has been added to this page to more thoroughly explain the funding partners. Changes have been made to the partners
Staff
4r8
Can we add the Future Transit map on the next page?
This map has been added.
Paramount Parkway r Show as existing Shared Lane Markings? Changed in maps Morrisville Carpenter r Show as Wide Outside Lanes w/ Shared Lane Markings? Changed in maps Neighborhood Connectors r Include here that Neighborhood Connectors may vary in width, and may be a 5rfoot wide sidewalk. This note has been added. This change has been made. A description and legend has been added prior to the table. Morrisville has been removed. It is likely not feasible, so the state designation has been removed This change has been made.
September 20, 2017
PZB, Council and Staff Comments Staff
4r8
Staff
4r8
Staff
TOD r Add possibility of expansion of TOD/additional smaller TOD to east of NC 54 r if Bus Rapid Transit is expanded into Morrisville in the This content has been added **Update Transit Map to show CRT Stop at McCrimmon/NC 54** Add a section noting how best to deal with conflicts with bike lanes and turn lanes
Figure 4r4 has added the Proposed Commuter Rail Transit Stop. A note has been made on page 4r2 about the need to look at state guidance in areas where conflicts may arise, such as turn lanes.
**Consider adding recommendation/language/discussion about electric vehicle charging stations into Chapter 5** Near Term Roadway Facility Improvements r Consider rerwording first sentence Table 5r3, McCrimmon Parkway r Remove? Most of this is committed in the STIP. Recognizing that the Triangle Bikeway is gaining steam, Town will work with NCDOT to ensure proper connection to Town bike
A paragraph has been added to this page to explore how to add detail to current charging station standards
Chapter 5 Staff
5r4
Staff
5r3
Staff
5r3
Staff
This has been reworded. This has been removed.
Carry this change through to Chapter 3 and Project Sheets
This note has been added to Table 5r2.
Appendix A I like the illustrative crossrsections with no dimensions. However, Appendix A has been revised to reflect the intent of this comment, we still need some language giving guidance for the dimensions of including dimension values or ranges for street attributes and rightsr Also, do we need to reference in Appendix A that if a road calls for a Sidepath that will take the place of a 5’ sidewalk, or is that clear content has been added to page Ar1 to this effect.
Staff Staff
Appendix B
Staff
Br1
Craig Groce – consider changing “Planning Level Cost” Terminology; ensure traffic volume is measured the same way; include street Lee Langston – Make sure congestion ratio in 2040 is clear on what is included (committed projects?) content has been added to this section to clarify this Does this cost include an atrgrade intersection at NC 54? Would it Split into phase 1 & phase 2; includes grade separation at NC 54 for be possible to have Phase I (current Terminus to Church St.) and $20 million
Staff
Br2
This Planning Level Cost seems high...
Staff
Br4
This cost seems low... is it just construction?
PZB PZB
modified to exclude committed portion Now Br5; updated cost to include correct bike ped accomodations; slight increase of approx. $1 million Left in document for now can be removed if necessary; model does show if unimproved V/C ratio approx. 1.1
Staff
Do we need this project?
Staff
This section is less than 1 mile Updated to 0.5 mile; typo This cost seems high r does it include rerworking of the NC 540 ramps? Cost updated to reflect correct length I’d like to see some more information in this Appendix about how the PlanningrLevel Cost Estimates were calculated, and what they do The NC 54 crossrsections also should be rerordered to run from East to West. crossrsections reorded This is another place where it would be helpful to have some more specific design guidance as well, for dimensioning of crossrsection
Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff
I would also like to discuss International Drive I have a question about the cost estimate for Crabtree Crossing Parkway
September 20, 2017
Comment also applies to Chapter 3
If removed need to remove from Chapter 3
PZB, Council and Staff Comments Staff
Add the new Appendix A dimension table on each project sheet
Staff
Provide a realistic ROW for each project sheet Add in language to talk about how best to deal with the addition of right turn lanes, noting that in certain instances median widths can
Staff
Appendix C Staff
Prepare draft of Appendix C, including materials gathered and presented prior to release of draft plan
This Appendix has been compiled and is now available.
MultirUse Path Design Guidance Staff
Prepare a multiruse path design guidance document to help guide planning and implementation of these facilities. Addressed Not a report edit Further Clarificiation/more follow up
September 20, 2017
Public Comments Name
Address
Method Comment Received Email
Email address
Comment
Dear Mr. Howell, On the Town Council Audio of August 8, 2017, you proposed adding an extension to Crabtree Crossing Parkway to connect it to Town Hall Drive. This extremely expensive potential roadway extension would render Crabtree Crossing Parkway, a residential street in Preston, as an on/ off ramp for highway traffic of the Triangle Expressway after Triangle Expressway’s connection to Town Hall Drive, currently expected in 1-5 years. The Crabtree Crossing Extension was thoroughly evaluated when the Transportation Plan 2009-2035 was approved and it was determined that it should not be included. The reasons and the analysis are evermore valid today and I urge the Planning Department and the Town Council to review the work and citizen input from this timeframe. I urge the Planning Department to terminate its proposal to include a Crabtree Crossing Extension in the developing Transportation Plan and I urge the Town Council NOT to entertain approving the addition of this road extension into the current plan. Thank you, Tylene Elliott Morrisville Resident Hello, Email Per Satish's email below. I am not able to make the transportation meeting Tuesday night but I would like to express my opinion that I do NOT want the connection of Millicent Road to Little Drive. I live on Willingham Rd right next to this intersection and do not want the increased traffic in front of my house. My children play in the front yard and driveway and I do not want all that extra traffic right in front for safety issues as well as it making a traffic problem getting in and out of driveways for the houses right near it. Part of the reason we purchased our home in this location was for the safety of being on a road that was not near an intersection. The Louis Stephens connection offers enough of an alternate path for residents to get out to 55 that way, we do not need to make both Millicent and Willingham more congested and dangerous with more traffic as another option. I would like to see a greenway connection from this location to the new school as a way for children and parents to walk back and forth to the school but not a roadway. Thank you, Becky Davis Dear Town of Morrisville officials: Email I am writing to express my concern over a roadway connection being put in the Breckenridge neighborhood joining Millicent and Little Road. I am gravely troubled by the additional traffic this will create in a neighborhood street setting with numerous young children and several parked cars on the road sides. We also still struggle with a long standing issue of speeding cars in the neighborhood, despite the efforts of many to alleviate the safety issue, and this will surely exacerbate the issue. Additionally, Breckenridge residents are already dealing with numerous home break-ins where access roads behind homes are making for easy get-a-ways. Adding this roadway connection would create an ideal access and exit point for criminals to target several more homes in the neighborhood and I fear a
1.
Tylene Elliott
[email protected]
2.
Becky Davis
[email protected]
3.
Kenneth Anderson
[email protected]
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Date Comment Received 8/ 17/ 2017
Staff Response
8/ 20/2017
None
8/ 20/ 17
None
None
Public Comments Name
4.
Vasanth Alle
5.
Jennifer Andersen
Address
Email address
[email protected]
105 Cypress Mill Road
[email protected]
Comment
Method Comment Received
dramatic rise of home break-ins will occur. If anything different must be done with the available space connecting Millicent and Little road, I strongly suggest it be limited to adding a greenway / bike path. Given the expectation that several children will be attending the new school being built between Parkside and Little Rd, a greenway path would provide safe and easy walking and bicycle passage to the school while having the additional positive impact of dramatically lowering the amount of car traffic to the school. As a father to three young children living and playing on Willingham, close to the proposed Millicent – Little connector, I am very much against this proposed roadway connector. As a regular voter and active volunteer in the community, specifically Morrisville Parks & Rec, I hope that you will hear my voice and act accordingly. Very best regards, Kenneth Andersen Hello, Email I oppose the opening of the roadway from Millicent Way to Little Rd. This stand is owing - to safety and security concerns to residents - to children who play around their homes - diminishing of home values due to increased traffic. There already has been an increase in thefts in Morrisville and this opening of the road would further deteriorate the situation. Regards, Sent from Alle’s MBP Vasanth Alle
[email protected] Dear Town of Morrisville, Email As a Breckenridge resident, regular voter, and mom of 3, I'd like to take a moment to address the recent transportation issue of connecting Millicent and Little Roads. I am strongly against connecting these two roads. The amount of speeding traffic we have on Willingham continues to be an issue for us and I feel adding this connector will only worsen those issues. I live approximately 3 houses down from where this connector would be and I can't stress enough how dangerous this could be for the 50+ children that live in this small section of our neighborhood alone. Our current bus stop is also at this same location and having a thoroughfare here is dangerous for the 10 to 15 children that get on off the buses every day. In addition to the traffic issue, we have had a recent string of break-ins in the neighborhood. Specifically near areas where exiting the neighborhood is easier. Creating another easy exit point out of our neighborhood is simply creating an invitation for more burglaries. I am however in favor of adding a greenway from the Millicent area and running it along the buffer to the new school. This will give walkers from this section of the neighborhood an easier trek to school and decrease the amount of cars in the carpool line. Please take my points to heart and take the Millicent/Little Rd connection off the transportation plan. Thanks very much! Jennifer Andersen 105 Cypress Mill Rd, Morrisville
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
8/ 21/ 17
None
8/ 21/ 17
None
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment
Hello TOM Planning team, I don't think i have the same opinion as the town planning officers (Transportation plans) regarding the Millicent to Little Rd intersection due to the following reasons. 1) It creates safety issue to the residents of Breckenridge and will lead to accidents in the neighborhood. 2) I believe existing road connections to enter the Breckenridge are more than enough. i) Parkside valley Dr, ii)Redwood Park Drive iii) Gray Marble Rd. 3) I think Louis Stephens Drive will be ready by the end of 2019 which adds one more connectivity to Breckenridge. 4) We have seen increase in robberies in Breckenridge community for the past few months, and two weeks back another robbery happened, increase in traffic with more connectivity may lead to security issues. I hope the TOM will reconsider and change the Plan accordingly. Regards Sunil Battula. Dear Town of Morrisville transportation planners, Email My wife and I have a house on Willingham Road and we are opposed to the plan of adding a road link between Little Drive and Willingham. We favor increased connectivity for bicycles and pedestrians, but not for motor vehicles. Please consider changing the plan to a Greenway connection instead of a roadway link. I agree with many others in the neighborhood that the entry ways from Davis Dr. and Louis Stephens provide sufficient access to the park as well as the future elementary school. Adding a connection between Willingham and Little Dr. will unnecessarily increase traffic through a purely residential area. Thank you for taking the time to log our concern. Regards, Prakash & Nita Bhave Ben, Allison, & Kristina, Email Satish Garimella gave me your contact information. I am writing in regards to the Town of Morrisville transportation plans for road improvements and green way connections. In regards to the proposal of the Millicent Way extension from Breckenridge subdivision to Little Drive, I am for this extension. I would offer my opinion at the upcoming Transportation Plan Open House, 5:30 - 6:30 pm, on August 22, 2017 at Town Hall but I am unable to attend. I am a Breckenridge subdivision resident. My address is 104 Cypress Mill Rd and I am the parent of two children (ages 5 & 6). There has been concern from other residents that there would be an increase in through traffic in Breckenridge. I am in disagreement as no one would willingly want to drive over the 4+ speed tables just to cut through Breckenridge. Additionally I believe it is unclear that such a connection would negatively impact property values. I also think adding an additional egress from Breckenridge subdivision will be beneficial for the residents. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you,
6.
Sunil Battula
[email protected]
7.
Prakash Bhave
[email protected]
8.
Kevin and Diana Brown
104 Cypress Mill Road
Method Comment Received Email
[email protected]
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Date Comment Received 8/ 21/ 17
Staff Response
8/ 21/ 17
None
8/ 21/ 17
None
None
Public Comments Name
9.
Address
Biswadev Roy
10. Yonghuan Cao
Email address
[email protected]
600 Willingham Road
[email protected]
11.
Vijay Sheker
[email protected]
12.
Sreekanth Maddoju
[email protected]
13.
Brendan Wiley
[email protected]
Comment Kevin B. Brown 104 Cypress Mill Road Morrisville, NC 27560 Dear Sir/ Madam: Greenway by definition mean people walking by my property all the time. When we bought our home from Pulte we purchased on the ground that there will be a roadway (meaning only car traffic) and not any human traffic in between. I am not sure why you will allow changing the original plan. It looks like Town of Morrisville has given the property adjacent to my house to the Master HOA? Not sure. In our knowledge, the vacant spot between my home and 600 Willingham belongs to the Town of Morrisville. Kindly inform me officially of the present status of this piece of land, and the plan of using this stretch of land adjacent to my residence. If you have changed the original proposal this is going to affect my property value to a great extent. I am also copying this email request to my immediate neighbors for their record. Looking forward. Sincerely, Biswadev (Dev) Roy I own and live in the house on 600 Willingham Rd. The land of concern is between Dev's house and ours. I echo Dev's request that you provide us concerned the current status of this patch of land and the plan of using it. As the owner of the house, I won't accept any usage of this land other than what is stated in the contract that we signed at the time of purchasing our houses. Thank you for your attention! Yonghuan Hi, I would like to strictly oppose this passage using Willingham and Milicent as all residents will be inconvenienced. Thanks, Vijay Hi,This is Sreekanth Maddoju, as a resident of Breckenridge community, here is my concern about new Millicent road intersection with little rd, In this community the most parents of kids who plays around the yards, we do not want more traffic through our neighborhood. Kindly consider our request and look for alternative options which doesn't impact our community with more traffic. Thank You, Sreekanth Maddoju. Hi, I live on Willingham Rd, the main road that intersects with Millicent on the Breckenridge side. Willingham is a long road, but is narrow in many places because a fair amount of cars populate either side of the road. It is hilly on both sides which limits visibility for drivers. There are a lot of children who play on or near Willingham. Traffic is already heavy enough because of the number of residents who live on that road, and many drivers already ignore the speed limits. Small kids riding bikes regularly pass through the proposed intersection at speed because of the hills. I have two young children who play outside on a regular basis and I don’t think it would be safe to add even more traffic to the equation, especially from people who are just passing through the neighborhood. After the little road intersection
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Email
8/ 21/ 17
None
Email
8/ 21/ 17
None
Email
8/ 21/ 17
None
Email
8/ 22/ 17
None
Email
8/ 23/ 17
None
Public Comments Name
14. Breckenridge Homeowners’ Association of NC, Inc. c/o York Properties, Inc.
Address
2108 Clark Avenue, Raleigh NC 27608
Email address
[email protected]
Comment is extended to 55 it will only get worse. Before you make any decision I implore you to first visit the site and drive along Willingham at a busy hour to get an idea of the existing traffic in certain areas, of the visibility of curves and hills, and of the vehicles along the road. From a top down view it looks like a perfect intersection, but it is assuredly not. Regards, Brendan Based on a survey taken of the membership of the Breckenridge Homeowners Association of NC, Inc., the membership is not interested in extending Millicent Way to Little Drive.
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Online Portal
9/18/ 2017
None
Online Portal
9/24/ 2017
None
Online Portal
9/28/ 2017
None
If you have any questions or concerns, please call me at (919) 8638084 or email me at
[email protected]. Sincerely,
15. Cullen Gabler
1008 Cotulla Drive
[email protected]
16. Dawn Geda
14 Kudrow Lane
[email protected]
Carol Slaven, PCAM Association Manager I noticed that a grade separation at Aviation & NC 54 is listed as a recommendation. Although this may make sense from an outside perspective/ solely numbers basis, this would go directly against the town center plan. Having this very large bridge right over a major park, historical house and directly adjacent to the town center would prove to be detrimental to the town center plan. I myself am a resident of the recently built Cotten Place subdivision that was approved to be built in this area in part due to this town center vision. This subdivision was already built with the future widening of Aviation in mind, so to see something being added to the transportation plan that could essentially wipe out a section of the homes and hurt the appeal of the subdivision and its neighboring park is very disappointing. I would hope that the town wouldn't choose to keep this in their plans. There a many other projects that can be done to alleviate the issues of this intersection (Airport Blvd extension with grade Separation, McCrimmon Parkway Grade Separation and Completion of its extension, extension of Crabtree Crossing, Quadrant turn lanes for turns onto NC 54 from Aviation). Even something as drastic as aligning the Weston and Morrisville Parkways would likely be better for the town in the longer run than doing this grade separation. The projected future train traffic at this intersection combined with some of the better alternative routes mentioned above should shift away a lot of commuter through traffic at this intersection without sacrificing people's homes and the town center. I live in Carpenter Park on Kudrow Lane. I cannot imagine not having a left turn provision onto Morrisville-Carpenter Park off of my road. This road gets lots of traffic due to the park parking lot and condos. This is a major safety concern. Please provide this in the widening plan.
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name 17.
Derek Rose
Address
Email address
Comment
3122 Kudrow Lane
[email protected]
As a resident of Preston Creekside, I am opposed to not having a turn lane into Kudrow Lane from Morrisville-Carpenter Road. I am concerned that having a median with no turn lane access will delay emergency services to the hundreds of residents of my community and who live on Kudrow Lane, many of which are elderly.
Method Comment Received Online Portal
Date Comment Received 9/28/ 2017
Staff Response
Email
9/29/2017
Mr. WoodardI wanted to confirm receipt of your email, and let you know that they will be added to our master public comment list. If you have any additional comments, please use our public comment portal to ensure your comments are captured since not all comments send directly to boards are forwarded to me. All information related to the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update Process is located at www.townofmorrisville.org/ transpor tationplanupdate.
None
The bottleneck on Morrisville-Carpenter is at the intersection with Highway 54, and I do not think that this widening will reduce that congestion. Feel free to contact me with any questions, and thank you. 18. Ron Woodard
208 Lewiston Court, Cary NC 27513
[email protected]
Dear Planning and Zoning Board, I am opposed to the proposed Town Hall Drive extension to Crabtree Crossing. The only real purpose of this extension is to send lots of traffic on to Crabtree Crossing, a community residential street not planned or designed for this purpose, and use it as a cut through to Cary Parkway. Why are you attempting to ruin our Preston neighborhood by adding large numbers of vehicles on our residential street to relieve traffic congestion on Davis Drive, etc? Poor traffic planning is no reason to use a residential street as a thoroughfare. I find it interesting that this project is back on the "map" AFTER the developer has made his money, finished the PUD, and gone. We certainly would not want any developer to lose any value on his property for such a property value reducing traffic project....... I urge you to drop this project and seek real solutions to traffic congestion which do not harm our Preston community, after we bought our homes with the understanding that Crabtree Crossing was a residential street and not a thoroughfare.
I also wanted to let you know that at this point in the process both staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have asked the consultant to provide additional information on potential intersection improvements at Crabtree Crossing Parkway and Morrisville Parkway. Specifically, the request is to identify improvements that would prohibit drivers from heading south on Crabtree Crossing Parkway directly into the Preston neighborhood.
Regards, Ron Woodard 208 Lewiston Court Cary, NC 27513
Thank you for your feedback, and I hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. Courtney Tanner, AICP, CZO Planning Director 19. Bob Butler
[email protected]
Ms. Tanner, Several times in the presentations the Consultant and Town staff have referred to a road classification of “Connector.” When a P&Z
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Email
9/29/2017
Mr. ButlerConnector is a term used to describe how the road will function. It is really nothing more than an adjective.
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Board member asked why Crabtree Crossing was studied as a possible thoroughfare, the Consultant stated it was because Crabtree Crossing is classified as a Connector.
The road classification is "collector". I have included images in this email that I pulled off www.townofmorrisville.org/ transpor tationplanupdate. These images include the road cross-section and more detailed information about a collector. Hopefully that helps clear up any confusion. I am checking my email sporadically during my training, so if you have any additional questions please contact me. I will respond as soon as possible.
I am unable to find what NC DOT Planning reference details, describes, or defines a Connector. Can you please cite the reference where we can learn more about this road type. Since you have been very responsive, I probably don’t have to mention this, but time is of the essence if we are going to be able to contribute wisely to the conversation before the planning process moves beyond the point of no return. Thanks! Bob
20. Bob Butler
[email protected]
--------------Bob Butler 919-961-0160 mobile Ms. Paige, I completed the following measurements that may be useful to the planning process. Crabtree Crossing between Cary Parkway and Morrisville Parkway is 1.67 miles (2942 yards) in length. There are 17 curbed medians that are separated by roadway (I didn’t break a median if it only had a cart path separation) totaling 1.15 miles (2022 yards). Therefore, 69% of Crabtree Crossing between Morrisville Parkway and Cary Parkway is single-lane no-pass roadway due to curbed medians and does NOT meet the definition (local neighborhood traffic only) or cross-section (two-lane passable, no median) of a local “Connector" according to the Town’s own planning guidelines. The Consultant stated in her presentation to P&Z in response to a question by a Board Member that Crabtree Crossing was put in the model and studied again even though it was removed in 2008/ 9 because "it was a Connector.” This appears to have been an error. The Consultant and Staff may only be looking at the section of Crabtree Crossing from Morrisville Parkway to Stardale Rd (towards Town Hall Drive) which is 1.3 miles long and only has one small median. However, their own analysis Staff reported in the Council briefing that an estimated additional 600 to 800 cars during peak time would travel past Morrisville Parkway and use the 1.67-mile section of Crabtree Crossing that is mostly single lane with medians to reach Cary Parkway. It’s possible Consultant and Staff are parsing the two sections of Crabtree Crossing to influence the outcomes of the analysis. Ideas shared with me by Courtney Tanner (presented as possible compromises) to block Crabtree Crossing though-traffic across
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Staff Response
Courtney Tanner, AICP, CZO Planning Director Town of Morrisville 919.463.6199 Email
10/ 1/2017
Mr. Butler – Thank you for sharing this information. I understand the concerns and questions you and others have about Crabtree Crossing. I further understand we need to provide more information about the rationale associated with its inclusion in the transportation plan. I will share this email with staff and the consultants so we are prepared to discuss in full with both Planning and Zoning Board and Town Council. Thank you for remaining engaged in the process. Martha
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Email
10/ 2/ 2017
None
Email
10 / 3/ 2017
None
Morrisville Parkway toward Cary Parkway involve a median block that requires traffic wanting to go southbound on Crabtree Crossing from westbound Morrisville Parkway to make a U-Turn on Morrisville Parkway. These ideas fail to recognize that there is already a very heavy U-turn traffic load coming out of Double Eagle Ct serving 200+ home/ apt at the same point to head eastbound on Morrisville Parkway, plus there is heavy golf cart, course maintenance, pedestrian, and bike traffic in that same location. This would also introduce a major inconvenience to the Crabtree Crossing residents and remove any benefit to them from the connector. It’s generally not a compromise if one side is a complete loser. If this passed because Town Planning only considered the section between Morrisville Parkway and Stardale Rd., and inevitable traffic bottlenecks materialize at the single-lane no-pass areas as cars continue to Cary Parkway, the only option will be to remove the medians at great expense and destroying the character and property values in eastern Preston, the highest property value neighborhood in Morrisville (i.e., where homes sell for over $2 million) and a unique asset for recruiting large headquarter businesses. This could hurt Morrisville’s entire business recruiting efforts to benefit only a few developers at Park West and around Town Hall Drive. Thanks for your attention to this matter and your service to our wonderful town.
