Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-2008-012 - Orange Co Zoning Ordinance -Buckhorn Rd Associates LLC Rezoning©oQ~o~ada8-a ~Z ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 25, 2008 Action Agenda Item No. ~' ' ~ SUBJECT: Buckhorn Road Associates LLC Rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit application(s) DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Request and Review Process Summary ' 2. Discussion of Legislative versus Quasi judicial actions 3. Buckhorn Village -Planned Development Guidelines 4. Staff comments INFORMATION CONTACT: Name, Phone Number Craig Benedict 245-2592 Michael Harvey 245-2607 PURPOSE: To receive public comments concerning a Rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit application(s) proposing the development of a Planned Development on property located within the I-85/Buckhom Road Economic Development District. BACKGROUND: In December of 2007 the applicant, Buckhorn Road Associates LLC, submitted applications requesting the development of a large-scale commercial site .along Buckhorn Road. The applicant proposed developing this project as a Planned Development (hereafter `PD/SUP') in accordance with the provisions of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Please refer to Attachment Three (3) Planned Development Guidelines - Appendix A of the abstract APPLICABLE ZONING REGULATIONS: With respect to the ,review of -this project, the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance apply: • Section 6.29 Development Standards for Economic Development (ED) Districts ~(i.e. the Economic Development District Design Manual), • Article Seven (7) Planned Developments • Article Eight (8) Special Use Permits, and • Article Twenty (20) Amendments Per Section 7.21.1 of the Ordinance, the overall purpose and intent of PD/SUP projects is to: `provide for properly located and planned non-residential development consistent with Orange County`s Strategic Plan for Economic Development'. This process is intended to. provide an opportunity for development proposals to be considered for approval when such plans do not: 2 1. Meet the criteria forsite plan approval listed in Article 14.3; 2. Address agency comments solicited during the site plan review process; and/or 3. Adhere to the design standards applicable within Economic Development Districts as set forth in Article 6.29 of this ordinance. In cases where number three (3) applies, the applicant is required to propose a design solution . that is equal to, or better than, what could be obtained through the application of the criteria and standards contained in the Design Manual. . In this case, Buckhom Road Associates LLC has requested the waiving of fourteen (14) standards of the Design Manual. Ultimately, the applicant is required to demonstrate to the County that any and all deviations from the standards outlined within the Economic Development District Design Manual are necessary and that the proposed solution(s) are consistent with the intent of the manual. Please refer to Attachment Four (4) for staffs assessment of the project. REVIEW PROCESS: A PDISUP project is processed in the exact same manner as all Class A SUP applications. With these types of projects, however, the BOCC will.be required to: 1. Take action on the rezoning request to rezone the identified. properties from: I- 85/Buckhorn Road Economic Development (ED) District and/or Rural Residential One (12-1) to Buckhorn Village Planned Development