21. Bob Butler
[email protected]
Bob & Karen Butler Ms. Paige, Excellent, thanks! Another curiosity, on page 42 in the PDF( or 3-12 in the Plan) (see attached screen shot), appears the follow table of “Recommendations for the future system", listing something called “Crabtree Crossing at Morrisville Parkway – Intersection Improvements”. I could not find any other details in the Plan. Ms. Tanner told me via email, she does not yet have any details on that project. This intersection was just completely updated last year and has no apparent problems. Is it possible that Consultant/ Staff are already planning on implementing the “compromises” I mentioned in my email. At the very least "Recommended" projects should be described in some manner in the Plan. Thanks again!
22. Ron Woodard
[email protected]
Bob & Karen Butler Ms. Tanner, I did want to comment on the statement just below, "Specifically, the request is to identify improvements that would prohibit drivers from heading south on Crabtree Crossing Parkway directly into the Preston neighborhood."
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
10 / 4/ 2017
Online Portal
None
Online Portal
10 / 4/ 2017
None
I assume we might agree the above statement is not serious and basically assumes residents in Preston are dumb enough to believe it. We all know that once Town Hall Drive is extended for the only purpose of pushing traffic on to Crabtree Crossing as a cut through to relieve traffic in other areas or is actually a request by a favored developer......how does one honestly stop the cut through traffic to Cary Parkway? We already have cut through traffic and it would only get much worse with the road extension. A sign could say no cut through traffic, but unless the Police are there are on a daily basis, and we know they will not be, such methods are a big joke after the road is extended.
Regards,
23. Mike Schlink
416 Willingham Road
[email protected]
Ron Woodard The update to me doesn't focus enough resources on what CAMPO and other Triangle Cities are planning for; emphasizing getting people out of their cars in choosing more active, enjoyable and mass transit options to travel than using a car. The update doesn't seem to address the town's TOD and connecting it to our greenway system or sidewalks. The funding assumptions for the town's proposed bus and train station that Wake County & CAMPO will provide all the necessary funding, based on prior experience in building roads is probably wrong? Shouldn't the plan address that? If NC 54 was split into another section between airport and aviation roads couldn't town fiscal resources be better utilized & prioritized? As two other viable town connector roads why not include the two sections of Airport Blvd from Twin Lakes to Town Hall Dr & then Town Hall drive to Church St? Doesn't those segments inclusion benefit the ROW the town already has and later add CAMPO points to the possible RR crossing at NC 54? At the least can't the Airport ROW be used a greenway connection until the road is built? How does the Millicent greenway connect to Little Rd score under the town criteria for greenway connections?
24. Patty Cheng
304 Millet Drive, Morrisville NC 27560
[email protected]
This NW section of town isn't connected to the Morrisville greenway plan, why not consider improvements other than sidewalks along Davis and McCrimmon? With one of the largest neighborhoods at 1,200 homes, a simple & short MIllicent greenway connection to RTP's 24 miles of greenway (RTP is a willing partner), the public benefits will be compounded once the neighborhood is connected to the town system as with the bike route. The now completed Davis Dr., 8ft sidewalk to RTP is nice but is also at the front of the neighborhood and along a busy highway (like M/C sidewalks versus Hatcher Creek greenway) which can discourage its use for many residents. Thank you On Sept 19, 2017 Stacey Sherman and Derek Rose, both are homeowners in the Preston Creekside community, located near the
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Online Portal
10 / 4/ 2017
None
entrance of Morrisville Community Park, behind the Carpenter Park Single Family Homes asked: "I have not been able to find where it is mentioned that Kudrow would not have a left turn access to M-C. Where is it stated/ shown?" I understand that Town Staff was charged to provide information about how the expansion of Morrisville-Carpenter Road to 4 lanes would affect the thousands of local residents who must access the state road as the main thoroughfare to their homes. Please share the location of this project information on the town website since the project affects thousands of local residents. If the primary entrance to Preston Creekside and Carpenter Park Single Family Homes will be blocked by a median for Left Turn Access, and all the traffic from 250 homes from these two neighborhoods South of Morrisville-Carpenter Rd Must Turn Left at the Gratoit-Millet intersection with the 4-Lane State Road, What Accommodations for Turning LEFT will the roughly 400 homes (including Ridgemont) be getting to accommodate access to Morrisvlle-Carpenter Road, especially since there was a child fatality (school bus accident) at this intersection in 2007 ???
25. Patty Cheng
3041 Millet Drive, Morrisville
[email protected]
It appears traffic intersection accommodations have already been made for the intersections that accommodate Fewer Homes at the entrance of Savannah and the entrance of Addision Park and Carpenter Park Townhomes. What will be done at this Millet-Gratoit Intesection at Morrisville-Carpenter Road since there are far more residents that must access this intersection than either the entrance of Savannah or at Addison Park and CP Townhomes? If Non-Resident Transportation Analysts are adding major projects to the Town of Morrisville's Long-Range Transportation Plans, And Morrisville Residents Have NOT been provided any opportunity to comment or fully vet major project being randomly included without public input, Why is this little box on the Town's Website the only opportunity those who LIVE IN MORRISVILLE are Actually given to review Major plans "the non-resident experts" and just draw in on a long-range transportation plan map"? When Morrisville firefighters are asked to assist with Overturned Cars on I-540, which Morrisville Resident has actually asked for a connector from I-540 and I-147 directly to Morrisville Center??? None of the many annual discussions that I have heard about Morrisville Center ever included how an exit ramp from the 70 mph highway will end within close proximity to a highly ranked elementary school in Morrisville. If the NC DOT has collected too much money that I paid in tolls, Why IS the MONEY NOT BEING USED TO FUND THE #1 Project on Morrisville's CAMPO List since Yr 2000, The Widening of NC 54 Chapel Hill Road?? No One has asked for a Highway Connector to Town Hall North that will Lower All the Property Values of the surrounding subdivisions.
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
26. Ken Purchase
302 Bradson Road, Morrisville NC 27560
[email protected]
27. Tylene Elliott
1161 Crabtree Crossing Parkway
[email protected]
Comment
Method Comment Received
Also, if the Crabtree Crossing Connector from Morrisvillle Carpenter Road to Morrisville Parkway is being ressurrected 11 years after it was killed in a close Town Council Vote, now that these areas have had 11 years to develop as individual communities, Morrisville Leadership would be negligent to add the project again to the LongRange Plan without fully considering the Input to Morrisville Residents and HOA Communities. It is a great transportation plan. I especially like (and will be most Online Portal impacted by) the McCrimmon and Louis Stephens improvements. I would like fewer added stop lights along major roads like Davis Drive - there have been many over the years. Dear Planning & Zoning Board, Online Portal I want to bring to your attention some observations and potentially material flaws in the analysis surrounding the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension (the Extension) in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (the Plan): § The proposed $2.8 million Extension cost estimate appears significantly underestimated given eight years of inflation and the previous cost estimates from staff of $10-13 million in 2009. There are wetlands in this location and Crabtree Creek routinely floods requiring a bridge to accompany this 1/ 3-mile road extension. § How can lawmakers rationalize a project of this magnitude, at $2.8 million or as I believe significantly more, when there are many higher utility/ high return projects reflected in the Plan? Funds are not unlimited; please be good stewards of our tax dollars and invest in the highest return projects for Morrisville residents. § Why would Morrisville leaders appropriate residential property taxes, or its municipal credit, to fund the panacea for what are clearly Major Thoroughfare, NC State road issues at the detriment of its own residential communities by funneling commercial and commuter traffic through them to towns south of Morrisville and thereby negatively affect Morrisville residential property values in the process? § The Extension reduces and delays NCDOT’s formulaic incentive to Fix NC54 First! because NCDOT prioritizes and funds its most congested roads first. It doesn’t seem prudent to relieve the pressure on NCDOT’s responsibility to self-fund remedies for NC54 and Davis Drive when those state-owned thoroughfares are the sources of these traffic congestion problems. § Flawed Plan designation of existing Crabtree Crossing Parkway as a Collector Street: A. The Plan describes the proposed Extension of Crabtree Crossing Parkway as a “Collector Street,” however, the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension does not meet the definition of a Collector Street
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
10 / 4/ 2017
None
10 / 5/ 2017
None
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment because it fails the first test from the town’s own manual, which states: “Connects neighborhood traffic to points within and between existing neighborhoods.” 1.
This Extension of Crabtree Crossing is being proposed as:
o a commuter thoroughfare connecting RTP (the I-540/ Hwy 147Durham Freeway exchange) and Cary Parkway, and o a connector to commercial centers (Park West Village, etc.), both of which are inconsistent with the town’s definition of Collector Street. 2.
Furthermore, the Extension is being touted as a reliever of:
o commuter and commercial traffic from NC54 and Davis Drive, o traffic congestion at the intersection of Town Hall Drive & Morrisville Carpenter, which are also inconsistent with the definition of Collector Street. B. Crabtree Crossing Extension is described in the Plan to be a “Collector Street, just like Parkside Valley Drive,” yet these streets are materially different in ways that: i) significantly affect traffic flow and neighborhood impact, and ii) suggest an inappropriate categorization of Crabtree Crossing as a Collector Street, as described below: 1.
Parkside Valley Drive, unlike Crabtree Crossing, has:
o No homes facing it (no residential addresses), o Not a single driveway cut, o No mailboxes, o No trash can pickups, o No golf cart crossings, o No Prestonwood Country Club course maintenance equipment traffic (which is significant), o Yellow road striping indicating its faster 35 mph speed limit than 25mph on Crabtree Crossing, o Much wider roadway bed/right of way than Crabtree Crossing,
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment
o Speed humps are located only at crosswalks, and o Sidewalks on both sides of the entire street. Parkside Valley Drive is a true Collector Street, designed and built to collect residential traffic from adjacent residential streets, but it is not a local residential street itself like Crabtree Crossing. 2.
Crabtree Crossing Parkway, unlike Parkside Valley Drive, has:
o Dozens of homes facing it (dozens of residential addresses), o Dozens of driveway cuts, o Dozens of mailboxes, o Dozens of trash can pickups, o Permitted golf cart traffic, o Three golf cart crossings, o Prestonwood Country Club Maintenance Center that has a large amount of full-sized tractor and commercial lawn mower activity/ traffic that must travel Crabtree Crossing daily. o No yellow street striping and slower 25 mph. o Dozens of speed humps, only two of which are located at crosswalks, o Sidewalks on only one side of the street, and o Heavily traveled bike lanes. The two biggest bike clubs in the Triangle, Inside Out Sports and Cycling Spoken Here, ride on Crabtree Crossing several times each week involving hundreds of participating cyclists. Crabtree Crossing is not like Parkside Valley Drive. A more appropriate description for Crabtree Crossing Parkway is a Local Street, whose definition is: “Local, slow-moving streets,” with an “Exclusive purpose to provide block-level, local access and safe connectivity to higher order streets.” § To be credible, the Plan must include all relevant and accurate facts. The Plan does not provide the traffic count data for existing Crabtree Crossing Parkway traffic today (south of Morrisville Parkway), even though the town collected this data from the Morrisville Parkway Railroad Grade Separation and speed bump survey exercise completed a few years ago.
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment A. The Plan estimates Crabtree Crossing would have as many as an additional 800 vehicles during peak hours after the proposed Extension is built. This is an additional car every 6.75 seconds in a 90-minute peak commuting time on top of existing traffic, which is often heavy today during rush hour. B. Inclusion in the Plan of the existing Crabtree Crossing traffic count data would more accurately highlight total vehicle trips passed these homes at rates more frequently than every 6.75 seconds mentioned above. C. During the many months of the Morrisville Parkway Railroad Grade Separation completed last year, residents experienced the effect of increased traffic along the full length of Crabtree Crossing (into Cary) and through Preston Grande (streets: Ridge Creek, Preston Grande Way, Trellingwood and Rainbrook) when the NCDOT detour proved ineffective and these neighborhoods became cut-through streets to various points along Cary Parkway. This demonstrated that these residential streets of Crabtree Crossing (and the other mentioned streets) are at capacity as residents were swamped with high speed commuting and commercial traffic making walking, bike riding, exiting driveways, operating golf carts, and retrieving mail dangerous. § The Cross Section of Crabtree Crossing in the Plan fails to show the 17 medians that make up 69% of the street length between Morrisville Parkway and Cary Parkway. These medians do not allow passing even when slow moving school buses and garbage trucks service the street. § The Plan states there are no bike lanes on Crabtree Crossing south of Morrisville Parkway when in fact the bike lanes in both directions extend the full length into the Town of Cary all the way to Cary Parkway. § Crabtree Crossing Extension was designated as a Greenway in the 2009 Transportation Plan. In the eight years since its adoption, this Greenway has not yet been built raising skepticism of its genuine importance to local resident connectivity, albeit bike and pedestrian. Therefore, its inclusion in the current Plan as a Medium-Term Roadway Priority raises additional question around local resident desire and hints at those suited to most benefit---non-resident commuters and commercial interests as catalysts. § In 2009, a Crabtree Crossing Extension was fully vetted and removed from the Plan. Nothing has materially changed, besides perhaps the Extension’s escalated cost to build, and the effects of the Morrisville Parkway Railroad Grade Separation project provided proof that it’s an imprudent idea. Thank you for your service to our town and for citizen opportunities to provide input,
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Online Portal
10 / 5/ 2017
None
Online Portal
10 / 5/ 2017
None
Online Portal
10 / 5/ 2017
None
Email
10 / 5/ 2017
None
Tylene Elliott
28. Dave Bostic
1160 Crabtree Crossing Parkway
29. Linda Britt
1160 Crabtree Crossing Parkway
30. David Newman
112 Ridge Creek Drive
31.
Fran Salmon
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Morrisville Resident Please do not vote for the Crabtree Crossing extension, instead plesae fix the roads that are currently the problems, Davis Drive and HWY 54 going through morrisville. Please do not vote for the Crabtree Crossing extension, instead plesae fix the roads that are currently the problems, Davis Drive and HWY 54 going through morrisville. Adding Additional trafic through the preston neigborhood will adversly impact home values and quality of life for the residents. Living through the Morrisville Parkway construction and experiencing the traffic on Ridge Creek will occur again if this transportation plan is approved. Our street became a short cut to Cary Parkway with lot of high speed driving and congestion especially during rush hour traffic. I am adamantly opposed to this plan. It will have a negative impact on all residential in Preston Grande. To the Planning & Zoning Board: I have waded through the Town of Morrisville’s 92-page Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) and read that it intends to funnel traffic from what is designated as a major thoroughfare (NC 54/ Chapel Hill Road), through a minor thoroughfare (Town Hall Drive), and into Crabtree Crossing Parkway by extending Crabtree Crossing across wetlands and a creek to meet with Town Hall Drive. The CTP designates Crabtree Crossing Parkway as a “Collector” street: streets that connect neighborhood traffic to points within and between existing neighborhoods and that serve primarily as a conduit for local traffic during off-peak periods. Compare that definition with that of a “Local” street: local, slow-moving streets whose exclusive purpose is to provide block-level, local access, and safe connectivity to higher order streets. Crabtree Crossing Parkway provides access to blocks of single-family homes through many side streets that either end in a cul-de-sac, circle back around to Crabtree Crossing, or wind their way through even smaller streets back out to Cary Parkway. Crabtree Crossing is a slow-moving street that provides local access and connectivity to higher order streets, i.e., a local street. Therefore, in reality, traffic is expected to migrate from major and minor thoroughfares straight to a local street: a local street that runs less than 2 miles between Cary Parkway NW and Morrisville Parkway, has 13 speed bumps, 3 golfcart crossings, golf-cart/ biking lanes, and a 25-mph speed limit. It has 11 small breaks between medians to allow access to driveways, where cars routinely make U-turns. Walkers, bikers, and golf carts, as well as golf course maintenance vehicles, regularly use the roadway. Residents walk their dogs. Neighbors walk to each others’ homes. Children bike to Prestonwood Country Club. Moms and dads stroll with their babies and toddlers. Successive medians run the length of Crabtree, making traffic back up behind large vehicles, such as garbage trucks, lawn maintenance equipment, and UPS/ FedEx trucks. It is impossible to pass such
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Email
10/ 6/2017
None
Online Portal
10/ 6/2017
None
vehicles. What is a minor inconvenience to the local resident will become a nightmare for 20+ “thru-traffic” drivers. In fact, during the construction of the railroad overpass on Morrisville Parkway, detoured traffic traveled from Morrisville Parkway onto Crabtree Crossing Parkway, turned left onto Ridge Creek, turned left onto Preston Grande, and left again onto Rainbrook Dr. (an additional 9 speed bumps and 1 golf cart crossing). The traffic signal at Rainbrook and Cary Parkway is green for 25 seconds and red for 2 minutes and 15 seconds. At times traffic through this small neighborhood was backed up by as many as 40 cars. Despite the presence of police cars, drivers did not stop at stop signs and they did not observe the speed limit. Furthermore, our mail carrier told me that delivering mail with the constant stream of cars trying to pass was a harrowing experience. Most homes on Crabtree Crossing Parkway and on side streets back up to the Highlands golf course of Prestonwood Country Club. The prices of these homes, and the tax assessments, reflect the desirability of a tranquil and beautiful setting. The Homeowner’s Association has endeavored over the last few years to demarcate this area (and other subdivisions) as an attractive, distinctive neighborhood, with new light posts, new street signs, and landscaping to make this locale a coveted place to live. These efforts will be destroyed, and the value of homes will tumble, if Crabtree Crossing is turned into a traffic diversion. As a homeowner on Crabtree Crossing Parkway since 2005, I am opposed to the planned extension.
32. Chris Elliott
[email protected]
Fran Salman Please vote against the Crabtree Crossing Parkway Extension: speed bumps in the Preston neighborhood do not preclude motorists from cutting through Preston today, and during the Morrisville Parkway Grade Separation it became unsafe for pedestrians to walk and ride in the neighborhood. the planned extension will re-create the same issues caused by the Morrisville Parkway Grade Separation project. the advent of APPs like WAZE, Google Maps and Apple Maps will guide motorists through our neighborhood as a direct route and to avoid congestion on NC 54 and Davis Drive. Thank you for your consideration.
33. Alan Knuckles
105 Bending Oak Way, Morrisville
[email protected]
Chris Elliott Dear Morrisville Town Council and Planning and Zoning Board, We, the Board of Directors of the Preston Community Association representing over 1,300 homes in the Preston neighborhood, oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension proposed in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. We believe the foreseeable detriments to our Preston community far outweigh the potential benefits of this proposed connection, and therefore we do not support it.
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Online Portal
10/ 6/17
None
Online Portal & Email to PZB
10/ 7/ 17
None
We urge the removal of Crabtree Crossing Extension as a connector to Town Hall Drive from the plan and allow it to remain a greenway as approved in the 2009 Transportation Plan. Thank you,
34. Walt Sliva
287 Hogan’s Valley Way, Cary NC
[email protected]
35. Tylene Elliott
1161 Crabtree Crossing Parkway, Morrisville
[email protected]
Alan Knuckles, President Dave Newman, VP Bharat Vedak, Secretary Walter Sliva, Treasurer Ron Woodard, Director Vince Thai, Director Joe Cable, Director As a member of the BOD and treasurer of the Preston Community Association, I have received a number of concerns from members who live in the Morrisville section of Preston about your proposed extension of Crabtree Crossing. The board has unanimously voiced our opposition to this proposal that will disrupt the tranquility of our community. Dear Planning and Zoning Board Members, The proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension connector is virtually guaranteed to become a popular alternative thoroughfare between Cary Parkway and the Durham Freeway due to the innovation of Waze and other mobile GPS–enabled apps, along with automobile manufacturers’ on-board navigation systems, that instantly popularize local route knowledge providing a technological game changer of driver behavior. This is yet another significant reason why I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. 1. As I listen to the various leaders, experts, and stakeholders’ discussions on whether the Crabtree Crossing Extension would create a new thoroughfare, it’s clear everyone understands this will be largely determined by driver behavior, and each person has his own idea of what that behavior will be. It is essential to realize that driver behavior regarding route choices has recently undergone an extraordinary transformation as a result of new mapping, routing, and traffic avoidance apps. 2. Auto manufacturers are producing today’s vehicles with navigation systems that remove the guess work from wondering which way provides the quickest direct route to a destination. 3. Delivery service companies, FedEx, USPS, UPS, UBER, Lyft, etc. utilize traffic-routing software and mobile apps to plan the quickest route available to its teams of drivers. 4. GPS Mapping software, for all of its positive attributes, does not delineate between a residential neighborhood and a thoroughfare designed to move vehicular traffic. It will provide data defining the quickest point between two destinations. Many of us have utilized this GPS Navigation software. Millions of us simply follow wherever the software directionally directs the user to go. 5. These new widely used navigation apps are rendering most driver behavior forecast models, expert studies, and layperson’s experiences obsolete. Now virtually every driver has at his fingertips
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Online Portal
10/ 7/ 17
None
the ability to instantly discover any and all routes that might shorten distances and gas consumption, lower travel times, avoid high traffic and accidents, continue moving (rather than sitting in stalled traffic), or exercise a preference for less intense freeway traffic, a preference becoming increasingly popular with our aging population. Drivers will find and use any and all routes that meet their needs and preferences. 6. Unlike Google Maps, Waze has created a culture of user engagement. Waze generates many of its maps by using GPS to track "the movements of its nearly 50 million users," according to Bits. A third of Waze users share "information about slowdowns, speed traps and road closures, allowing Waze to update suggested routes in real time. In many cases, drivers manipulate their Waze app while driving, dramatically increasing the risk of unsafe driving, particularly hazardous on narrow, pedestrian-populated, neighborhood streets like Crabtree Crossing. 7. The Preston neighborhood saw this scenario in real life last year during the Morrisville Parkway Grade Separation project. Within a day or two, virtually all traffic was NOT using the official detour. If a detoured driver on Morrisville Parkway wanted to go southbound on Cary Parkway, he cut through Crabtree Crossing and went to the end, and since it was a right turn on Cary Parkway, he didn’t need a traffic light. If a detoured driver wanted to go north on Cary Parkway, he also turned on Crabtree Crossing, but then cut through Ridge Creek/ Preston Grand Way/ Rainbrook to have a traffic light to make it easy to turn left on Cary Parkway. Normally these options would only be known to locals minimizing through-traffic. But this time, the neighborhood was choked with traffic almost immediately and for months.
36. Renzo Zaldivar, M.D.
1155 Crabtree Crossing Parkway, Morrisville NC 27560
[email protected]
Much of the debate about the Crabtree Crossing Extension is routine with neighborhood impacts being weighed against the greater good. But unlike the other connectors being discussed, the Crabtree Crossing Extension has significant additional complications. The Crabtree Crossing Extension has the likely potential to create a popular new commuter and commercial thoroughfare connecting Cary Parkway to the Durham Freeway (Hwy 147) via existing Town Hall Drive and the already approved Triangle Expressway Extension. If this were to happen, it would be catastrophic for much of Preston and mostly benefit residents outside of Morrisville. Please consider how driver behavior has recently changed due to these technology improvements as you evaluate the prudence of directly linking a family-oriented residential community street to a freeway extension. Best regards, Tylene Elliott, Morrisville Resident To whom it may concern: I am writing to voice my strong concern and opposition to the proposed Ctrabtree Crossing Extension. If approved and built, the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension will funnel commuter and commercial traffic from I-540/ 147 through Preston as drivers seek relief from the congestion on NC54 and Davis Drive, nearly parallel north/ south major thoroughfares. Non-
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Online Portal
10/ 7/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 7/ 17
None
neighborhood traffic can be expected to cut through Crabtree Crossing and Preston Grande to connect to access points along Cary Parkway and Davis Drive (via High House) as it seeks to travel north and south. Funneling high traffic volumes through residential neighborhoods is inappropriate transportation/town planning and adversely affects home values. It is a determent to neighborhood quality of life and makes walking, biking, and retrieving mail dangerous. This extension project is not the best way to alleviate the congestion. Fix NC 54 first and do not create a secondary problem where one does not exist. As a new resident to Morrisville, I hope the Town will do the correct thing. Sincerely,
37. Rodolfo and Fran Salman
1208 Crabtree Crossing Parkway
[email protected]
38. Jackie Larson
125 Summer Lakes Drive
[email protected]
Renzo Zaldivar, M.D. We oppose the extension of Crabtree Crossing into Chapel Hill Road. The traffic concerns into a our neighborhood was a proven problem when the Morrisville PKW route was closed and most of the people living in our area will short cut the rout through our street. Crabtree Crossing extender - my opposition. ear Planning and Zoning Board Members, The proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension connector is going to be thoroughfare between Cary Parkway and the Durham Freeway. I tried to look at some of the studies for the omitted on this by I saw they lacked a real analytic analysis to include the impact of Waze and other similar apps directing traffic through a very nice residential area in Preston. Just like Morrisville did not come close to estimating the added fast traffic cutting through quiet Preston when the railroad overpass was being built and Morrisville parkway was closed....seems like more analysis is needed. Who does this extender proposal benefit $10 million in Cary/Morrisville? GPS Mapping software like Waze are rendering most driver behavior forecast models, expert studies, and layperson’s experiences obsolete. Now virtually every driver has at his fingertips the ability to instantly discover any and all routes that might shorten distances and gas consumption, lower travel times, avoid high traffic and accidents, continue moving (rather than sitting in stalled traffic), or exercise a preference for less intense freeway traffic, a preference becoming increasingly popular with our aging population. Drivers will find and use any and all routes that meet their needs and preferences. A third of Waze users share "information about slowdowns, speed traps and road closures, allowing Waze to update suggested routes in real time. In many cases, drivers manipulate their Waze app while driving, dramatically increasing the risk of unsafe driving,
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Online Portal
10/ 8/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 8/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 8/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 8/ 17
None
particularly hazardous on narrow, pedestrian-populated, neighborhood streets like Crabtree Crossing.
39. Dona Braswell
230 Leacroft Way, Morrisville
[email protected]
40. Sandy Mortier
113 Beaver Glen Court
[email protected]
41. Karen Hiser
201 Ridge Creek Drive, Morrisville NC 27560
[email protected]
42. Tina C. Beri
133 Grande Drive, Morrisville NC 27560
[email protected]
The Crabtree Crossing Extension has the likely potential to create a popular new commuter and commercial thoroughfare connecting Cary Parkway to the Durham Freeway (Hwy 147) via existing Town Hall Drive and the already approved Triangle Expressway Extension. If this were to happen, it would be catastrophic for much of Preston and mostly benefit residents outside of Morrisville. Please consider how driver behavior has recently changed due to these technology improvements as you evaluate the prudence of directly linking a family-oriented residential community street to a freeway extension. Best regards, Jackie Larson In the transportation plan, I see two proposed added signals to Morrisville Carpenter road between where Town Hall and Chapel Hill Road. This section of road is a highly congested road which is a bottleneck during rush hour. Traveling east bound in the morning on Morrisville Carpenter takes at least 15 minutes to make it through that 1/ 2 mile stretch. Many times during rush hour I have seen no cars make it through the light on Morrisville Carpenter at Town Hall because too many cars are being added to the flow of traffic through town hall or church street roads. I believe adding more traffic lights to the flow will make traffic worse. Traffic should not flow into Morrisville Carpenter at Church street. It is too close to a major intersection, it disrupts the flow of traffic and I have seen several cars almost get in wrecks because people are trying to pull out onto the road there and they can't see the traffic coming from the east side. I am voicing my strong opposition to the proposed expansion of Crabtree Crossing Pkwy. Hi. I am opposed to the extension of Crabtree Crossing that is proposed in the draft transportation plan. I do not believe that it is appropriate to provide commuter connectivity via residential streets. These funds should be redirected to improvements in NC 54. Thank you. Dear Members of Planning and Zoning board, I respectfully write to voice my opposition to the Crabtree Crossing Extension connecting Townhall Drive and Crabtree Crossing Parkway. I am writing as a concerned citizen of the Preston neighborhood, which will have increased non-neighborhood commuter and commercial traffic on the community's roads. Preston community roads are popular with children, pedestrians, bicyclists and golf carts. Increased commuter and commercial traffic will be hazardous for the quiet, residential community of Preston and cause much disruption. We have already had a temporary experience of this disruption during the Morrisville Parkway grade separation project when the new railroad bridge was built. It added 30 minutes more in the morning to my commute to work and 30 minutes again in the evening due to the long line of vehicles on Rainbrook Dr. waiting to make a left on NW Cary Parkway. I did not write to you at the time
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
43. Larry Creglow
125 Bending Oak Way
[email protected]
44. Katherine Paden
101 Scottingham Lane, Morrisville
[email protected]
45. Vince Andrews
125 Beaver Glen Court
46. Terri Stober
101 Trail Bend Court, Cary (Preston)
[email protected]
Comment as we all knew it was a temporary stop gap arrangement with a definite end date. The current plan will make permanent such disruption of this peaceful residential neighborhood with young children, pets, bicyclists and seniors in golf carts. Please let the town instead prioritize fixing Route 54 so that it can take away some of the commuter traffic from Davis Drive. Thank you for your time. Kind regards, Tina C Beri Concerned Citizen Alternate Member, Morrisville Board of Adjustment. I have read the comprehensive plan and want to express my disagreement of extending Crabtree Crossing. This is not, in my mind, a logical or beneficial portion of the plan. I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. It is a road with several houses on it. Funneling high traffic volumes through residential neighborhoods is inappropriate transportation/town planning and adversely affects home values. It is a determent to neighborhood quality of life and makes walking, biking, golf-cart driving and retrieving mail dangerous. The Morrisville Parkway Railroad Grade Separation Project was convincing evidence to Preston residents that the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension is a bad idea. During the separation project, virtually all traffic was NOT using the official detour. If a detoured driver on Morrisville Parkway wanted to go southbound on Cary Parkway, he cut through Crabtree Crossing and went to the end, and since it was a right turn on Cary Parkway, he didn’t need a traffic light. If a detoured driver wanted to go north on Cary Parkway, he also turned on Crabtree Crossing, but then cut through Ridge Creek/ Preston Grand Way/ Rainbrook to have a traffic light to make it easy to turn left on Cary Parkway. Normally these options would only be known to locals minimizing through-traffic. But this time, the neighborhood was choked with traffic almost immediately and for months. My house was directly affected by this, so I know how awful it is to have commuters, who are speeding with road rage through a quiet residential neighborhood. Please rethink this Crabtree Crossing Extension! Fix 54 first! I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension project. This would turn this road and surrounding roads into cut-through neighborhoods. This is currently a neighborhood ripe with joggers, bikers, and dogwalkers, and many Morrisville residents have invested significant money into their homes, whose property values will plummet with this project. This proposal benefits NO ONE that lives in Morrisville - only commuters through our town. We already have this path planned out and it's Hwy 54. That work needs to be finished and commuters can have their path home. Crabtree Crossings is NOT the answer. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to voice my concerns regarding the Crabtree Crossing Extension Plan ("Plan"). As a concerned resident of the Preston Community, I oppose the Plan for the following reasons:
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Online Portal
10/ 8/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 9/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 9/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 9/17
None
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Online Portal
10/ 9/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 9/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 9/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 9/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 9/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 9/17
None
1. Crabtree Crossing was built as a residential street, not a commuter/ commercial thoroughfare connecting to RTP and other commercial centers and must remain as such. 2. As a residential street, Crabtree Crossing is heavily used by bicyclists, runners, pet owners, children, golf carts. The safety of these residents must be protected; allowing commuter /commerical traffic on this narrow road would endanger our safety! 3. Just as you are concerned about the value of your own property, we too are concerned about the negative impact the Extension will have on our property given the increased commercial/ commuter traffic. An additional 800 vehicles during rush hour on this residential street is unacceptable and outright dangerous to our residents, specially walkers, runners, bicylists and children!
47. Kathie Bunker
757 Crabtree Crossing Parkway
[email protected]
48. John Bunker
757 Crabtree Crossing Parkway
[email protected]
49. Laura Toombs
613 Crabtree Crossing Parkway 27513 100 Prestonian Place
[email protected]
51. Victor E. Torres
100 Pember Place, Morrisville NC 27560
[email protected]
52. Ruth DobsonTorres
100 Pember Place, Morrisville NC 27560
[email protected]
50. Paul Helson
[email protected]
Please, let's keep Crabtree Crossing a RESIDENTIAL street, with the safety measures and beauty that it was originally meant to have! Thank you I heavily oppose the Crabtree Crossing extension. We moved from Ridge Creek where the cut through was for the prior work and now live on Crabtree Crossing. This extension will take away the safety of our road where so many bikers and walkers enjoy this area. I hope this proposal will not go through. I heavily oppose the Crabtree Crossing extension. I am a realtor and I live on Crabtree Crossing. I've sold 4 house on Crabtree Crossing. I've always used the pitch of the serenity and safety of our roadway. This extension will take that away. So many bikers and walkers enjoy this area. I hope this proposal will not go through. I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. This is a commercial problem. It does not need a residential solution I cannot attend in person the meeting Thursday evening but I wanted to go on record as opposing the Crabtree Crossing Extension. I feel this plan will be a detriment to my property value and increase traffic by my home to an unacceptable level. My wife Ruth Dobson-Torres and I Victor E. Torres are opposed to the Crabtree Crossing extension. This change will increase dramatically the number of commuters driving through our neighborhood impacting nor only our live style but also our property value. I honestly think that using preexisting communities to remedy insufficient roads is not what urban planning should be. I am sure that all the commuters that might see the Crabtree Crossing Extension as a solution, will never agree when is their community the next to be modified to allow other commuters driving through. Preston and similar communities were not planned and designed to serve as parkways and highways. Again, this is not what urban planning should be. We say "NO" to the Crabtree Extension plan. We have build bumps to regulate the speed inside our main reads to protect our families , imagine what would happen if we totally change the use of our street. My husband and I agree with others opposed to the Crabtree Crossing Extension who have stated that the extension would create a popular new commuter and commercial thoroughfare, due to driver behavior that is increasingly being influenced by in-car and
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
53. Shannon Wynne
Address
1164 Crabtree Crossing Pkwy
Email address
[email protected]
Comment
Method Comment Received
mobile GPS-enabled applications. Without doubt, such a new thoroughfare would have detrimental consequences for many of us who live in Preston, especially in the Preston Grande neighborhood. My husband and I first-hand witnessed the terrible traffic congestion on the street directly next to our home during the Morrisville Parkway Grade Separation project. Similar congestion will obviously occur if the Crabtree Crossing Extension is allowed, and such congestion will likely impact the property value of our home in an extremely negative way. For ex., we would not have chosen to purchase our home in its current location if we had known that the congestion that we experienced during the Morrisville Parkway Grade Separation was going to become a permanent reality. We are asking members of the Planning & Zoning Board and the entire Morrisville Town Council to heavily weigh other options before making a decision to directly link our family-oriented residential community street to a freeway extension. Sincerely, Ruth DobsonTorres I highly oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension project currently Online Portal planned to route commuter traffic through my residential neighborhood. I live on Crabtree Crossing which is a local street. My house faces Crabtree Crossing with a driveway cutout.
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
10/ 9/17
None
10/ 9/17
None
During the Morrisville Pkwy Railroad Separation Grade project we were inundated with countless commuters choosing to use our neighborhood as a cut-through instead of the posted detour routes. On multiple occasions, while leaving my driveway, I was almost hit by oncoming traffic. Not to mention the difficult mail retrieval process during this time. Thank you for your continued efforts in making our town a greater place to live. However, I am opposed to Crabtree Crossing Extension Project. We would all be better serviced by extending any of the funds to correcting the difficulties with HWY 54. Yours,
54. Patricia Buchanan
306 Millet Drive, Morrisville
Shannon Wynne It is my understanding that, with the changes to MorrisvilleCarpenter Pkwy, Kudrow traffic will be "right in and right out". Traffic from Millet will remain as it is today. This is to ask that you consider a traffic light - or at least a flashing light and crosswalk for pedestrians. Traffic today on Morrisville-Carpenter Pkwy is so congested, especially early morning and it will get so much worse once that road is 4 lane. I know you are all working very hard on the congestion issues but please keep a good eye on the safety of these small neighborhoods. Some mornings I don't think I'll ever get out of my neighborhood because of the traffic - and they stay bumper to bumper - that's a safety issue too. Thanks for listening. Please remember us when you make your final decision.
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Online Portal
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Patricia Buchanan 55. Alan Knuckles
105 Bending Oak Way
[email protected]
AS a resident of Morrisville, I am opposed to the Crabtree Crossing Extension proposed in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. I believe the foreseeable detriments to our Preston Community and far outweigh the potential benefits of this proposed connection, therefore I do not support it. I urge the removal of the Crabtree Extension as a connector to Town Hall Drive from the plan and allow it to remain a greenway as approved in the 2009 Transportation Plan Thanks, Alan Knuckles
Online Portal
10/ 9/17
None
56. Sharon Lee
1172 Crabtree Crossing Pkwy
[email protected]
Online Portal
10/ 10/ 17
None
57. Marcia Robinson
100 Prestonian Place, Morrisville NC 27560
[email protected]
Online Portal
10/ 10/ 17
None
58. Tony Owen
749 Crabtree Crossing Parkway, Cary NC 27513
[email protected]
Online Portal
10/ 10/ 17
None
59. Lois L Vucich
1193 Crabtree Crossing Pkwy, Morrisville
[email protected]
I would like to express my strong opposition to the proposed extension to Crabtree Crossing Pkwy. After the closing of Morrisville Pkwy, we experienced a huge influx of traffic as you can well imagine. Commuters would pass, blow their horns and other not so nice gestures if you dared go the speed limit. I can in no way understand that widening Hwy 54 would not be a better use of taxpayer dollar than destroying a neighborhood that was not designed for heavy traffic volume. Your concerned citizen, Sharon Lee 1172 Crabtree Crossing Morrisville, NC As a resident of Preston Grande, I strongly oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. During the closing of the Morrisville Parkway, there was a significant increase in traffic, and noise, because of drivers taking a short cut to Cary Parkway. This gives us a good indicator of what might come, if the extension is approved. Thanks!! "I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. It is a road with several houses on it. Funneling high traffic volumes through residential neighborhoods is inappropriate transportation/town planning and adversely affects home values. It is a determent to neighborhood quality of life and makes walking, biking, golf-cart driving and retrieving mail dangerous. The Morrisville Parkway Railroad Grade Separation Project was convincing evidence to Preston residents that the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension is a bad idea. "I vehemently oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. It is a quiet neighborhood. Funneling high traffic volumes through residential neighborhoods is inappropriate transportation/town planning and adversely affects home values. It is a determent to neighborhood quality of life and makes walking, biking, golf-cart driving and retrieving mail dangerous. The Morrisville Parkway Railroad Grade Separation Project was convincing evidence to Preston residents that the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension is a bad idea. During the separation project, virtually all traffic was NOT using the official detour. If a detoured driver on Morrisville Parkway wanted to go southbound on Cary Parkway, he cut through Crabtree Crossing and went to the end, and since it was a right turn on Cary Parkway, he didn’t need a traffic light. If a detoured driver wanted to go north on Cary Parkway, he also turned on Crabtree Crossing, but then cut through Ridge Creek/ Preston Grand Way/ Rainbrook to have a traffic light to make it easy to turn left on Cary Parkway. Normally these options would only be known to locals minimizing through-traffic.
Online Portal
10/ 10/ 17
None
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
60. Bill Walker
767 Crabtree Crossing Parkway
[email protected]
61. Karen Walker
767 Crabtree Crossing Parkway, Cary NC 27513
[email protected]
62. Gary Armistead
783 Crabtree Crossing Pkwy, Cary NC 27513
[email protected]
Comment But this time, the neighborhood was choked with traffic almost immediately and for months. It looked like rush hour at non rush hour times of day. It was awful. My home was directly affected by this, so I know how awful it is to have commuters, speeding through a quiet residential neighborhood with no regard to crosswalks and pedestrians and children on bikes. Please rethink this Crabtree Crossing Extension! Fix 54 first!" I live on Crabtree Crossing and we already have commuter traffic thru our neighborhood and they don't slow down for speed bumps. This would create tremendous traffic flow through the Preston community. Crabtree crossing was not designed to handle high volumes of traffic. It is an interior community street. Have some respect for the 1,000's of families that live in preston. We have all been hearing about this for years - as we all wrote in and some even spoke at the meeting, but the Crabtree Crossing Extension project we all opposed 8 years ago (AND WON!) is back on the table. The Crabtree Crossing Extension has the likely potential to create a popular new commuter and commercial thoroughfare connecting Cary Parkway to the Durham Freeway (Hwy 147) via existing Town Hall Drive and the already approved Triangle Expressway Extension. If this were to happen, it would be catastrophic for much of Preston and mostly benefit residents outside of Morrisville (and Cary). Another Davis Drive, if you will. However, there are no homes that are directly on Davis Drive. Our homes are right on Crabtree Crossing. I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. It is a road with several houses on it. Funneling high traffic volumes through residential neighborhoods is inappropriate transportation/town planning and adversely affects home values. It is a determent to neighborhood quality of life and makes walking, biking, golf-cart driving and retrieving mail dangerous. The Morrisville Parkway Railroad Grade Separation Project was convincing evidence to Preston residents that the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension is a bad idea.
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Online Portal
10/ 10/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 10/ 17
None
10/ 10/ 17
None
During the separation project, virtually all traffic was NOT using the official detour. If a detoured driver on Morrisville Parkway wanted to go southbound on Cary Parkway, he cut through Crabtree Crossing and went to the end, and since it was a right turn on Cary Parkway, he didn’t need a traffic light. If a detoured driver wanted to go north on Cary Parkway, he also turned on Crabtree Crossing, but then cut through Ridge Creek/ Preston Grand Way/ Rainbrook to have a traffic light to make it easy to turn left on Cary Parkway. Normally these options would only be known to locals minimizing through-traffic. But this time, the neighborhood was choked with traffic almost immediately and for months. My house was directly affected by this, so I know how awful it is to have commuters, who are speeding with road rage through a quiet residential neighborhood. Please rethink this Crabtree Crossing Extension! Fix 54 first!" I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. I currently live on this Online Portal road and already it has excessive traffic volume for a active neighborhood area. Funneling high traffic volumes through this residential neighborhood is inappropriate transportation/ town
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
63. Mimsie J Armistead
783 Crabtree Crossing Pkwy
64. Luana Deans
PO Box 8005, Cary NC 27512-8005 766 Crabtree Crossing
65. Scott Dillon
Email address
Comment
[email protected]
planning and adversely affects our home values. It is also detrimental to neighborhood quality of life and makes walking, jogging, biking, golf-cart driving and retrieving mail dangerous. I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. I currently live on this road and already it has excessive traffic volume for an active neighborhood area. Funneling high traffic volumes through this residential neighborhood is inappropriate transportation/ town planning and adversely affects our home values. It is also detrimental to neighborhood quality of life and makes walking, jogging, biking, golf-cart driving and retrieving mail dangerous. Testing Feedback Link
[email protected]
"I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. It is a road with several houses on it. Funneling high traffic volumes through residential neighborhoods is inappropriate transportation/town planning and adversely affects home values. It is a determent to neighborhood quality of life and makes walking, biking, golf-cart driving and retrieving mail dangerous. The Morrisville Parkway Railroad Grade Separation Project was convincing evidence to Preston residents that the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension is a bad idea.
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Online Portal
10/ 10/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 10/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 10/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 10/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 10/ 17
None
66. Bert Scott
785 Crabtree Crossing Parkway, Cary NC 27513
[email protected]
67. Zul Abbany
735 Crabtree Crossing Pkwy Cary 735 Crabtree Crossing Pkwy Cary 105 High Country Drive, Cary NC
[email protected]
During the separation project, virtually all traffic was NOT using the official detour. The neighborhood was choked with traffic almost immediately and for months. My house was directly affected by this, so I know how awful it is to have commuters, who are speeding with road rage through a quiet residential neighborhood. Please rethink this Crabtree Crossing Extension! Fix 54 first!" "I strongly oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. It is a road with multiple houses directly on it. Funneling high traffic volumes through residential neighborhoods is inappropriate transportation/town planning and adversely affects home values. It is a determent to neighborhood quality of life and makes walking, biking, golf-cart driving and retrieving mail dangerous. The Morrisville Parkway Railroad Grade Separation Project was convincing evidence to Preston residents that the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension is a bad idea. This proposal would essentially ruin one of the nicest streets in the town of Cary. I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension".
[email protected]
I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension".
Online Portal
10/ 10/ 17
None
[email protected]
My primary address is on High Country Dr. and my backyard looks onto Crabtree Crossing Pkwy. I also own a second property nearby at 738 Crabtree Crossing Parkway that I currently rent but, I intend to move there in the future. Partly because of the sidewalks - but also due to the views/open areas along the golf course - Crabtree Crossing Pkwy is a primary street for families in the area who walk, run or take their pets out for exercise. The additional traffic an extension to Crabtree Cross would bring to this highly residential area, would impact the whole neighborhood negatively. I strongly oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension.
Online Portal
10/ 10/ 17
None
68. Nasim Abbany 69. Nancy Bremmer
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment
70. Zul Abbany
735 Crabtree Crossing Pkwy Cary
[email protected]
71. Cheri Sundaram and Senthil Sundaram
108 Bathgate Lane, Cary NC
[email protected] 27513
We have all been hearing about this for years - as we all wrote in and some even spoke at the meeting, but the Crabtree Crossing Extension project we all opposed 8 years ago (AND WON!) is back on the table. The Crabtree Crossing Extension has the likely potential to create a popular new commuter and commercial thoroughfare connecting Cary Parkway to the Durham Freeway (Hwy 147) via existing Town Hall Drive and the already approved Triangle Expressway Extension. If this were to happen, it would be catastrophic for much of Preston and mostly benefit residents outside of Morrisville (and Cary). Another Davis Drive, if you will. However, there are no homes that are directly on Davis Drive. Some of your homes are right on Crabtree Crossing. I OPPOSE TO THE EXTENSION Dr. Sundaram and Cheri Sundaram are the owners of 904 Kirkeenan Circle Morrisville, NC. We are against the plan that involves creating new roads within Preston subdivision. Please put our objection on the record.
72. Zul Abbany
735 Crabtree Crossing Pkwy Cary
[email protected]
73. Kristin Smith
119 Preston Grande Way
[email protected]
74. Kristin Smith
119 Preston Grande Way, Morrisville NC 27560
[email protected]
75. Jeff Zatkoff
119 Preston Grande Way
Sincerely, Cheri and Senthil Sundaram I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. It is a road with several houses on it. Funneling high traffic volumes through residential neighborhoods is inappropriate transportation/town planning and adversely affects home values. It is a determent to neighborhood quality of life and makes walking, biking, golf-cart driving and retrieving mail dangerous. The Morrisville Parkway Railroad Grade Separation Project was convincing evidence to Preston residents that the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension is a bad idea. I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. It is a road with several houses on it. Funneling high traffic volumes through residential neighborhoods is inappropriate transportation/town planning and adversely affects home values. It is a determent to neighborhood quality of life and makes walking, biking, golf-cart driving and retrieving mail dangerous. The Morrisville Parkway Railroad Grade Separation Project was convincing evidence to Preston residents that the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension is a bad idea I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. It is a road with several houses on it. Funneling high traffic volumes through residential neighborhoods is inappropriate transportation/town planning and adversely affects home values. It is a detriment to neighborhood quality of life and makes walking, biking, golf-cart driving and retrieving mail dangerous. The Morrisville Parkway Railroad Grade Separation Project was convincing evidence to Preston residents that the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension is a bad idea. I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. It is a road with several houses on it. Funneling high traffic volumes through residential neighborhoods is inappropriate transportation/town planning and adversely affects home values. It is a determent to neighborhood quality of life and makes walking, biking, golf-cart driving and retrieving mail dangerous. The Morrisville Parkway Railroad Grade Separation Project was convincing evidence to Preston residents that the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension is a bad idea
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Method Comment Received Online Portal
Date Comment Received 10/ 10/ 17
Staff Response
Online Portal
10/ 10/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 10/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 10/ 17
None
RequestTrac ker via website
10 / 10 / 2017 None
Online Portal
10/ 10/ 17
None
None
Public Comments Name 76. Debbie and Ed Twardy
Address
Email address
Comment
755 Crabtree Crossing Parkway, Cary NC 27513
[email protected]
Town of Morrisville,
Method Comment Received Online Portal
Date Comment Received 10/ 11/17
Staff Response
Online Portal
10/ 11/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 11/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 11/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 11/17
None
None
"WE OPPOSE the Crabtree Crossing Extension. It is a road with several houses on it. Funneling high traffic volumes through residential neighborhoods is inappropriate transportation/ town planning and adversely affects home values. It is a determent to neighborhood quality of life and makes walking, biking, golf-cart driving and retrieving mail dangerous. The Morrisville Parkway Railroad Grade Separation Project was convincing evidence to Preston residents that the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension is a bad idea.
77. Debra Boggan
763 Crabtree Crossing Cary
78. Dan & Liz Wunderlich
1168 Crabtree Crossing Pkwy, Morrisville 27560
[email protected]
79. Chris Long
104 Pember Place, Morrisville NC 27560
[email protected]
80. Deborah Twardy
755 Crabtree Crossing Pky, Cary NC 27513
[email protected]
During the separation project, virtually all traffic was NOT using the official detour. If a detoured driver on Morrisville Parkway wanted to go southbound on Cary Parkway, he cut through Crabtree Crossing and went to the end, and since it was a right turn on Cary Parkway, he didn’t need a traffic light. If a detoured driver wanted to go north on Cary Parkway, he also turned on Crabtree Crossing, but then cut through Ridge Creek/ Preston Grand Way/ Rainbrook to have a traffic light to make it easy to turn left on Cary Parkway. Normally these options would only be known to locals minimizing through-traffic. But this time, the neighborhood was choked with traffic almost immediately and for months. My house was directly affected by this, so I know how awful it is to have commuters, who are speeding with road rage through a quiet residential neighborhood. Please rethink this Crabtree Crossing Extension! Fix 54 first!" "I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. It is a road with several houses on it. Funneling high traffic volumes through residential neighborhoods is inappropriate transportation/town planning and adversely affects home values. It is a determent to neighborhood quality of life and makes walking, biking, golf-cart driving and retrieving mail dangerous. The Morrisville Parkway Railroad Grade Separation Project was convincing evidence to Preston residents that the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension is a bad idea. We strongly oppose the extension of Crabtree Crossing Parkway. The increased traffic would pose both a safety and quality of life issue for all the homes directly facing the parkway I am opposed to the Crabtree Crossing extension. I have 3 young children who enjoy playing and riding their bikes safely in our neighborhood. Too many drivers already speed coming into our neighborhood off of Rainbrook. Encouraging more drivers to cut through will only increase the risk of a child being hit by a car. Thank you ~Chris Long I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. It is a road with several houses on it. Funneling high traffic volumes through residential neighborhoods is inappropriate transportation/town planning and adversely affects home values. It is a determent to neighborhood quality of life and makes walking, biking, golf-cart driving and retrieving mail dangerous. The Morrisville Parkway Railroad Grade Separation Project was convincing evidence to Preston residents that the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension is a bad idea.
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment
81. RS Butler
1204 Village Market Pl. – 201, Morrisville NC 27560
[email protected]
82. Jack
504 Kirkeenan Circle, Morrisville NC
[email protected]
83. KG Butler
1204 Village Market Pl – 201, Morrisville NC 27560
[email protected]
84. Ka
504 Kirkeenan Circle, Morrisville NC
[email protected]
I and my family are absolutely opposed to the Crabtree Crossing Extension proposal as a road or connector to Town Hall Drive. A Greenway/ bike connector is OK. We also oppose any changes to the traffic flow of CC/ MP intersection. I am vehemently opposed to the Crabtree Crossing Extension. Some years ago numerous humps were installed to prevent speeding through this street due to young children being endangered by speeding traffic. Please protect our children by stopping this terrible idea. It isn't all about traffic flow as noted on your plan but even more about protecting lives. I am totally opposed to the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension project. Crabtree Crossing is a beautiful neighborhood street with condos, townhomes, and single-family homes. The Preston neighborhood uses this street for walks, runs, skateboarding, cycling, driving of golf carts, etc. I believe people are fooled by the use of "Parkway" in its name into thinking it is a wide road without driveways. Instead it is a narrow, mostly 2 lane road with medians and crossed by cart paths. It is not a throughway. increased commuter traffic would ruin the neighborhood and be dangerous for all the children and adults. Please remove this from the Transportation Plan. Dear Planning and Zoning Board Members, The proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension connector is virtually guaranteed to become a popular alternative thoroughfare between Cary Parkway and the Durham Freeway due to the innovation of Waze and other mobile GPS–enabled apps, along with automobile manufacturers’ on-board navigation systems, that instantly popularize local route knowledge providing a technological game changer of driver behavior. This is yet another significant reason why I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. 1. As I listen to the various leaders, experts, and stakeholders’ discussions on whether the Crabtree Crossing Extension would create a new thoroughfare, it’s clear everyone understands this will be largely determined by driver behavior, and each person has his own idea of what that behavior will be. It is essential to realize that driver behavior regarding route choices has recently undergone an extraordinary transformation as a result of new mapping, routing, and traffic avoidance apps. 2. Auto manufacturers are producing today’s vehicles with navigation systems that remove the guess work from wondering which way provides the quickest direct route to a destination. 3. Delivery service companies, FedEx, USPS, UPS, UBER, Lyft, etc. utilize traffic-routing software and mobile apps to plan the quickest route available to its teams of drivers. 4. GPS Mapping software, for all of its positive attributes, does not delineate between a residential neighborhood and a thoroughfare designed to move vehicular traffic. It will provide data defining the
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Method Comment Received Online Portal
Date Comment Received 10/ 11/17
Staff Response
Online Portal
10/ 11/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 11/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 11/17
None
None
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment quickest point between two destinations. Many of us have utilized this GPS Navigation software. Millions of us simply follow wherever the software directionally directs the user to go. 5. These new widely used navigation apps are rendering most driver behavior forecast models, expert studies, and layperson’s experiences obsolete. Now virtually every driver has at his fingertips the ability to instantly discover any and all routes that might shorten distances and gas consumption, lower travel times, avoid high traffic and accidents, continue moving (rather than sitting in stalled traffic), or exercise a preference for less intense freeway traffic, a preference becoming increasingly popular with our aging population. Drivers will find and use any and all routes that meet their needs and preferences. 6. Unlike Google Maps, Waze has created a culture of user engagement. Waze generates many of its maps by using GPS to track "the movements of its nearly 50 million users," according to Bits. A third of Waze users share "information about slowdowns, speed traps and road closures, allowing Waze to update suggested routes in real time. In many cases, drivers manipulate their Waze app while driving, dramatically increasing the risk of unsafe driving, particularly hazardous on narrow, pedestrian-populated, neighborhood streets like Crabtree Crossing. 7. The Preston neighborhood saw this scenario in real life last year during the Morrisville Parkway Grade Separation project. Within a day or two, virtually all traffic was NOT using the official detour. If a detoured driver on Morrisville Parkway wanted to go southbound on Cary Parkway, he cut through Crabtree Crossing and went to the end, and since it was a right turn on Cary Parkway, he didn’t need a traffic light. If a detoured driver wanted to go north on Cary Parkway, he also turned on Crabtree Crossing, but then cut through Ridge Creek/ Preston Grand Way/ Rainbrook to have a traffic light to make it easy to turn left on Cary Parkway. Normally these options would only be known to locals minimizing through-traffic. But this time, the neighborhood was choked with traffic almost immediately and for months. Much of the debate about the Crabtree Crossing Extension is routine with neighborhood impacts being weighed against the greater good. But unlike the other connectors being discussed, the Crabtree Crossing Extension has significant additional complications. The Crabtree Crossing Extension has the likely potential to create a popular new commuter and commercial thoroughfare connecting Cary Parkway to the Durham Freeway (Hwy 147) via existing Town Hall Drive and the already approved Triangle Expressway Extension. If this were to happen, it would be catastrophic for much of Preston and mostly benefit residents outside of Morrisville. Please consider how driver behavior has recently changed due to these technology improvements as you evaluate the prudence of
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Online Portal
10/ 11/17
None
directly linking a family-oriented residential community street to a freeway extension. Won't you recollect the speed bumps were installed to slow down speeding traffic on Crabtree Crossing some years ago. The extension would increase traffic once again endangering our children as well as the many who walk along this street for exercise. Please abandon the idea of routing additional traffic through a residential community that already has too much speeding rush hour traffic. Thank you. Best to you,
85. Christina Verni
127 Grande Drive, Morrisville NC 27560
[email protected]
Kathleen Rodman, Morrisville Resident As a homeowner in Preston Grande and a citizen and taxpayer of the Town of Morrisville for over 10 years, I am deeply concerned about and disapprove of the Crabtree Crossing extension project the Town Council is currently considering. First, I am still waiting for the greenway that was approved/ planned for this route back in 2009. To now consider making that a road instead is very troublesome, as our neighborhood is not designed to be a thoroughfare for commuter vehicles but rather simply a residential neighborhood designed for residential traffic only. Furthermore, as a pedestrian who has walked the streets of Preston Grande 365 days a year for the past 9 of the 10+ years I have owned a home here, I have seen traffic and danger to pedestrians and cyclists increase with the increasing development of the town, most notably with, but not limited to, the development of the Park West shopping center and the Morrisville Parkway railroad grade separation project. These projects dramatically increased cut-through commuter traffic and hazardous conditions for pedestrians, playing children, dog walkers, cyclists, and even residential drivers, who experienced outright road blockages by traffic that was so far backed up that they could not gain access to or get off of their own streets. Speeding cars that cut through during those detour periods (and didn’t quite know where they were going and would speed up and down dead ends looking for an outlet) nearly struck me while I was out walking more times than I could keep track of (keep in mind that not all streets in Preston Grande even have sidewalks and pedestrians must thus share the road). Both of these construction projects provided ample evidence that Preston Grande cannot handle the projected increased traffic volume through the neighborhood that would result from making Crabtree Crossing connect to Town Hall Drive (projections which are outdated and probably highly underestimated at this point, in light of all the development that has occurred in and around Morrisville since the data were collected for the 2009 vote). But to be conservative, let’s just use the 800+ more vehicles per day figure from the old assessment anyway. That translates to at least
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
[email protected]
Respectfully, Christina Verni 127 Grande Drive I oppose the extension of Crabtree Crossing Parkway
Online Portal
10/ 11/17
None
[email protected]
I oppose the extension of Crabtree Crossing Pkwy
Online Portal
10/ 11/17
None
[email protected]
Dear Planning and Zoning Board Members,
Online Portal
10/ 11/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 11/17
None
Email address
Comment 300,000 more opportunities every year for pedestrians and cyclists in our neighborhood to get struck by non-resident commuters. I implore the Planning and Zoning Board and the entire Town Council to vote this down and put a stop to any further consideration of this road project.
86. John Donahue 87. Karen Donahue 88. Sharon Lewis
770 Crabtree Crossing Parkway 770 Crabtree Crossing parkway 1106 Kirkeenan Cir
Why on earth would you propose to put an Extension designed to bring high traffic to a community that is has speed bumps to control traffic? The proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension as an alternative thoroughfare will become a popular cut through, reducing the value of our homes. We purchased in this community because it was a quiet golf course community, not a popular cut through. Residents have invested a lot of money in these homes, which would not have sold for the amount they paid for had the location been on a Parkway. Currently the speed limit is 25mph, a thoroughfare would probably change that. I don't think you are aware of what this community is. We have children who bike on these streets, people on golf carts and joggers as well as walkers. You would be responsible for removing the idyllic nature of this community, not to mention the safe environment to create a thoroughfare that should be on Hwy 54, not here. I am at a loss as to why Hwy 54 is not being expanded.
As a registered voter, I will be closely watching this.
89. Peggy Harris
300 Kirkeenan Circle
[email protected]
Best regards, Sharon Lewis I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension
90. Katie Harris
300 Kirkeenan Circle
[email protected]
I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension
Online Portal
10/ 11/17
None
91. Melinda Lane
117 Low Country Court
[email protected]
I am in favor of Crabtree Crossing!
Online Portal
10/ 11/17
None
92. Richard Caira
114 Hampton Pines Drive
[email protected]
The Crabtree Crossing Extension is a horrible idea. This is a residential community and we already have speeding problems with nobody adhering to the 25 MPH signs. To implement this crazy idea would "kill" Preston's ideal community. I am totally opposed to this idea and consider it a stupid, horrendous and ill conceived plan. Please do not go forward with this.
Online Portal
10/ 11/17
None
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment
93. Debbie Smith
152 Prestonian Place Morrisville
[email protected]
94. Suzanne Jeska
100 Crystlewood Court, Morrisville NC 27560
[email protected]
To Whom it May Concern, I ask that you do not extend Crabtree Crossing. We must continue to have safe areas for cyclists, runners, walkers and golf carts to travel without increased traffic flow. Morrisville needs to consider the outdoor lifestyle of its residents. I am a commuter and I am not opposed to driving a couple of extra miles to keep my neighborhood safe. I am opposed to the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension being recommended in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan to the Planning and Zoning Board (PZB.) I live right off of Crabtree and moved in when part of Morrisville Parkway was closed by the bridge and couldn't believe the difference in traffic through my neighborhood.Please do not approve this! I don't want my neighborhood to be used as a cut through, which inevitably it will b.
Method Comment Received Online Portal
Date Comment Received 10/ 11/17
Staff Response
Online Portal
10/ 11/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 11/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 11/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 11/17
None
None
95. Cathy Dillon
766 Crabtree Crossing Pkwy
[email protected]
96. Daniela I Curtin
204 Orianna Drive
[email protected]
97. Lynn M Marn
104 Prestonian Place
[email protected]
Also, what are the plans to fix the bottle necks and heavy traffic patterns on Chapel Hill Rd. (Rt.54)? I think that this is the problem and and needs to be fixed. I strongly oppose the Crabtree Crossing extension! The road in front of our house is busy with joggers, dog walkers, golf carts. This is a neighborhood that doesn't need to be divided by busy cut-through traffic. Hey town of Morrisville, I STRONGLY encourage you to do an assessment of what the impact of taking a left turn out of the Savannah community off of Morrisville Carpenter Road is like today --- an absolute nightmare during rush hour traffic just with a single line of traffic in either. Now envision what it will be like with 2 lines of traffic in either direction. You need to account for this in your planning to alleviate the neighborhoods that are bottle necked -- the extension of Crabtree Crossing is a NECESSITY not a nice to have. I strongly "OPPOSE" the Crabtree Crossing Extension....
98. William Webster
761 Crabtree Crossing Parkway 761 Crabtree Crossing Pkwy
[email protected]
I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension
Online Portal
10/ 11/17
None
[email protected]
I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension
Online Portal
10/ 11/17
None
156 Prestonian Place, Morrisville NC
[email protected]
I strongly oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. Few neighborhoods exist anymore where children ride their bikes and scooters on the street, to and from each other’s houses, and play outside without supervision. Every day on my way home from work I see these kids out playing, neighbors running and biking, people out walking their dogs, and golfers constantly crossing the street.
Online Portal
10/ 11/17
None
99. Dorothy Webster 100. Michael Baker
If approved and built, the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension will funnel commuter and commercial traffic from I-540/ 147-Durham Freeway through Preston as drivers seek relief from the congestion on NC54 and Davis Drive, nearly parallel north/ south major thoroughfares. Directly linking this quite, family-oriented neighborhood street to a freeway extension will turn Crabtree Crossing into a popular commuting and commercial route that will not only be a great
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
101. James L Lee
1172 Crabtree Crossing Pkwy
102. Renee Shulmn
1100 Kirkeenan Circle
103. Tad Wanveer
1034 Kelton Cottage Way, Morrisville NC 27560 744 Crabtree Crossing Parkway, Cary NC 27513
104. Pam Smith
105. Zul Abbany
735 Crabtree Crossing Pkwy
Email address
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Online Portal
10/ 11/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 11/17
None
I oppose Crabtree Crossing Extension.
Online Portal
10/ 11/17
None
"I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. It is a “Connector Road” with several houses on it. Funneling high traffic volumes through residential neighborhoods is inappropriate transportation/ town planning and adversely affects home values. It is a determent to neighborhood quality of life and makes walking, biking, golf-cart driving and retrieving mail dangerous. The Morrisville Parkway Railroad Grade Separation Project was convincing evidence to Preston residents that the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension is a bad idea.
Online Portal
10/ 11/17
None
10/ 11/17
None
Comment determent to our neighborhood but also endanger the lives of the children, golfers, and fellow neighbors who call Preston home. I would like to voice my opposition to the Crabtree Crossing extension. I believe this will destroy the quality of life in our neighborhood as well as it being a danger to the residents crossing the street, checking the mail and even mowing grass. I hope that other alternatives would be considered before our town leaders would subject the residents of this neighborhood to destroying the quality of life we currently experience. Regards, James Lee No, No this is a terrible. Idea
During the separation project, virtually all traffic was NOT using the official detour. If a detoured driver on Morrisville Parkway wanted to go southbound on Cary Parkway, he cut through Crabtree Crossing and went to the end, and since it was a right turn on Cary Parkway, he didn’t need a traffic light. If a detoured driver wanted to go north on Cary Parkway, he also turned on Crabtree Crossing, but then cut through Ridge Creek/ Preston Grand Way/ Rainbrook to have a traffic light to make it easy to turn left on Cary Parkway. Normally these options would only be known to locals minimizing through-traffic. But this time, the neighborhood was choked with traffic almost immediately and for months. My house was directly affected by this, so I know how awful it is to have commuters, who are speeding with road rage through a quiet residential neighborhood. Please rethink this Crabtree Crossing Extension! Fix 54 first!" "I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. It is a “Connector Road” Online Portal with several houses on it. Funneling high traffic volumes through residential neighborhoods is inappropriate transportation/ town planning and adversely affects home values. It is a determent to neighborhood quality of life and makes walking, biking, golf-cart driving and retrieving mail dangerous. The Morrisville Parkway Railroad Grade Separation Project was convincing evidence to Preston residents that the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension is a bad idea. During the separation project, virtually all traffic was NOT using the official detour. If a detoured driver on Morrisville Parkway wanted to go southbound on Cary Parkway, he cut through Crabtree Crossing and went to the end, and since it was a right turn on Cary Parkway,
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
106. Marzy B Tritch
110 Hampton Pines Dr
[email protected]
107. Nasim Abbany
735 Crabtree Crossing Pkwy
[email protected]
108. Max Tseng
[email protected]
109. Amy Whaling
1002 Kirkeenan Circle, Morrisville NC 27560 902 Kirkeenan Circle
110. Donna Caira
114 Hampton Pines Drive
[email protected]
[email protected]
Comment
Method Comment Received
he didn’t need a traffic light. If a detoured driver wanted to go north on Cary Parkway, he also turned on Crabtree Crossing, but then cut through Ridge Creek/ Preston Grand Way/ Rainbrook to have a traffic light to make it easy to turn left on Cary Parkway. Normally these options would only be known to locals minimizing through-traffic. But this time, the neighborhood was choked with traffic almost immediately and for months. My house was directly affected by this, so I know how awful it is to have commuters, who are speeding with road rage through a quiet residential neighborhood. Please rethink this Crabtree Crossing Extension! Fix 54 first!" Hi Mr Mayor and the Challenger, I am so sorry that I couldn't be Online Portal present at this important meeting but I would like to let you know that I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. We love the way our community is. Thank you "I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. It is a “Connector Road” Online Portal with several houses on it. Funneling high traffic volumes through residential neighborhoods is inappropriate transportation/ town planning and adversely affects home values. It is a determent to neighborhood quality of life and makes walking, biking, golf-cart driving and retrieving mail dangerous. The Morrisville Parkway Railroad Grade Separation Project was convincing evidence to Preston residents that the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension is a bad idea. During the separation project, virtually all traffic was NOT using the official detour. If a detoured driver on Morrisville Parkway wanted to go southbound on Cary Parkway, he cut through Crabtree Crossing and went to the end, and since it was a right turn on Cary Parkway, he didn’t need a traffic light. If a detoured driver wanted to go north on Cary Parkway, he also turned on Crabtree Crossing, but then cut through Ridge Creek/ Preston Grand Way/ Rainbrook to have a traffic light to make it easy to turn left on Cary Parkway. Normally these options would only be known to locals minimizing through-traffic. But this time, the neighborhood was choked with traffic almost immediately and for months. My house was directly affected by this, so I know how awful it is to have commuters, who are speeding with road rage through a quiet residential neighborhood. Please rethink this Crabtree Crossing Extension! Fix 54 first!" Please do NOT approve the Crabtree Crossing Extension. This will Online Portal create so much traffic to the neighborhood. Thanks, I strongly oppose the Crabtree Crossing extension due to probably Online Portal excess traffic in a lovely residential area. Voting No!!! I am totally opposed to the Transportation Plan. It would open up a Online Portal "Pandora's Box". We were given a taste of that with the Morrisville Parkway closure for the train overpass.This proposed plan would have far reaching effects which will destroy the charm and beauty of Morrisville. Enough has been allowed with overwhelming clear cutting of precious trees, without blinking an eye. "You cannot get through a single day without having an impact on the world around you. what you do makes a difference, and you have to decide what kind of difference you want to make."-Jane Goodall Develop rapid transit ...tracks are in place.
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
10/ 11/17
None
10/ 11/17
None
10/ 11/17
None
10/ 11/17
None
10/ 11/17
None
Public Comments Name 111. Burgunde Winz
Address
Email address
Comment
120 Hampton Pines Drive, Morrisville NC 27560
[email protected]
Dear members of the committee,
Method Comment Received Email to PZB
Date Comment Received 10/ 11/17
Staff Response
Online Portal
10/ 12/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 12/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 12/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 12/ 17
None
None
I am yet another concerned citizen, a Morrisville resident, who has lived in this beautiful and tranquil Crabtree Crossing neighborhood for many years. The proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension will destroy a neighborhood that is valued by those who have lived here for quite some time but also those who have come from many different states to settle in the Preston area. The constant traffic the extension will create will not only make pollution a problem but will take away the possibility for younger and older residents to walk and enjoy the greenery not to mention that there are kids who may ride their bikes. And what about the golf carts that are presently allowed to use the public streets? Moreover, the increased traffic will devalue the properties in the Crabtree Crossing area.
112. Carlton Saul
102 Kirkeenan Circle, Morrisville NC 27560
[email protected]
113. Ronald Lanteigne
152 Grande Drive, Morrisville
[email protected]
114. Dave Miller
110 Truehart Way, Morrisville
[email protected]
115. Brianne Gaal
133 Factors Walk Lane
[email protected]
These are just a few of the reasons why I am vehemently opposed to the plan. This planned Crabtree Crossing Extension Connector does not seem to be for the common good but caters to the working population to make traveling easier and faster for them. This pretty much destroys our Preston community! While work was performed on the Morrisville Parkway underpass, the traffic through Preston paralyzed our neighborhood for three hours in the morning and three hours at night. It was not safe to walk through Preston as a lot of people do. Commuters are not interested in safety, only getting to work as fast as possible, which explains all the "don't kill the pedestrian" signs that had to be installed. I question whether this has been thought out completely. Stop lights will have to be placed at each intersection on Crabtree Crossing, Ridge Creek Dr, Preston Grande Way and other intersections affected so residence can get out during those rush hour periods. I am president of the Kelton II HOA who represents 112 no votes for this project coming through to destroy our Preston neighborhood and 112 yes votes for the ensuing lawsuit to follow. We shall see if it is possible to make this area of Preston a gated community. Please do not approve this plan! Traffic funneling into any new Preston streets would be bad on many respects. Just trying to enter Cary parkway from RAINBROOK drive during rush hour now is a major hassle!!!! I strongly encourage you to NOT recommend/ approve the Crabtree Extension project. I appreciate there would be some positive effects, but they would be overwhelmed by the negative effects. One very negative effect would be the routing of commuter traffic through residential areas (e.g. Preston Grande). I appreciate that would not be the intent, but it would surely be the effect. Knowing that, it would be highly inappropriate to route commuter traffic through a residential area. Thanks! Hi - I can't attend the planning board meeting tonight (Morrisville tball practice!) but would like to submit a couple of feedback items: I very much support the extension of Town Hall drive which will greatly alleviate the congestion on Morrisville Carpenter. The ability to bypass 54 and be able to get to Morrisville Parkway (school, aquatics, ParkWest) I believe, would be a huge enhancement.
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Online Portal
10/ 12/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 12/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 12/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 12/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 12/ 17
None
Email to Staff
10/ 12/ 17
None
Secondly, and I haven't actually seen this in the plan but thought I might put it out there as it does seem very much like a piece of low hanging fruit - is it possible to have a dedicated right turn only lane on Morrisville Parkway to turn onto Davis Drive? This also backs up a lot and many cars are trying to turn right, only to have one car wanting to go straight back up the whole line.
116. Sherene Halko
124 Crystlewood Court, Morrisville NC 27560
[email protected]
117. Robert Jackson
100 Kirkeenan Circle
[email protected]
118. Kelly Moore
104 Seagrave Place, Morrisville NC
[email protected]
119. Tyler Moore
104 Seagrave Place, Morrisville
[email protected]
120. Amanda Wolf
113 Old Savannah Drive, Morrisville NC 27560 2104 Glade Valley Lane, Morrisville NC 27560
[email protected]
121. Steve Lauderdale
[email protected]
Thank you! Bri Gaal I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. As a resident of Preston Grande Neighborhood for the past 17 years I have seen first hand the negative side effects of increased traffic in our neighborhood. I do not want more traffic coming onto Crabtree Crossing which then means more traffic onto our adjoining neighborhood streets. Speed humps have already been installed to slow down existing traffic. Please keep our streets neighborhood streets, not commuter streets. Thank you. As a resident of morrisville living on Crabtree Crossing I ask that you please vote down the Crabtree Crossing extension plan. We are a residential active community. This extension will be highly detrimental to our community. We only need to consider what happened to our community when the morrisville parkway bridge was closed to understand how this will impact traffic in our community I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. This would absolutely negatively affect our home values in the Preston area. High traffic volumes are not meant to be funneled through residential neighborhoods where families, walk, bike, and play. The town should consider fixing the terrible traffic problem on 54 before putting all of our residents in a situation that could negatively affect our finances and children's safety! I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. This would absolutely negatively affect our home values in the Preston area. High traffic volumes are not meant to be funneled through residential neighborhoods where families, walk, bike, and play. The town should consider fixing the terrible traffic problem on 54 before putting all of our residents in a situation that could negatively affect our finances and children's safety! I'm writing in support of the proposed Crabtree Crossing. This is a vital connection for our community! MR. Howell, I'm out of town and will be unable to attend tonight's meeting. For your record and to share with the Planning and Zoning Board Members, I wanted to express my very strong support for the Crabtree Crossing extension to Town Drive as part of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The Town of Morrisville needs to fully address the traffic issues and this is an important improvement for the citizens of Morrisville and our neighbors.
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment
Steve Lauderdale 2104 Glade Valley Ln. Morrisville, NC 27560 I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension
122. Barry D’Amour
1001 Kelton Cottage Way
[email protected]
123. Sallie Swanson
733 Crabtree Crossing
[email protected]
124. Regina Luppi
156 Prestonian Place, Morrisville NC
125. Colin deSouza
736 Crabtree Crossing, Cary NC 27511
[email protected]
126. Simon deSouza
736 Crabtree Crossing Pkwy, Cary NC 27513
[email protected]
127. Beverly deSouza
206 Juliet Circle, Cary NC
[email protected]
I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. It is a road with many houses on it. Funneling high traffic volumes through residential neighborhoods is inappropriate transportation/town planning and adversely affects home values.It is a determent to neighborhood quality of life and makes walking, biking, golf-cart driving and retrieving mail dangerous.The Morrisville Parkway Railroad Grade Separation Project was convincing evidence to Preston residents that the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension is a bad idea. It was awful having commuters with road rage speeding through our quiet residential neighborhood. Please rethink this Crabtree Crossing Extension! I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. If approved this extension will greatly increase freeway traffic though our neighborhood and be dangerous for children and golfers who are constantly using Crabtree Crossing. It is simply not worth the risk to put lives in danger! I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. The homes and the neighborhood are excellent the way that they are, and the community would be ruined by this plan. Please invest the dollars on a project that will have a positive outcome for our community. "I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. It is a road with several houses on it. Funneling high traffic volumes through residential neighborhoods is inappropriate transportation/ town planning and adversely affects home values. It is a determent to neighborhood quality of life and makes walking, biking, golf-cart driving and retrieving mail dangerous. The Morrisville Parkway Railroad Grade Separation Project was convincing evidence to Preston residents that the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension is a bad idea.
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Online Portal
10/ 12/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 12/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 12/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 12/ 17
None
RequestTrac ker via Website
10/ 12/ 17
None
10/ 12/ 17
None
During the separation project, virtually all traffic was NOT using the official detour. If a detoured driver on Morrisville Parkway wanted to go southbound on Cary Parkway, he cut through Crabtree Crossing and went to the end, and since it was a right turn on Cary Parkway, he didn’t need a traffic light. If a detoured driver wanted to go north on Cary Parkway, he also turned on Crabtree Crossing, but then cut through Ridge Creek/ Preston Grand Way/ Rainbrook to have a traffic light to make it easy to turn left on Cary Parkway. Normally these options would only be known to locals minimizing through-traffic. But this time, the neighborhood was choked with traffic almost immediately and for months. My house was directly affected by this, so I know how awful it is to have commuters, who are speeding with road rage through a quiet residential neighborhood. Please rethink this Crabtree Crossing Extension! Fix 54 first!" I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. It is a road with several Online Portal houses on it. Funneling high traffic volumes through residential neighborhoods is inappropriate transportation/town planning and adversely affects home values. It is a detriment to neighborhood quality of life and makes walking, biking, golf-cart driving and
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Online Portal
10/ 12/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 12/ 17
None
retrieving mail dangerous. The Morrisville Parkway Railroad Grade Separation Project was convincing evidence to Preston residents that the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension is a bad idea.
128. Marty Gaal
133 Factors Walk Lane, Morrisville
[email protected]
129. Phyllis May
741 Crabtree Crossing
[email protected]
My mother and father-in-law own property on Crabtree Crossing and we do not want them to experience the negative impacts of the expansion. Hi, please do expand Town Hall to Morrisville Parkway and continue with the Morrisville Carpenter expansion. The 54 intersection traffic is ridiculous. Appreciate your efforts! "I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension".
130. D. Michael May
741 Crabtree Crossing
[email protected]
"I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension".
Online Portal
10/ 12/ 17
None
131. Renee and Walter Troy 132. Susan Alvey
762 Crabtree Crossing Pkwy, Cary NC 27513 153 Prestonian Place, Morrisville NC 27560
[email protected]
Online Portal
10/ 12/ 17
None
[email protected]
As 13-year homeowners on Crabtree Crossing Pkwy., we STRONGLY OPPOSE the Crabtree Crossing Extension. I strongly oppose the proposed Crabtree Crossing extension
Online Portal
10/ 12/ 17
None
[email protected]
PZB,
Email to PZB
10/ 12/ 17
None
Email to PZB
10/ 12/ 17
None
133. Lauren Pasutti
I read through the Morrisville Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update dated September 25th, 2017. I generally agree with it's findings and suggestions for road, intersection and greenway/ sidewalk improvements and extensions (I didn't review the bus/ railroad content). The focus and findings that can improve on driver and pedestrian safety and general traffic flow efficiency are impressive and nessesary. As are the plans that will help to mitigate traffic congestion and hopefully accommodate the needs and priorities of the residents and commuters that use the roads. I support the proposed road widening and extensions of McCrimmon Rd, Morrisville Carpenter Rd, extension of Town Hall drive, widening of 54, and the others mentioned in the proposal. I would like to point out the necessary widening and extensions need to include appropriate and practical pedestrian and bicycle paths/ sidewalks/ greenways/ boardwalks to maintain safety and increase connectivity throughout Morrisville.
134. William Pasutti
[email protected]
Lauren Pasutti Morrisville Resident Hello I read through the Morrisville Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update dated September 25th, 2017. I generally agree with it's findings and suggestions for road, intersection and greenway/ sidewalk improvements and extensions (I didn't review the bus/ railroad content). The focus and findings that can improve on driver and pedestrian safety and general traffic flow efficiency are impressive and nessesary. As are the plans that will help to mitigate traffic congestion and hopefully accommodate the needs and priorities of the residents and commuters that use the roads. I support the proposed road widening and extensions of McCrimmon Rd, Morrisville Carpenter Rd, extension of Town Hall drive, widening of 54, and the others mentioned in the proposal. I would like to point out the necessary widening and extensions need to
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
135. Charlie Wynne 136. Theresa Broemer
137. Loretta Popke
Address
Email address
Comment
1164 Crabtree Crossing Pkwy
[email protected]
[email protected]
include appropriate and practical pedestrian and bicycle paths/ sidewalks/ greenways/ boardwalks to maintain safety and increase connectivity throughout Morrisville. I oppose Crabtree Crossing Pkwy extension!
313 Millet Drive, Morrisville NC 27560
[email protected]
[email protected]
I am against the connection of the Crabtree Crossing connector road. I believe it will lead to unintended consequences resulting in cut through traffic from McCrimmon to Cary Parkway to avoid HWY 54. The traffic counts show there are currently 4000VPD from Morrisville Carpenter & CHurch Rd connection point that turn onto HWY 54 and then follow Cary Parkway. It is logical that they will no longer follow HWY 54 but route through the neighborhood via the connector road to avoid traffic backups. It is also very plausible that the 5000VPD that turn off McCrimmon onto Davis Drive heading south will in part choose the less congested parallel road. This traffic needs to stay on the minor and principal arterials. It allows our neighborhoods to remain intact and not be congested. It allows safety to our children and elderly to walk and play within the neighborhoods. It allows safety to the residents. The connections work both ways - it allows for easier criminal access. There is absolutely NO REASON for the introduction and completion of this road. The Town of Morrisville is currently setting the Plans to widen Morrisville-Carpenter to 4 lanes. Whereas, currently, you can turn either right or left from the Kudrow Entrance of Carpenter Park Single Family Homes and the Preston Creekside Condominium Community, the Kudrow entrance is expected to become “right turn only” since there will be a divided median. This will mean that the traffic taking a left turn off the Millet intersection will more than double. That intersection is already a significant safety hazard, as I can personally attest, since I have to make that left turn on the way to work every day. The city's draft planning process says, and I quote: “SAFETYAND SECURITY Promote a safe and secure transportation system by reducing crashes and improving emergency response. Reducing transportation fatalities and serious injuries includes integrating safety enhancements in all transportation projects for both motorized and non-motorized users. Additionally, encouraging a connected street network can serve to improve emergency response times. • Improve the safety of the transportation system for all user groups regardless of socioeconomic status or physical ability. • Increase the reliability, predictability, and efficiency of the transportation experience through system improvements and enhanced communication. • Improve safety and security by mitigating potential conflicts and delays at high-accident locations and rail crossing sites." Following this safety principle can only be accomplished if accommodations are made for left hand turns coming out of Millet Drive. A stoplight seems the reasonable solution. Ironically enough, Town Engineers have confirmed that our entrance at Millet will not
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Online Portal
10/ 12/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 12/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 12/ 17
None
Public Comments Name
138. Pat and Ron Cookis
139. Dan Dzamba
Address
1221 Kelton Cottage Way
Email address
[email protected]
[email protected]
Comment be getting any left turn accommodations like the crosswalks and lights that were placed at the Savannah Entrance and at the Addison Park (Carpenter Park Townhomes) entrance, despite the fact that there are more homes that will access the Millet entrance. Frankly, this is an example of poor planning and listening to the “squeaky wheel” instead of looking at the actual logistics. I call your attention to the fact that there was a similar situation to the Millet Dr one year ago in Raleigh at the intersection of Avent Ferry Road and Tryon Road. Tryon Road was made into a four lane road and the transportation people refused to listen to the homeowners about the need for a stoplight and the danger of the left hand turn. Several accidents later and, I believe, at least one death, a stoplight was put in. I sincerely hope that the Town of Morrisville has better sense than Raleigh and will not make the same mistake. Thanks for listening. This really is creating an untenable situation as the plans now stand. We are strongly opposed to the extension of Crab Tree Parkway. The road is not wide enough in our golf community to be having commuter based traffic passing through our residential neighborhood. It is primarily a safety issue with all of the service vehicles already using and parking along this 25 mph residential community street. This includes various landscape, sschool bus, golf course maintenance, home maintenance, garbage trucks, etc. The road already has a bike path along the length of the single lane residential road so to have commuter traffic passing through would create an unsafe situation for our local residents and pedestrians. To essentially invite pass through commuter traffic would create an unsafe situation as well as completely changing the character of our neighborhood. Each north south lane is separated by a curbed parkway so there is no way to pass when a service truck is stopped. Again based on the issue of safety we are completely against such a proposal and ask that this be removed from consideration now and in the future. Thank You To: Chair of the Morrisville Planning & Zoning Board and Respective Board Members Thank you for the opportunity to voice my thoughts regarding the current draft transportation plan before your Board. My name is Dan Dzamba and I own the Morrisville Square shopping center on Morrisville-Carpenter Road….in close proximity to this town hall building. I have supported and continue to support many Morrisville community organizations and fundraising efforts for many years and I am a past Chair and current Board of Director on our Morrisville Chamber of Commerce organization. I wish to express my support for the current draft transportation plan. In particular I’d like to specifically comment and support the Crabtree Crossing Extension project which is mentioned in the plan. The significant pluses for the project are many: a) connect
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Online Portal
10/ 12/ 17
None
Email to Staff
10/ 12/ 17
None
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Online Portal
10/ 12/ 17
None
the center of town and the future downtown district to the southeast portion of Morrisville and the Crabtree Crossing/ Morrisville Parkway intersection and surrounding neighborhoods; b) provide our town emergency services with easier access and better response times to our citizens to the aforementioned neighborhoods in that portion of Morrisville; c) alleviate traffic off of Morrisville-Carpenter Road for citizens and commuters heading to Morrisville Parkway and to neighborhoods and business in that portion of town. Lastly, the future downtown requires connector roads to the businesses and neighborhoods and destination venues that the town planners and elected officials envision. Crabtree Crossing Extension is a key component for road access and egress to the center of town. I might add our competitor towns of Apex and Cary have established downtowns where all of their adjacent major and minor roads and connector streets feed unobstructed to both of those respective downtowns. This transportation draft is a strategic planning document and should be viewed as such. All of the projects contained herein will require more project analysis, design creation, additional public input and lastly and most importantly funding….all of this will take years. In the meantime nothing suggests we jettison entire sections of this transportation plan at this time. I recall years ago when the Park West development was before this committee the adjacent neighborhoods in that Preston area voiced fierce opposition and cited Park West would directly add more traffic, more noise, additional crime and decrease property values to their streets. As we know none of this materialized and in fact Park West has been a tremendous addition to Morrisville and a high valued neighbor in that portion of town. Many of these past opposition comments will surface again and you should be wary and suspicious yet again. Further, please be cognizant that opposition will also recruit Cary residents who gladly use our roads but don’t want this road extension built in Morrisville for Morrisville.
140. James Matzko
106 Hampton Pines Drive
[email protected]
I request that you support this draft transportation plan and in particular the Crabtree Crossing Extension. Thank you for the time to hear my thoughts and thank you for your service and dedication to our town of Morrisville. Sincerely, Dan Dzamba We are strongly against the Crabtree Crossing Parkway extension project. 1. This will lower property values. The residents objecting to this project pay higher than average taxes. If you are concerned with
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
141. Tony Owen
Email address
Comment
[email protected]
helping the Town financially, do not allow this project. The Town needs more taxes, not less. 2. I attended the public meeting. I did not hear anyone in favor of the project. 3. I was personally told this project was dead in 2010. A commitment is a commitment. 4. The bridge can be justified to support Fire Department access to the south end of Morrisville. The one lane bridge could also be used as a needed green-way. I understand that Town Hall Drive is too wide for the current usage, but do not make another mistake and invite daily cut-through traffic to Crabtree Crossing. 5. More speed tables and lowered speed limits will not deter increased traffic when traffic is stopped on Davis and NC54. 6. The top priority must be to widen NC54. The Town needs to pressure the State to get this done. Hi Courtney,
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Email to Staff
10/ 13/ 17
None
Email to Staff
10/ 14/ 17
None
I wanted to meet you last night , but; it seemed the discussion consumed you. I believe you were at the Staff desk on the audience’s right, closest to the audience answering the Planning Board’s questions. I left the meeting thinking the Board listened to us (Audience) , but; in the end if you drop the 147 data issues and the connector everything would be ok. I hope this is not the case. Townhall Drive and the proposed route is only a short distance from 54. If 54 were improved with a dynamic new intersection and four lane on into Cary Parkway (almost there), why would there be a need for the CC extension that would have to go through wetlands and all their cost and problems? How can I better understand what is driving this? Need an assistant?
142. Stefanie Reed
Kitts Creek Resident
[email protected]
Sincerely, Tony Owen Hi Mr. Howell, I have lived here for 11 years. The Crabtree Crossing extension has been a controversial topic since I moved here. It's very important that the Crabtree Crossing Extension stay on Morrisville's Comprehensive Transportation Plan. I know that part of the land is own by the town and part of the land is private. If this Extension was removed from the plan, then the town would have no authority over the private owner to reserve the land for a road. I would prefer a road versus apartments/town homes. The connectivity would provide the Crabtree Crossing residents direct access to the fire department on Town Hall. The Connectivity would also give residents on the north side of town access to Park West. When the Church Street/Morrisville Carpenter becomes right turn only, the traffic will only back up more on Town Hall Drive. The Town Hall/ Morrisville Carpenter intersection needs relief. The Crabtree
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Online Portal
10/ 15/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 16/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 16/ 17
None
Email to Staff
10/ 16/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 17/ 17
None
Crossing Extension would reduce the traffic congestion at this intersection. The Mayor has stated publicly that he opposes the Crabtree Crossing Extension. I fear that he will use his influence to remove the Crabtree Crossing Extension from the Transportation Plan. If the Extension is removed from the plan, then Morrisville residents will not even have the ability to debate.
143. Ashish Nanjiani
225 Begen Street
[email protected]
144. John Viser
929 Crabtree Crossing Parkway 785 Crabtree Crossing Parkway, Cary NC 27513
[email protected]
Thank You, Stefanie Reed Kitts Creek Resident NC 54 continues to be a challenge during office hours. Lines are backing up all the way from intersection of Mccrimmon pkwy to NC540 . In addition single lane is causing many accidents as drivers fail to realize backup and apply sudden brakes. Lack of proper guard rail on the side leads to car going into wooded area and getting stuck. Would like to understand plans for making NC54 two-lane from 540 to Mccrimmon I strongly oppose the extension, as a 20 year resident.
[email protected]
I am in total opposition to the extension of Crabtree Crossing Pkwy. That plan will destroy our neighborhood. Please DO NOT DO IT!!! Benjamin,
145. Kelly Scott 146. Renu Dale
I live in Savannah in Morrisville for past 10 years. The back of our house faces M-C road. It is currently for sale, we have had 15 people look only to say beautiful house.. road noise too loud. Same reason I want to move!!! Please help. It is so loud and no one wants to build a bridge close wall, or barrier? Anything to alleviate the traffic so we support town hall/ Crabtree crossing, McCrimmon extension anything to get people to stop using M- C CARPENTER AS A HIGHWAY.
147. Ron and Patti Cookis
1221 Kelton Cottage Way
[email protected]
Renu Dale 919-259-6604 Hopefully a future non-resident of Morrisville. My wife and I are completely opposed to the crab Tree Extension. To us it makes absolutely no sense to funnel commuter traffic through a long established residential neighborhood. It is a safety issue considering all of the various service worker vehicles, golf carts, bikers , landscapers that use this road each day. Besides that there is a landscape medium and 25 mph speed limit with the medium not allowing anus passing. There are several pedestrian crossings along the near 2 mile length in our Prestenwood neighborhood. Many of the homes in the community can only back out of their driveway along this residential street. The proposed extension makes no sense and would certainly be a safety issue for our residents to funnel commuter traffic down our neighborhood parkway. The parkway given the width and design with the landscaped medium in the middle and the bike path on the right is certainly not designed for commuter traffic passing through our community.
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
148. Dharma Teja Kollipara
River Pine Drive, Morrisville
149. Michael Baker
156 Prestonian Place
Email address
Comment Connecting the louis stephens drive to little drive on the other side of 540, little drive connection at parkside town commons would ease the congestion. Also having Mccrimmon parkway widen and develop as a good eastwest connector all the way to NC 55 will be great. It is good to see these two plans in the draft and wish those projects be done in accelerated manner. Thanks.
[email protected]
I strongly oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. Children play and ride their bikes on Crabtree Crossing almost everyday. They play outside in their yards close to the street and often soccer balls, etc pass across the street. They have lemonade sands and wait for their school buses in the morning.
Method Comment Received Online Portal
Date Comment Received 10/ 17/ 17
Staff Response
Online Portal
10/ 18/ 17
None
10/ 19/ 17
None
10/ 21/17
None
10/ 24/ 17
None
None
I know this as a Preston resident and so I go slow and pay special attention when driving through the neighborhood. If the extension is approved it will only be a mater of time before someone commuting who is rushing to work comes flying through Crabtree Crossing and plows over one of these children.
150. Tony Owen
749 Crabtree Crossing Parkway
[email protected]
151. Donna Caira
114 Hampton Pines Drive
[email protected]
152. Peter Lindroos
155 Prestonian Place, Morrisville NC 27560 Kirkeenan Circle
[email protected]
The Crabtree Crossing Extension is a dangerous solution that must not be allowed to develop. Preston Falls Villas Association Dear Morrisville Town Council and Online Portal Planning and Zoning Board, October 24, 2017 We, the Board of Directors of the Preston Falls Villas Home Owners Association representing over 100 residents in the Preston neighborhood, oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension proposed in the Morrisville Comprehensive Transportation Plan. We believe the foreseeable detriments to our Preston community far outweigh the potential benefits of this proposed connection, and therefore we do not support it. We urge the removal of Crabtree Crossing Extension as a connector to Town Hall Drive from the plan and allow it to remain a greenway as approved in the 2009 Transportation Plan. Thank you, Tony Owen, President Walter Troy, Vice President Donnie Johnson, Secretary Charles Cook, M.D., Director Randy Schawel, Director I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension and request its removal Online Portal from the Transportation Plan. I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. Online Portal
[email protected]
NO to the Crabtree Crossing thoroughfare
Online Portal
10/ 25/ 17
None
207 Lewiston Ct, Cary NC 27513
[email protected]
I believe funneling high traffic volumes through my residential neighborhoods (Preston Wynds) is inappropriate transportation/town planning and adversely affects home values in my Preston Communities). It is a detriment to neigborhood quality of life, endangers lives and makes walking, biking, retrieving
Online Portal
10/ 26/17
None
153. P Harris 154. Bay Nguyen
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
155. Annette Green
202 Links End, Cary NC 27513
[email protected]
156. Tiffany Mattox
108 Valenta Ct., Cary NC 27513
[email protected]
157. Larissa Muchnick
102 Jennings Way
[email protected]
158. Tom Lowell
215 E Chatham Suite 201, Cary
159. Melissa Ratcliff
159 High Country Drive, Cary
Comment
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
10/ 26/17
None
10/ 26/17
None
10/ 26/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 27/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 27/ 17
None
children at bus stops, golf-cart driving, and visiting mailboxes dangerous. The Morrisville Parkway Railroad Grade Separation Project was convincing evidence to Preston residents that the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension is a bad idea as the neighborhood was overwhelmed with traffic during this project I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. it would be devestating to Online Portal put a major thoroughfare in the middle of our quiet neighborhood. Kids and adults use the sidewalks for jogging, walking pets, etc. the street with access to the club is used by golfcarts and kids on bikes making their way to the pool and recreational facilities. The extension would make the street unsafe for these types of uses. Please do not approve this motion. Please do not implement the Crabtree Crossing Extension. As a Online Portal mother of two and a dog owner, I want our area to remain safe and not a thoroughfare. Funneling high traffic volumes through residential neighborhoods is a detriment to neighborhood quality of life, endangers lives and makes walking, biking, retrieving children at bus stops, putting out trash, golf-cart driving, and visiting mailboxes dangerous. Thank you for valuing our input. -Tiffany Mattox I oppose the Crabtree crossing extension. Online Portal The draft plan provides a guideline and policy directive for the future needs within Morrisville. The plan was developed by professional staff and consultants to address the needed transportation improvements in Morrisville. I support the plan as drafted and presented by staff. While I understand there are political reasons for opposition to portions of the plan, those are that, policy and/ or political issues. The plans stands on its technical merits to provide the most benefits for all Morrisville residents and visitors and address the needs of all of Morrisville and not specific zones or areas. In addition to the transportation issues, please also consider the new or proposed connections that will enhance or reduce public safety response times. In some cases this will provide alternates when other roadways are closed due to accidents or other issues. This should be an important consideration in addition to the transportation benefits. Lastly, the Council is moving forward with the Town Center project, which is major investment in the community, which will require a good transportation network. Implementing the Town Center without the connecting Crabtree Crossing to Morrisville Carpenter Road, will impact that benefits that the Town Center can provide to the entire community. Any investment in the Town Center should include the connectivity that Crabtree Crossing provides.
[email protected]
Method Comment Received
This is a technical document that should stand on the merits of the needs identified within the community as a whole. If the council choses to remove components of the plans due to policy decisions, I would ask the council to consider the long term impacts to the community, including public safety,and to other planned investments in the community. I am a long time resident (25+ years) of Cary and Morrisville (previous addresses were Keystone Park Drive and 105 Downing
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
160. Michelle Fitzgerald 102 Oakpond Court, Cary NC 27513
[email protected]
161. Janet Seaquist
[email protected]
100 Eaton Place, Cary NC
Comment
Method Comment Received
Brook Court - both in Morrisville). The proposal for the extension of Crabtree Crossing Parkway is an unacceptable solution to the traffic issues facing our combined communities. This will redirect traffic from 54 through quiet residential communities, making it unsafe for pedestrians. Preston Highlands and Preston Grande already face high levels of cut through traffic during evening commutes. If we open this road as a direct link to the NC540 toll road, this volume will increase to an unacceptable level. I'm disheartened that any members of the town council would believe that this is in any way a feasible solution and will be actively supporting Preston neighborhood actions against this proposal. This note is to inform you in writing that I am STRONGLY Online Portal OPPOSED to the Crabtree Crossing Extension project! Crabtree Crossing is a neighborhood road with many houses, a bike path, golf carts, school buses and mail trucks. It is completely inappropriate to be labeled as a connector road. The safety of the residents who live on and off of Crabtree Crossing is at risk if this road becomes a major thoroughfare. The road is not built for high traffic volume. It is a RESIDENTIAL local road and this plan would adversely affect the residents of Morrisville and Cary who live on and around Crabtree Crossing. You need to work to solve some of the other major issues that YOU have created in Morrisville and not add to the list of problems that you would create by making Crabtree Crossing a major thoroughfare that would link to Durham Freeway 147. With the amount of property taxes that are paid to the towns of Morrisville and Cary by residents of Preston, you could say we already pay our fair share. Leave the road the way it is and choose on the side of safety and quality of life for the taxpayers of Morrisville who already pay heavily to live here. In addition, the way in which the extension got back onto the transportation plan seems a bit nefarious to me and I would like to have it investigated. According to Mr. Howell, one person drew on a map at one of the open houses that he/she would like the extension. One person (unknown as to whether the person is a resident of Morrisville, the State of North Carolina or even the US) can draw a line on a map and you count that as public opinion? That's it??? One unknown person can put the safety and well-being of an entire community at risk in the Town of Morrisville? The entire process seems a bit unusual and there should be an investigation as to how this happened, with stated names and addresses. Who benefits financially from adding the extension to the plan? Is that your person who drew on the map? We need answers! Remove Crabtree Crossing Extension from Transportation Plan Update Please refer to Appendix G about Crabtree Crossing (CCP) in the current adopted 2009 Transportation Plan. There are numerous reasons explained in that history why the proposal to extend CCP was removed and replaced with a greenway. Those reasons still apply today, only more so due to a higher volume of traffic from the Park West area through residential neighborhoods.
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Online Portal
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
10/ 27/ 17
None
10/ 28/ 17
None
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Online Portal
10/ 28/ 17
None
Online Portal
10/ 29/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 29/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 29/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 29/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 29/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 29/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 29/17
None
It appears that Kimley-Horn reused their 2009 Plan, without consideration why changes were made to their roadway plan then and in previous years. To save time and money, please add Appendix G, P&Z and Town Council deliberations with citizens' comments from 2009 to the archives at: http:/ / www.townofmorrisville.org/ transportationplanupdate
162. Elizabeth Rohe
146 Grande Drive, Morrisville NC
163. Carol Varsano
123 Summer Lakes Dr
[email protected]
164. William Richards
110 trellingwood drive
[email protected]
165. Liz & Dan Wunderlich
1168 Crabtree Crossing Parkway
[email protected]
166. Wing Yip
329 Indian Branch Dr.
167. Barnaby Court
108 Black Ridge Street
[email protected]
168. Jack V. Walton
143 Green Drive, Morrisville 27560 109 Powder Ridge Ct., Morrisville NC 27560
[email protected]
169. Eric Cusack
[email protected]
As a resident whose home is sited directly on Crabtree Crossing Parkway, I strongly oppose extending CCP to Town Hall Drive. It is a position stated to Morrisville repeatedly over 20 years since the CCP Extension was disclosed in 1997. As the mother of two toddlers, I strongly oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. The traffic that backs up on Rainbrook Drive was extensive during the construction last year and repeating that traffic load permanently would be a danger to the residents of Preston. Fighting to our left out of my own neighborhood to safely get my children to daycare was a nightmare every morning, and as an early morning runner a danger to myself. I strongly oppose the the extension, we bought in Preston for it's quite town feel and adding significant traffic would diminish that and decrease safety. Thank you. I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. A town cannot build a freeway in a residential community full of children playing outside. Not a smart decision by our leaders To the newly elected officials of the Town of Morrisville. Congratulations!! I have been a resident of the Preston neighborhood for 18 years. I truly hope you stand behind your campaign promise to oppose and not proceed with the Crabtree Crossing Extension. This will become an unsafe burden to a rather safe area of Morrisville. Thank you for listening! We strongly oppose the CCE. Please don't compromise the safety of the residents of our neighborhood with increased traffic volume in order to satisfy commuters who are just passing through. I OPPOSE the expansion of the "Transportation Plan", which contemplates a new thoroughfare, Crabtree Crossing Extension (CCE), connecting Cary Parkway to the Durham Freeway (Hwy 147). Hi, I just got a notice that the town is finally considering finishing the Crabtree Crossing Parkway extension to Town Hall Drive. It's fantastic to see the completion of this connection finally being considered. As a resident who has lived off of Morrisville Parkway for 15+ years this would be a great project to have completed. I am in favor of the Crabtree Crossing and Town Hall connecter project. I vigorously oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. I think it's obvious that this project is poorly thought out, and will create new routes which encourage heavy traffic from RTP and I540 to go through residential neighborhoods, creating both traffic and pedestrian hazards, affecting the safety and security of existing, quiet neighborhoods. As a 16 year Morrisville homeowner and resident, I am seriously concerned about the town council and the town
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Online Portal
10/ 29/17
None
170. James Taylor
107 Balsamwood Ct.
bureaucracy working against the citizen's best interests by advancing such a poorly thought out plan. Strongly oppose
171. Elizabeth Taylor
107 Balsamwood Ct.
Strongly oppose
Online Portal
10/ 29/17
None
172. John Viser
929 Crabtree Crossing Pkwy
[email protected]
As twenty year residents of Morrisville here on Crabtree Crossing Parkway, we are vehemently opposed to the CCE as it is bound to destroy the community we have worked at building and maintaining.
Online Portal
10/ 29/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 29/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 29/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 29/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 29/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 29/17
None
Please pay attention to the residents that would be affected.
173. Jonathan Green
104 Scottingham Ln., Morrisville
174. Brandon White
1024 Jewel Stone Lane
175. Tim Toterhi
129 Vista Brooke Drive
176. Xingxiang Li
177. Lynn Smith
1189 Crabtree Crossing Parkway, Morrisville NC 27560
217 Preston Pines Drive, Cary 27513
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
John and Karen Viser I believe the Crabtree Crossing Extension is misguided and will do irreparable damage to the neighborhoods touched by it and to the value of the real estate in those neighborhoods. Please cancel the Crabtree Crossing Extension! Instead, send traffic up Davis Drive to McCrimmon Parkway, but widen McCrimmon first. While I would like Crabtree Crossing extended, not at the expense of thousands of cars on the road. I cannot attend the meeting on Nov. 9, 2017, but am strongly opposed to the Crabtree Crossing Extension (CCE). Townhall drive is already a safety hazard after expanding to 4 lanes and this would make it far worse for the kids in nearby schools. Closing off Church Street to appease builders and refusing to plan for a lane expansion on 54 is causing a traffic nightmare. Benjamin Howell this is ridiculous. This comment expresses our STRONG opposition to the proposed Transportation Plans for the Town of Morrisville to extend Crabtree Crossing Parkway to Town Hall Drive in an effort to reduce traffic flow on Hwy 54 (Chapel Hill Road) and Davis Drive. If adopted and implemented, this extension will fundamentally and gravely change the living environment of the Preston neighborhood, which is now often used to showcase Morrisville. This neighborhood has already sacrificed and paid the price for the shopping mall. The proposed extension will add even more traffic burden to this neighborhood, making it unsafe to walk around the neighborhood, which is the main reason many chose to buy homes and retire here. Plus, opening up Crabtree Crossing Parkway is not the right way to solve the traffic problem at Highway 54 or Davis Drive. Widening Highway 54 and make the traffic more easily accessible to I40 as well as building fewer apartments in Morrisville would be much more effective in solving this traffic problem. The decision makers should bare in mind that your decision will be the single most important factor influencing my vote this November and in years to come. I am opposed to the Crabtree Crossing Extension. My neighborhood exits on Hogan's Valley to Morrisville Parkway to reach Chapel Hill Road. The increase in trafficon Morrisville Pkway during the redesign of the railroad tracks posed a hazard to our community's safe exit to Morrisville Pkway. Please do not risk the safety of our
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
178. Martha Howard
105 Innisbrook Ct.
[email protected]
179. Jason Schronce
1505 Grace Point Road
180. Brian Howard
105 Innisbrook Ct., Cary NC
[email protected]
181. Tricia Cullen
100 Flying Hills Circle
182. John Goehrke
102 Vista Green Court, Cary NC
[email protected]
183. Vernon and gay Nell rooney
122 hampton pines drive, Morrisville 27560
Vrooney
[email protected]
184. Debbie Hippler
108 Church Steeple Lane
[email protected]
185. Lysa Stylski
104 Kirkeenan Circle
[email protected]
186. Sharon lewis
1106 kirkeenan cir
[email protected]
187. Xiaojing
509 Trolley Car Way
[email protected]
188. Charles Strother
102 Hampton Pines Drive
[email protected]
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Online Portal
10 / 30 / 17
None
Online Portal
10 / 30 / 17
None
Online Portal
10 / 30 / 17
None
Online Portal
10 / 30 / 17
None
I strongly oppose the Crabtree Crossing extension. The increased traffic from this going through residential neighborhoods will endanger pedestrians, bikers, and golfers,as well as dramatically decrease home values. How can a proposal that was rejected in 2009 be back on the plan again??? This makes no sense! I oppose the Crabtree crossing extension. I am crippled and able to exercise my legs by using a walker on the bike paths. The extension because of traffic deprives me of this. I am opposed to Town Hall and Crabtree Crossing being built to connect to Durham Freeway. This will create traffic issues unsafe to the neighborhoods on these roads! I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension.
Online Portal
10 / 30 / 17
None
Online Portal
10 / 30 / 17
None
Online Portal
10 / 30 / 17
None
Online Portal
10 / 30 / 17
None
I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension.Why would you decide to put a main artery through a suburban neighborhood? Many of bought are homes here because it is an area we can allow our children to go biking or walking on their own. This is a quiet neighborhood, designed that way . This plan is too bad to the elementary staffs* students and parents. Police and school staffs made a lots effort to keep us safe. We oppose this plan badly. We oppose the Crabtree Crossing extension.
Online Portal
10 / 30 / 17
None
Online Portal
10 / 30 / 17
None
Online Portal
10 / 30 / 17
None
Comment citizens and ruin a neighborhood to accommodate all the traffic resulting from the proliferation of apartments and townhouses in Morrisville. Living on Cary side of CCE, I use Crabtree Crossing on almost a daily basis and think this is outrageous connecting Cary Parkway to CCE to Durham Freeway. This will have a substantial impact on what is considered a neighborhood street within a golf course community where golf carts need to cross this street daily at various points. The focus needs to be on widening 54 from 540 to Cary Parkway. The CCE is vital for congestion relief of NC-54 through Morrisville and will allow residents more options in getting around town. This will reduce their stress, commute times, and improve quality of life! Morrisville needs more connectivity and this connection just makes sense! I am very upset that this proposal has resurfaced. I would hate to see Crabtree Crossing have to be widened to accommodate the additional traffic in the future. I just recall the amount of additional traffic that occurred when the new RxR bridge was added and Morrisville Parkway and the NC54 intersection had to be closed for a few months. As a result of that closure the additional traffic on Crabtree Crossing and Cary Parkway made getting in and out of the Preston neighborhoods a nightmare. I am strongly opposed to this extension, and see that the Morrisville's Town Council is just trying to be subversive and underhanded in how they are going about getting this plan approved. There is already too much traffic on Crabtree Crossing, and thru traffic cutting through Preston Grande, even with the added speed bumps. We don't need this ! I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension.
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Method Comment Received Online Portal
Date Comment Received 10 / 30 / 17
Staff Response
Online Portal
10 / 30 / 17
None
Address
Email address
Comment
189. Linda Lohman
745 Crabtree Crossing Pkwy
[email protected]
190. Tom Stylski
104 Kirkeenan Circle
[email protected]
I severely oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. I am arming my neighbors with the information they need to understand this issue and with a list of 3 people to vote for who have stood up to say that will oppose it. I, as well as many of my neighbors will be at the 11/ 9 meeting to physically show our opposition. I can't believe that the CCE could ever be a good thing and fear that my house value will be severely depressed by this, not to mention the safely of everyone who lives, exercises, and play golf at the course. I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension
191. Runjan Parekh
133 Trumbell Circle, Morrisville NC 27560 133 Trumbell Circle, Morrisville NC 27560 1161 Crabtree Crossing Parkway
[email protected]
Don't approve this plan. Safety comes first.
Online Portal
10 / 30 / 17
None
[email protected]
do not agree with this extension plan. It is a safety hazard. Safety of the citizens should come first. I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. The Crabtree Crossing Extension was approved in the 2009 Land Use and Transportation Plan by Town Council as a Greenway, yet the current Draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan does not include the approved Greenway as "Planned but as yet unbuilt". Other connections of this type, "approved but unbuilt", are shown in the Plan as dotted lines. Why isn't the Town Council's 2009 approved Crabtree Crossing Extension Greenway included in the maps that illustrate Existing Conditions? Why is it shown in the current Draft Plan as a planned Side Path, which is defined as a pedestrian path adjacent, but a safe distance from, a roadway with fast moving traffic when there cannot be a roadway in that area because it is already a Greenway? The Draft Plan also shows a Proposed Bike Path where the approved Greenway is supposed to be built. Why do we need a Bike Path, specifically a Bike Path, when it is already approved as a Greenway and people ride bikes on greenways? Is your current Draft Plan in error in that the approved Crabtree Crossing Extension Greenway is NOT properly shown as a Greenway connecting the northern tip of Crabtree Crossing Parkway to the southern end of Town Hall Drive? Will you be correcting the Draft Plan to reflect the 2009 approved Crabtree Crossing Extension Greenway, specifically as a Greenway, and if so when? Tylene Elliott Dear members of the Planning and Zoning Board,
Online Portal
10 / 30 / 17
None
Online Portal
10 / 30 / 17
None
Email to PZB
10 / 30 / 17
None
192. Hasmukh Parekh 193. Tylene Elliott
194. Tylene Elliott
[email protected]
[email protected]
I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. The Crabtree Crossing Extension was approved in the 2009 Land Use and Transportation Plan by Town Council as a Greenway, yet the current Draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan does not include the approved Greenway as "Planned but as yet unbuilt". Other connections of this type, "approved but unbuilt", are shown in the Plan as dotted lines. Why isn't the Town Council's 2009 approved Crabtree Crossing Extension Greenway included in the maps that illustrate Existing Conditions? Why is it shown in the current Draft Plan as a planned Side Path, which is defined as a pedestrian path adjacent, but a safe distance from, a roadway with fast moving traffic when there cannot be a roadway in that area because it is already a Greenway? The Draft Plan also shows a Proposed Bike Path where the approved
Through 7am 11/2/2017
None
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
195. Angela Schuster
102 Summer Lakes Dr., Cary NC 27513
[email protected]
196. Matt Ellis
103 Grey Bridge Row, Cary NC 27513
197. Philip Karam
300 Courthouse Drive, Morrisville NC 27560
[email protected]
198. Gilbert L. Gunsalus
101 Crystlewood Ct., Morrisville NC
[email protected]
199. Michael Garabedian
118 Fairwood Drive, Morrisville NC
[email protected]
200. Kenneth McNay
1003 Grace Point Road, Morrisville NC 27560
[email protected]
201. Janice Matthews
209 Orianna Drive, Morrisville NC 27560
[email protected]
Comment Greenway is supposed to be built. Why do we need a Bike Path, specifically a Bike Path, when it is already approved as a Greenway and people ride bikes on greenways? Is your current Draft Plan in error in that the approved Crabtree Crossing Extension Greenway is NOT properly shown as a Greenway connecting the northern tip of Crabtree Crossing Parkway to the southern end of Town Hall Drive? Will you be correcting the Draft Plan to reflect the 2009 approved Crabtree Crossing Extension Greenway, specifically as a Greenway, and if so when? Tylene Elliott Morrisville I disagree with the current plan to extend Crabtree Crossing to NC147. I have seen traffic double on Summer Lakes Drive in the 10 years I have lived here based on increase traffic and do not wish to see it increase even more. I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. Larger roads are not the answer to traffic congestion . . . . fewer cars is the only answer to traffic congestion. Big companies with large numbers of employees really need to bus their employees to and from work or encourage alternate work scheduling outside of normal drive time. Working remotely does not necessarily reduce traffic, as employees taking advantage of the remote option are free to run errands throughout the day which increases traffic in Cary and Morrisville. I am FOR the CCE and the connection of Hwy 147 to town hall commons. Since moving to morrisville many years ago, we have been promised this connection to Hwy 147 would happen. The daytime traffic out of 54, McCrimmon has gotten ridiculous and I would like the option to get on Hwy 147 (Even if Toll) to I-540 and 40. As for the CCE, I think it is a good idea however don't feel as strongly on that as the Hwy 147 connection. Thank you for your consideration. Living in Preston Grande next to Ridge Creek Drive, I am totally opposed to the Crabtree Crossing Extension. It will negatively impact the neighborhood I live in. We strongly DO NOT, DO NOT, DO NOT endorse the bi-partisan slate of 3 candidates who vigorously oppose CCE: Mayor Mark Stohlman Steve Rao Guri Burmi I would prefer the Crabtree Crossing Extension be approved and completed prior to connection of Triangle Expressway is connected to Town Hall Drive. I think it would give some ample land access which could be used for residential, commercial, and public spaces and would especially invite residents to consider living in Morrisville knowing there is some increased balance of congestion across northsouth roadways that access the RTP businesses. Regarding the Morrisville Transportation plan, I was not happy to see an article on ABC11.com which stated that the Crabtree Crossing Extension is about to be removed from consideration. I am reliably informed that this was due to the actions of one person rather than a
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Online Portal
10 / 30 / 17
None
Online Portal
10 / 30 / 17
None
Online Portal
10 / 30 / 17
None
Online Portal
10 / 31/ 17
None
Online Portal
10 / 31/ 17
None
Online Portal
10 / 31/ 17
None
Online Portal
10 / 31/ 17
None
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
202. Mary Musante
117 Trellingwood Dr., Morrisville
[email protected]
203. Julie Might
505 Meeting Hall Drive
[email protected]
204. Anne Noland
145 Grande Drive, Morrisville NC
[email protected]
205. Tylene Elliott
1161 Crabtree Crossing Parkway
[email protected]
Comment council decision which I find completely unacceptable. I hope this decision can be reversed so that the people of Morrisville do not have to live with the consequences of such a short-sighted decision. I whole-heartedly back the Crabtree Crossing plan and sympathize with residents who may experience increased traffic, however, a growing town has growing infrastructure needs and to ignore a logical and reasonable plan such as the Crabtree Crossing Extension will further hinder the towns progress and add to the traffic misery that current Morrisville residents feel. Additionally, I would like the council to consider adding a road between Low Country Court and Kudrow Lane. Currently, the residents of the Savannah community south of Morrisville-Carpenter Road only have one entrance in and out onto Morrisville-Carpenter Road. The additional road would allow a greater number of residents to utilize the flow through Savannah and allow a traffic light to be placed on the corner of Orianna Drive and MorrisvilleCarpenter Road - a much needed traffic tool to solve the issue of cars not stopping for pedestrians at this junction. I thank you for you time and I look forward to hearing your comments I am AGAINST the Crabtree Crossing Extension currently being proposed again, for approval by some on our town council. Prestonwood is a neighborhood with many golf carts, runners, bike riders, pedestrians, school buses, etc. Crabtree Crossing was never meant to be a thoroughfare for those needing to get to other parts of Cary. It is a street in a Neighborhood. The proposed CCE extension will be dangerous to the neighborhood way of living and hurt property values. Why not widen 54 a road that has always been a thoroughfare? I am strongly opposed to the proposed CCE thoroughfare . This will direct a significant increase of traffic through neighborhoods and schools, creating safety issues. It will further increase traffic complications throughout Morrisville due to an existing lack of road infrastructure. Any traffic plan that gives residents another direct route to RTP should go around Morrisville, NOT through it. I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed extension of Crabtree Crossing. I feel the additional traffic will be a detriment to our neighborhood and a danger to the pedestrians, children and pets living in this residential neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration of these safety issues and changes that would alter the neighborhood in negative ways. I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension (CCE) and I have the following question: In the planning process, it’s up to the towns to determine their individual priorities through their town planning processes. These individual towns’ priorities, once approved by their respective town approval processes, are brought to CAMPO and NCDOT for consideration, study, inclusion, prioritization and potential funding under the master CAMPO Plan that includes the regional planning for towns within the Capital Area Municipal Planning Organization (CAMPO) jurisdiction, one of which is Morrisville.
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Online Portal
10/ 31/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 31/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 31/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 31/17
None
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment How is it, then, that Crabtree Crossing Extension (item A674) was included in CAMPO’s current draft 2045 Plan (available online) when the currently operative Morrisville Land Use & Transportation Plan of 2009 (LUTP 2009) does NOT include a roadway called the Crabtree Crossing Extension? As we know, Crabtree Crossing Extension roadway was proposed in the draft LUTP 2009, but not adopted by Town Council; it was removed from the 2009 LUTP as a roadway. It its place, a Crabtree Crossing Extension GREENWAY was approved and adopted by Town Council as part of the 2009 LUTP. Under whose authority and direction was CCE put into the draft CAMPO 2045 Plan? I understand CCE is now being removed from CAMPO’s draft plan, but my questions remain. Regards, Tylene Elliott I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension as it will increase traffic through what is presently a safe neighborhood, where many people walk their dogs, exercise by walking, jogging or cycling and where there are many golf carts moving between the access points to the golf course. There are plenty of more suitable routes for commuters moving through the area.
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Online Portal
10/ 31/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 31/17
None
Online Portal
10/ 31/17
None
206. Nick Phillips
500 Kirkeenan Circle
[email protected]
207. Dr. Robert Schrag
1104 Kirkeenan Circle
[email protected]
208. Kaoru Kajiwara
801 Kirkeenan Circle, Morrisville NC 27560 801 Kirkeenan Circle, Morrisville NC 27560 801 Kirkeenan Circle, Morrisville NC 27650 917 Crabtree Crossing Pkwy, Morrisville 27560
[email protected]
Yours sincerely, Nick Phillips I strongly oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. The increased and inevitably faster traffic will make our neighborhood more dangerous, noisier, and polluted all to meet demands for "convenience" from people who live somewhere else. I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension.
[email protected]
I oppose the Crabtree Crossing extension.
Online Portal
10/ 31/17
None
[email protected]
I oppose the Crabtree Crossing extension.
Online Portal
10/ 31/17
None
[email protected]
Online Portal
10/ 31/17
None
212. Debora Goeken
[email protected]
[email protected]
Online Portal
10/ 31/17
None
213. Sue Burkinshaw
[email protected]
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
214. William couchon
307 Preston Oaks Ln, Cary NC 27513 106 eaton place, cary, nc
I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension for several reasons, but mostly because of the increased traffic in the neighborhood. There are several other existing roads in Morrisville that should be improved before adding new ones, namely Hwy 54 and MorrisvilleCarpenter /Aviation Pkwy. These roads should be 4 lanes before adding other roads. Thank you. I strongly oppose the CCPE. The Triangle Expressway/ 540 Extension; Hwy 55; Davis Drive; & Hwy 54 already support traffic flow. If anything Hwy 54 is best positioned to widen to 4 lanes from Triangle Expressway to Cary Parkway. I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension!!!!!
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
215. Hans Westermeyer 216. Rex Goulding
103 Hampton Pines Dr, Morrisville NC 27560 100 Mirror Lake Ct
I do not support the crabtree crossing parkway extension proposal. There will be too many speeders, too much traffic and not safe for our neighborhood. Fix Hwy 54 instead. Thank you. I am vehemently opposed to the Crabtree Crossing Parkway extension. I oppose the Crabtree Crossing extension. I am very concerned about the additional traffic and my kids ability to safely play and ride bikes in the Preston area.
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
209. Takumi Kajiwara 210. Aoi Kajiwara 211. Karen Swoboda
[email protected]
[email protected]
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Method Comment Received Online Portal
Date Comment Received 11/1/17
Staff Response
Address
Email address
Comment
217. Susan Shepherd
105 Ridge Creek Drive
[email protected]
I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension.
218. Anne Reynolds
202 Pond Bluff Way, Cary
[email protected]
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
219. Maribelle O’donnell 220. Timothy O’Donnell 221. Ray Tritch
120 crystlewood court
[email protected]
Crabtree Crossing Extension - I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. i opposed to the Crabtree Crossing Extension
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
120 crystlewood court
[email protected]
I opposed to the Crabtree Crossing Extension
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
110 Hampton Pines Drive
[email protected]
I robustly oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension.
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
Email to Staff
11/1/17
None
222. Wales D Edwards
101 Flying Hills Circle
[email protected]
223. Karen Watt
102 Battersea Park Circle, Cary NC 27513
[email protected]
224. Barbara Couchon
106 Eaton Place, Cary
[email protected]
225. Cecelia Eckert Kennedy
915 Crabtree Crossing Parkway, Morrisville NC 27560
[email protected]
Thank you for your consideration not to move forward with this proposed extension - Ray Tritch I strongly oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension plan. This plan will ruin a great residential neighborhood. High House Road and Highway 54 are good enough conduits from Highway 55 to Cary Parkway. I OPPOSE the Morrisville proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension. As a resident of Preston Highlands our daily family lifestyle, personal safety and 'neighborhood' values would be directly negatively affected by it's passing. I want to express my concern over the possible extension of Crabtree Crossing Parkway. I am completely opposed to this possibility. Crabtree Crossing Parkway runs completely through a residential area. All day long there are walkers, joggers, dog walkers, golf carts, bikers using the road. For the safety of all residents, we cannot have the roadway become a solution to the heavy traffic demands of Chapel Hill Rd/ 54. Chapel Hill Rd is mostly a non residential area and simply used for traffic. Fix the problem there by making it wider or whatever.Do not impose its traffic to Crabtree Crossing. It is simply wrong to do that. Many years ago the residents of this area fought for speed humps to control vehicle traffic. For the safety of all our residents (many, many of which are children), do not give any further consideration to extending Crabtree Crossing. Say NO to this proposal. Dear Mr. Howell, I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension! I will be in attendance at the November 9th Planning and Zoning Board Meeting at Town Hall to express my opposition to CCE. Funneling high traffic volumes through residential neighborhoods is inappropriate transportation/town planning and adversely affects home values. It is a detriment to neighborhood quality of life, endangers lives and makes walking, biking, retrieving children at bus stops, putting out trash, golf-cart driving, and visiting mailboxes dangerous. The Morrisville Parkway Railroad Grade Separation Project was convincing evidence to Preston residents that the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension is a bad idea as the neighborhood was overwhelmed with traffic during this project. As Long Range Planning Manager please forward this email to all involved.
Through 7am 11/2/2017
None
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Request Tracker Online Portal
11/1/17
None
11/1/17
None
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
Thank you.
226. Peter Buscemi
140 Dallavia Ct., Morrisville NC 27560 109 Flying Hills Circle, Cary NC 27513
[email protected]
228. Kathleen Wisser
102 Battersea Park Circle, Cary NC 27513
[email protected]
229. Donna Gregory
101 Grattan Ct, Morrisville
230. Jacquelyn Goehrke
102 Vista Green Ct., Cary NC 27513
231. Jan Dye
103 Ivy Hollow Ct
227. John Hannan
[email protected]
[email protected]
Sincerely, Cecelia Eckert Kennedy 915 Crabtree Crossing Parkway Morrisville, NC 27560 I oppose the the Crabtree Crossing Extention Strongly oppose crabtree extension. will create major hazard for children and families living along crabtree area. Golf cart crossing also will become very dangerous. In summary: proposal will put lives at risk and create unwanted traffic in very residential neighborhood. No To Extension!! I OPPOSE the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extention, part of the proposed Morrisville Transportation Plan. The plan would devastate our Preston HIghlands family-friendly neighborhood by negatively affecting our daily family lifestyle, personal use safety and our neighborly values. I live in Preston Grande and I am opposed to the Crabtree Crossing Extension. I strongly oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension Project. It would have a huge negative impact on our neighborhoods and community as a whole. Dear transportation planners, I recently found out that the NCDOT plans to extend the Durham Freeway (Hwy 147) to McCrimmon Parkway as a means of connecting the northern end of Morrisville's Town Hall Drive. I am very concerned that the impacts this will likely incur regarding excessively increased traffic through residential roads have not been thoroughly studied. Furthermore, communication of these plans has been extremely poor and it is not at all evident that alternative options are being discussed in the context of recent population increases vs future increases. At this time, I am opposed not only to the means by which these plans have been implemented -- I am doubtful that they are the best path forward to achieve sustainable traffic flow solutions for western Wake county, in particular the Crabtree Crossing neighborhoods. Therefore, I am opposed to the Crabtree Crossing Extension (CCE). It was ill-thought out 8 years ago, and seems even less viable now. Sincerely,
232. Lawrence Wittenberg
127 Summer Lakes Drive, Cary
[email protected]
Jan Dye I oppose the Crabtree crossing extension. I live on the corner of Crabtree crossing and summer lakes and it will make it dangerous for my family and friends to drive in and out of my driveway or to be out on the street for any reason, even checking the mail or putting out the garbage.
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
233. Susan Sheldon
105 Frenchmans Bluff Dr, Cary NC 27513
234. Steven Sheldon
105 Frenchmans Bluff Dr, Cary NC 27513 107 open court
235. Lauren cosentino
Email address
1212 Crabtree crossing pkwy., Morrisville
237. Thomas Leander
1212 Crabtree Crossing Pwy
238. Carl smith
105 valenta ct
[email protected]
239. John Kacvinsky
103 Oakpond Ct., Cary NC 27513
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
308 Pond Bluff Way, Cary NC 27513
Staff Response
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
I strongly oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. While I Online Portal understand the need to alleviate traffic on NC 54, providing an NC 54 alternative through a residential neighborhood imposes significant and harmful safety, environmental and legality concerns. It seems to be a more responsible alternative to widen the NC 54 corridor to accommodate additional growth in traffic, as investments in residences and businesses were made with traffic concerns already factored into the investments. Routing traffic through Preston, an old and well-established residential neighborhood, would represent a public taking analogous to eminent domain. At best it represents a shortcut and exposes poor land use planning, and at worse it may impose considerable harm on a substantial number of citizens in both Morrisville and Cary. I look forward to removal of the CCE from the current Morrisville traffic plan. As a resident of Cary for nearly 20 years, I oppose the Crabtree Email to Crossing Extension. Thank You. Staff
11/1/17
None
11/1/17
None
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
Email to Staff
11/1/17
None
Comment
I oppose the Crabtree crossing extension. I'm very much against letting HWY commute traffic through a subdivision, which is neither built nor meant for HWY traffic. Bad solution. Furthermore, the whole extent of the street is used every day by many more people than just residents for walks and biking; functions more like a beautiful park today and that's how it should stay. Sincerely, Anneli Leander, resident @ Crabtree crossing I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. Regards Tomas Leander i oppose the crabtree crossing extension
Stuart Waddey I am opposed to the Crabtree Crossing Parkway extension. This is a terrible idea. I am strongly opposed to the Crabtree Crossing Parkway extension.
241. Rima Westermeyer 103 Hampton Pines Dr, Morrisville NC 27560 242. Mila Westermeyer 103 Hampton Pines Dr, Morrisville NC 27560 243. Garrett Yarbrough 121 Bending Oak Way, Morrisville NC 27560 244. John and Gretchen Cooling
Date Comment Received 11/1/17
I strongly oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. I fear it would bring too much through traffic to our neighborhood. We enjoy walking and bike riding on Crabtree Crossing and don't want it ruined with constant traffic. I am opposed to the Crabtree Crossing Extension. I don't want more traffic through our quiet neighborhood. I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension.
236. Anneli Leander
240. Stuart Waddey
Method Comment Received Online Portal
[email protected]
My wife and I strongly oppose the proposed the Crabtree Extension plan. It is not the way to solve the traffic issue, but will only create other problems. Fix Rt 54! We strongly OPPOSE the Crabtree Crossing Extension. Linking the 147 Durham Freeway to Cary Parkway via Crabtree Crossing to create a NC 54 alternative commuter and commercial thoroughfare threatens the very reason we chose to live in this peaceful neighborhood. We are in complete OPPOSITION of this extension.
Through 7am 11/2/2017
None
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
Kindly, John & Gretchen Cooling 308 Pond Bluff Way Cary, NC 27513
245. Tina
107 Ivy Hollow Ct., Morrisville NC 27560
246. Bill Rave
[email protected] [email protected]
Opposed, traffic volume to great and safety problem.
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
248. Alexis Horan
122 Grey Horse Drive, Cary NC 27513 122 Grey Horse Drive, Cary NC 27513 103 Balsamwood Ct
PRESTON PONDS NEIGHBORHOOD I support the direction that the town is moving in, with the development plan, to make streets usable for all. Also, I specifically want to say that I support connecting Town Hall Dr. with Crabtree Crossing. I can't tell you how many times I've needed to go West, into downtown Morrisville, and I have to go all the way around. I know many people are concerned about traffic congestion, but I believe that it would improve traffic flow and ease congestion. As long as an appropriately low speed limit and possibly some traffic calming measures were used, it would be very welcome change. Opposed, traffic would be horrendous and a major safety problem.
[email protected]
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
249. Peter gartner
101 high country dr
[email protected]
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
250. Kelly gartner
101 high country dr
[email protected]
I live one house of Crabtree Crossing, close to Cary Parkway. I oppose any extension as additional traffic would make walking and riding on this residential street hazardous. Please consider the safety of the many children and families that live along this street. Early in the morning I travel to Wade Avenue in Raleigh for a nanny job. I cannot imagine living on this street that im sure was once a peaceful residential street. Please do not move forward with this plan Routing traffic through Preston on Crabtree Crossing will destroy the Preston neighborhood. Traffic is backed up on Cary Parkway past Crabtree Crossing during rush hour making it almost impossible to enter Cary parkway during rush hour. Widen RT 54 to 4 lanes and the traffic problem goes away. Morrisville has dragged ts feet for 20 years on widening RT 54 which is the cause of the problem.
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
251. Marcia Creglow
125 bending oak way
[email protected]
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
252. Maria Madsen
104 Eaton Place Cary 27513
[email protected]
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
253. Matthew Horan
103 Balsamwood Ct
[email protected]
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
254. Mark Dixon
1413 Everette Fields road
[email protected]
I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension being considered in the plan update I oppose the Crabtree Crossing extension as it will greatly impact my neighborhood in a negative way. I oppose the CCE. I have been a runner since my days at Green Hope High school. Running along CCE is essential to access the rest of the routes in Preston. I believe the CCE will make the running environment hostile and unsafe.. Please cancel this plan On NC-54 between Cary Parkway and NC540: RDU was set up as a set of sprawling set of campuses for major corporations (that's what attracted them here). The rest of the businesses filled in. I don't believe that anyone will take the bus or train. Where will they get on/ off? Then, how will they get to work from the train/ bus stop? Hint: It will be too far for most users. Morrisville is between where people live and where they work, so widen Chapel Hill Road all the way through to let people use their cars. I know that's not what Kimley-Horn wants to tell you, but I think it's the reality. There are
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
247. Barbara Rave
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
255. Esther Lumsdon
106 Grey Horse Dr
[email protected]
256. John Kennedy
915 Crabtree Crossing Parkway, Morrisville NC 27560
[email protected]
Comment
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
11/ 1/17
None
11/1/17
None
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
Online Portal
11/1/17
None
no concentrated housing developments and no concentrated business centers, so public transportation will not be a good use of taxpayer funds. Divide by zero. The boundary of my backyard is Crabtree Crossing. I oppose the Online Portal Crabtree Crossing Extension. Building that 1 mile would bring unsafe amounts of traffic to Crabtree Crossing. While Morrisville Parkway was blocked during RR bridge replacement, I encountered more speeding drivers on Crabtree Crossing, on bicycle and in my car. Dear Mr. Howell, Email to Staff I oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension! I will be in attendance at the November 9th Planning and Zoning Board Meeting at Town Hall to express my opposition to CCE. Funneling high traffic volumes through residential neighborhoods is inappropriate transportation/town planning and adversely affects home values. It is a detriment to neighborhood quality of life, endangers lives and makes walking, biking, retrieving children at bus stops, putting out trash, golf-cart driving, and visiting mailboxes dangerous. The Morrisville Parkway Railroad Grade Separation Project was convincing evidence to Preston residents that the proposed Crabtree Crossing Extension is a bad idea as the neighborhood was overwhelmed with traffic during this project. As Long Range Planning Manager please forward this email to all involved. Sincerely,
257. Haley Gray
103 Trail Bend Ct
[email protected]
258. John Roos
110 Balsamwood Court, Cary NC 27513
[email protected]
259. C Tercyak
105 Beaver Glen Ct, Morrisville
[email protected]
260. Mark Ventura
106 Prestonian PL
[email protected]
261. Roy Fralin
309 Ridge Creek Dr, Morrisville
[email protected]
John E. Kennedy 915 Crabtree Crossing Parkway Morrisville, NC 27560 I absolutely oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension. I am against the Crabtree Crossing Extension. It will drive a lot of traffic down Crabtree Crossing and make it like a freeway. Lots of residents like to bike and walk on Crabtree Crossing which would become dangerous. I strongly oppose the Crabtree Crossway Pkway extension. I believe that this would greatly increase the traffic through the Preston Grande neighborhood. There are homes that affront the street. Crabtree Crossing is frequented by golf carts, bicycles, and families who are out with their kids and dogs. I live close by, and recall how miserable it was when Morrisville Parkway was closed and the volume of traffic in our neighborhood increased greatly. (And we also contend with the loud screech of long freight trains nearby.) Please let our neighborhood resemble a pleasant neighborhood to come home to. I oppose the crabtree crossing extension as it will negatively impact our town/ community in terms of traffic safety and property value. Having seen little to no valuable data or organized communication from planning experts regarding the impact, cost and/ or benefit of
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Public Comments Name
Address
Email address
Comment the CCE project, I absolutely oppose the Crabtree Crossing Extension.
Through 7am 11/2/2017
Method Comment Received
Date Comment Received
Staff Response
Planning and Zoning Board Agenda Item Report Agenda Item No. 2017-328-0 Submitted by: Michele Stegall Submitting Department Planning Meeting Date: November 9, 2017
SUBJECT Sign Code Update Michele Stegall, Current Planning Manager Recommendation:
Updates/History of Briefing: NA Executive Summary and Background Information: A Request for Proposals was issued early this year for an update to the Sign Code. The update was prompted by the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert. The Reed decision deals with First Amendment issues and the content neutrality of Sign Codes. The law firm of Ancel Glink was hired to complete the update and the project kicked-off this summer with a series of stakeholder interviews. The consultant has taken into consideration the input from the stakeholder interviews, reviewed the Town's current Code, and a provided a Key Issues Report. The Key Issues Report identifies those areas of the current Code that conflict with the Reed decision and provides a roadmap of recommended Code changes. Staff will provide an overview of the Key Issues Report to the Planning and Zoning Board at the November 9, 2017 meeting. The purpose of the presentation is to provide the Board with an overview of the types of changes that are envisioned and allow the Board an opportunity to provide feedback before the consultant begins drafting proposed text. The individuals that participated in the stakeholder interviews were forwarded a courtesy notification of the meeting. A similar work session with the Town Council will also be held on November 28, 2017. After the Town Council meeting, the consultant will begin working on drafting proposed amendments. A draft of the proposed text amendments is anticipated to be complete in early 2018 after which the revised Code will be scheduled for review and recommendation by the Board following a public comment session. A public hearing on the proposed amendments will then be held by the Town Council before any action is taken. At this time, the project is expected to be complete by June of 2018. Attached is a copy of the Key Issues Report. Additional information and background will be provided at the meeting.
Potential Options:
NA Staff Recommendation: NA ATTACHMENTS Key Issues Report.pdf
A Professional Corporation 140 South Dearborn Street, Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60603 www.ancelglink.com
Gregory W. Jones
[email protected] (P) 312.604.9195 (F) 312.782.0943
MEMORANDUM Courtney Tanner, Planning Director, Town of Morrisville Michele Stegall, Current Planning Manager, Town of Morrisville
To: CC: From:
Julie A. Tappendorf, Gregory W. Jones
Subject:
Town of Morrisville Sign Ordinance Key Issues Report
Date:
October 27, 2017
The Key Issues Report (the “Memo”) identifies the primary issues to address during the Town of Morrisville Sign Ordinance Update. In particular, this Memo summarizes the preliminary findings regarding our team’s review of the Sign Ordinance and signrelated portions of the Town’s Unified Development Ordinance (the “UDO”). The Memo also builds on feedback from the July 11 and 12, 2017 meetings with Town Staff and stakeholders, and our review of relevant First Amendment and North Carolina law. I.
ORGANIZATION OF KEY ISSUES REPORT
The Memo is organized by the sections contained in the Town’s Sign Ordinance. The current language of each section is discussed and recommended changes are identified and explained. A section addressing global topics for consideration is included at the conclusion of the Memo. Specific ordinance language is not proposed at this time. Instead, the Memo offers a broad perspective of the most prominent issues that should be addressed in greater detail during the update effort. In some cases, this Memo makes specific suggestions to reinforce a certain point or identify a topic that may need further assessment. II.
HOW TO USE THE KEY ISSUES REPORT
This Memo identifies the Sign Ordinance’s legal deficiencies and general weaknesses and discusses strategies to address those issues. The issues identified below are not exhaustive. We anticipate that subsequent research and discussions with Town staff and attorney, elected officials, and the public will clarify and further define what issues
CHICAGO ● VERNON HILLS ● NAPERVILLE ● CRYSTAL LAKE ● BLOOMINGTON
ANCEL, GLINK, DIAMOND, BUSH, DICIANNI & KRAFTHEFER, P.C. October 27, 2017 Page 2 must be addressed. Accordingly, not every issue identified in this Memo will be addressed during the Town’s Sign Ordinance update. Likewise, some issues not discussed below may be the subject of a future text amendment. It is best to treat this Memo as a general roadmap guiding the Town toward a modern, legally defensible Sign Ordinance, and not a detailed itinerary of every stop along the way. We look forward to the Town’s feedback and continued collaboration. III.
SIGN ORDINANCE ANALYSIS
A. UDO Section 5.16.1 – Purpose The existing language is generally acceptable. Language addressing the following issues should be added to this Section: 1) A provision stating that the sign regulations are intended to be content neutral. 2) A subsection reciting the Town’s authority under the United States Constitution and North Carolina law to enact and enforce sign regulations, including appropriate cross references to UDO Section 1.1.2. 3) A subsection reciting findings of fact supporting the Sign Ordinance’s adoption. The findings provide the policy justification for adopting and enforcing sign regulations and reiterate that the Town does not intend to engage in contentbased regulation. 4) A severability provision preserving the Sign Ordinance’s validity if a regulation is found to be unconstitutional, including appropriate cross references to UDO Section 1.7. 5) A substitution provision allowing noncommercial messages to appear on any sign that displays a commercial message. This provision will protect the Town from claims that it is unconstitutionally favoring one type of speech. B. UDO Section 5.16.2 – Applicability 1) Content-Based Regulations This Section contains numerous examples of content-based regulations. Content-based provisions persist throughout the sections addressing signs that are exempt from regulation, signs that do not require a permit, and prohibited signs.
CHICAGO ● VERNON HILLS ● NAPERVILLE ● CRYSTAL LAKE ● BLOOMINGTON
ANCEL, GLINK, DIAMOND, BUSH, DICIANNI & KRAFTHEFER, P.C. October 27, 2017 Page 3 For example, regulations that specifically address for sale signs, menu boards, now hiring signs, gas pump signs, and credit card signs are all content based. Regulations governing holiday decorations and temporary signs for a specific type of event may be considered content based, or, at a minimum, could give rise to a lawsuit claiming that such regulations are content based. The Town should replace content-based provisions with regulations that focus on a sign’s physical attributes. The Reed v. Town of Gilbert decision makes it clear that municipal regulations based on a sign’s content will likely be found unconstitutional. Regulations that focus on a sign’s physical attributes – commonly known as time, place, and manner restrictions – stand a much greater chance of withstanding a legal challenge. For example, the Town could shift its regulatory focus to address signs with de minimis area, banners, flags, and signs located inside a structure, to name only a few. Focusing on these attributes will enhance the Town’s protection from legal challenges. 2) Political Signs North Carolina Statutes govern certain aspects of political signs, and the Town has incorporated these statutes into the Sign Ordinance. Ignoring or failing to comply with state statute may prompt litigation over the Town’s Sign Ordinance. Similarly, enforcing content-based regulations may result in a First Amendment lawsuit, even if the content-based regulations were approved by the state legislature. A perfect regulatory approach does not exist, but we can suggest that the Town pursue the less harmful option. Specifically, the Town should align its political sign regulations with North Carolina Statutes concerning political signs. The Town’s Sign Ordinance should both reference the applicable North Carolina statute and indicate that those signs do not require a permit, “as required by” that statute. Taking this approach will provide the Town with some protection if a legal challenge arises. If challenged, the Town will rely on the exact language adopted by the state legislature instead of defending its own content-based regulations. The Town is obligated to follow state law, and that’s exactly what it’s doing when it adopts the same language used by the legislature. This provides the Town a measured degree of legal and political cover in a situation with few good alternatives, other than lobbying the state legislature to change the law. These circumstances also highlight the importance of including a severability provision in the Sign Ordinance.
CHICAGO ● VERNON HILLS ● NAPERVILLE ● CRYSTAL LAKE ● BLOOMINGTON
ANCEL, GLINK, DIAMOND, BUSH, DICIANNI & KRAFTHEFER, P.C. October 27, 2017 Page 4 C. UDO Section 5.16.3 – General Sign Standards This Section contains content-based regulations. The statute (N.C.G.S. 136-32) referenced in this Section creates rules applicable to only political signs. If challenged, Reed would likely invalidate those rules. As discussed above, the Town should ensure that the Sign Ordinance’s political sign regulations mirror those contained in the state statute. In the near term, this will limit the Town’s exposure to claims that it has violated state law. It is relatively common for local politicians or boosters to challenge a municipal ordinance that constrains political speech rights provided by state statute. In contrast, challenges to local political sign laws based on Reed are less common (so far, anyway). In the event of a Reed-based challenged, the Town will be able to claim that it is simply following state law. In addition, this Section’s regulations governing temporary directional signs are content based and subject to legal challenge. These regulations should be replaced with reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. For example, the current regulations governing temporary directional signs to residential developments (a content-based regulation) could be replaced with regulations governing the size, materials, duration of display, and frequency of display for a temporary sign, regardless of the sign’s message. The Town should also consider consolidating all temporary sign regulations into a single section to enhance user friendliness. D. UDO Section 5.16.4 – Standards for Specific Sign Types Indexing sign regulations to specific zoning districts is a best practice consistent with Reed. This Section partially relies on zoning districts to establish regulations governing sign size, location, number, and height. These regulations are not easily susceptible to challenge. It is important to note that the Sign Ordinance’s regulations also address specific uses within each zoning district. The Sign Ordinance identifies the following use categories within each zoning district: institutional, office, shopping center, and all other. Of the use designations, the UDO only defines shopping center. The other use designations are seemingly open to interpretation by Town officials. Basing sign regulations on the type of use likely violates Reed. Like the regulations at issue in Reed, the Sign Ordinance prescribes different size and location regulations depending on the type of use. Unlike Reed, the Town’s use categories are broad. This section of the Sign Ordinance doesn’t prescribe specific regulations for churches, fast food restaurants, and other individual uses. Nevertheless, a court would likely find that Reed prohibits regulating signs based on use, even if the use categories are more broadly drawn than those discussed in Reed.
CHICAGO ● VERNON HILLS ● NAPERVILLE ● CRYSTAL LAKE ● BLOOMINGTON
ANCEL, GLINK, DIAMOND, BUSH, DICIANNI & KRAFTHEFER, P.C. October 27, 2017 Page 5
There are three ways communities commonly address this issue. First, they base their sign regulations only on the zoning district, irrespective of the final user. This approach has been embraced by many communities in the wake of Reed. If the Town chooses this approach, it will need to evaluate how to reconcile differing sign regulations within each zoning district. Second, some communities create sign regulation zones that are independent of the municipality’s zoning districts. Like zoning districts, each sign zone generally covers a contiguous area (or corridor) of the community. This approach recognizes that certain portions of a community may include a variety of zoning districts, but from an aesthetic and practical standpoint, the area looks and functions like a unified neighborhood. Examples of communities that rely on sign regulation zones include Lincolnshire, Illinois, and Oak Park, Illinois.1 The Town of Cary also takes a similar approach. Cary’s Sign Code distinguishes between properties containing a single-family home or duplex, properties that don’t contain a single-family home or duplex, and properties located in the Town Center and Mixed Use Overlay Zoning Districts. Finally, there’s no legal prohibition on indexing sign regulations to property size or other variable that doesn’t rely on the property’s use. This approach could help address complex projects, like shopping centers. Relying on property size or whether a property is located in a planned development could allow the Town to assert additional regulatory control over sensitive developments. E. UDO Section 5.16.5 – Standards for Special Purpose Signs With limited exception, all of the regulations contained in this Section are content based. This Section establishes separate regulations for contactor/construction signs, residential development signs, directional signs, and service station signs. Regulations that rely on the sign’s message are subject to strict scrutiny if challenged and will nearly always be found unconstitutional. We recommend repackaging this section to establish regulations based on sign construction type, duration of display, and related variables. Many of these regulations could be consolidated into Section 5.16.4, particularly regulations concerning
Lincolnshire’s sign district regulations are available at: http://www.village.lincolnshire.il.us/sitemedia/documents/quick_links/villagecode/title-12/code1206.pdf. Oak Park’s overlay sign district regulations are available at: http://www.oak-park.us/sites/default/files/zoning/2014-10-09-sign-code.pdf. 1
CHICAGO ● VERNON HILLS ● NAPERVILLE ● CRYSTAL LAKE ● BLOOMINGTON
ANCEL, GLINK, DIAMOND, BUSH, DICIANNI & KRAFTHEFER, P.C. October 27, 2017 Page 6 permanent signs, including address signs, residential development identification signs, and directory signs. F. UDO Section 5.16.6 – Standards for Temporary Signs Again, many of the regulations contained in this Section are content based. This Section should be revised to define temporary signs based on design attributes – not a sign’s message. Regulations addressing directional signs to new developments, promotional event signs, real estate signs, and home garden produce signs should be eliminated. Defining and relying on terms like yard sign, swing sign, sidewalk sign, and site sign will help the Town transition away from content-based regulations. We also recommend establishing limits on the number of signs, sign area, sign height, and related variables. The Town should consider indexing the duration of temporary sign display to the type of sign construction. For instance, signs made of cardboard or laminated paper could be subject to more stringent time limits than temporary signs constructed of wood, corrugated plastic, vinyl, or metal. This provides an incentive for signs to be constructed of higher quality, more durable materials. Among other communities, the City of Centennial, Colorado indexes the length of time a temporary sign may be displayed to the type of materials the sign is constructed of.2 G. UDO Section 5.16.7 – Illuminated Signs Regulations addressing the electronic display of gasoline prices and time / temperature displays are content based and should be eliminated. To promote consistency with Reed, the Town should replace these regulations with electronic sign standards that govern the size, location, movement, transmission time, and related variables. H. UDO Section 11.5 – Terms and Uses Defined Many of the current definitions are consistent with Reed. Certain definitions, including promotional event sign and real estate sign, are content based and should be removed. Additional definitions must be added to accommodate the content neutral regulations that will replace the current content-based provisions. For instance, terms like yard sign, swing sign, sidewalk sign, and site sign must be added. The Town should also ensure consistency between its definition of political sign and North Carolina law.
Centennial’s temporary sign regulations are available at: http://www.centennialco.gov/uploads/files/Community%20Development/Land%20Dev elopment/Centennial%20LDC%20August%202017.pdf. 2
CHICAGO ● VERNON HILLS ● NAPERVILLE ● CRYSTAL LAKE ● BLOOMINGTON
ANCEL, GLINK, DIAMOND, BUSH, DICIANNI & KRAFTHEFER, P.C. October 27, 2017 Page 7 IV.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The Town should evaluate the following topics when considering updates to its Sign Ordinance. A. Pole Signs – Pole signs should be prohibited. These signs are inconsistent with the Town’s character and are largely disfavored in comparable communities. This prohibition should be included in the revisions to UDO Section 5.16.2(D). B. Realtor Signs – The Town should consider exempting temporary yard signs with less than six square feet in area from its permitting requirements. The Town may still regulate the number of temporary yard signs, their height, location, and duration of display, but no permit process is necessary. Taking this approach will accommodate for sale signs and similar installations without overburdening staff. C. Right of Way – The Town should consider prohibiting all signs in the right of way, except as authorized by North Carolina law, federal law, or for the purpose of government speech. D. Administrative Authority – The Town should incorporate an administrative interpretation provision expressly authorizing the Planning Director to interpret and apply the Town’s Sign Ordinance. This will enhance staff’s ability to address sign proposals that do not fit neatly into the revised Sign Ordinance regulations. E. Sign Removal – The Town should adopt sign removal procedures for signs that have fallen into disrepair or are advertising a business or institution that is no longer an ongoing concern (i.e., discontinued signs). Incorporating these provisions will allow the Town to cite property owners that fail to comply with the Town’s sign requirements. F. Height Limits – The Town should consider replacing the height maximum for wall mounted signs in non-residential zoning districts (currently 10-15 feet) with alternate restrictions that acknowledge life-safety and other concerns associated with taller buildings. Regulations that prohibit signage from exceeding a building’s roofline may be appropriate. G. Landscaping – The Town should consider imposing landscaping requirements around the base of ground mounted signs. Landscaping may not be appropriate for all ground mounted signs, but the Town could impose the requirement on signs that exceed a certain size. Additional consideration should be given to
CHICAGO ● VERNON HILLS ● NAPERVILLE ● CRYSTAL LAKE ● BLOOMINGTON
ANCEL, GLINK, DIAMOND, BUSH, DICIANNI & KRAFTHEFER, P.C. October 27, 2017 Page 8 appropriate plantings and species that enhance the Town’s character, minimize maintenance, and protect visibility. H. Customer Experience – The Town should consider providing a direct link to the Sign Ordinance on its webpage, creating a frequently asked questions page, and revisiting its sign permit application materials. Taking these steps will enhance user friendliness and may decrease staff resources necessary to administer the Town’s Sign Ordinance. V. CONCLUSION We are happy to discuss this Memo with you at your convenience. 4826-4568-4562, v. 1
CHICAGO ● VERNON HILLS ● NAPERVILLE ● CRYSTAL LAKE ● BLOOMINGTON
2018 Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Schedule Town Council Chambers 100 Town Hall Drive Morrisville, NC 27560 6:30 PM
January 11th, 2018 February 8th, 2018 March 8th, 2018 April 12th, 2018 May 10th, 2018 June 14th , 2018 July 12th, 2018 August 9th, 2018 September 13, 2018 October 11th, 2018 November 8th, 2018 December 13th , 2018 100 Town Hall Drive | Morrisville, NC 27560 | P: 919.463.6200 | F: 919.481.2907 | to wnofmorrisville.org
Planning and Zoning Board Agenda Item Report Agenda Item No. 2017-367-0 Submitted by: Marty Saunders Submitting Department Planning Meeting Date: November 9, 2017
SUBJECT 2018 Chair and Vice Chair Appointment Recommendations Courtney Tanner, Planning Director Recommendation: Nomination and recommendation of 2018 Chair and Vice Chair
Updates/History of Briefing: Not applicable Executive Summary and Background Information: In accordance with Section 2.2.3(E) of the UDO, the Planning and Zoning Board makes a recommendation to the Town Council on the selection of a Chair and Vice-Chair on an annual basis. The Chair presides over all Board meetings and the Vice-Chair presides over meetings in the Chair’s absence. Officers may be appointed to successive terms without limitation. At the November 9, 2017 meeting, nominations will be accepted for chair and vice-chair. Ballots will then be distributed and Board members will be asked to nominate a chair. After the votes are totaled, a second ballet will be distributed and members will be asked to vote on a vice-chair. The Planning and Zoning Board’s recommendation for 2018 chair and vice-chair will then be forwarded to the Town Council for consideration and action.
Potential Options: None Staff Recommendation: Not applicable ATTACHMENTS
Planning and Zoning Board Agenda Item Report Agenda Item No. 2017-364-0 Submitted by: Marty Saunders Submitting Department Planning Meeting Date: November 9, 2017
SUBJECT October 2017 Planning Newsletter Recommendation:
Updates/History of Briefing: Not applicable Executive Summary and Background Information: Not applicable Potential Options: None Staff Recommendation: Not applicable ATTACHMENTS 2017_10_Oct.pdf
OCTOBER 2017 ACTIVITIES
New Development Applications
Administrative Approvals
Site Plan and Construction Plan
Site Plan Modification
Mason Farm Estates (detached single family development)
Site Plan
2200 Perimeter Park
Perimeter 5, 6 and 7
Bulletin Drawings
Sullivan Eastern Landscape Plan
Breckenridge Pool
Telecommunications Facility
Small Cell Wireless: Intersection of Perimeter Park Drive and Paramount Parkway
Town Council Approvals
Other News
Proclamation
Employee News
Proclamation recognizing GIS Day
Proclamation recognizing October 2017 as Community Planning Month
Annexation
Annexation Agreement between City of Durham and Town of Morrisville..
The Planning Department is pleased to welcome Dylan Bruchhaus as the newest member of our team. Dylan began work on October 23 and filled the new Transportation Planner position. Dylan is a recent graduate of Rutgers University with a Master’s Degree in City and Regional Planning.
Transportation Plan Update
Staff held a work session with Town Council on October 17th.
Town of Morrisville ● 260B Town Hall Drive, Morrisville, NC 27560 ● www.townofmorrisville.org For more information about development around the Town, visit www.townofmorrisville.org/development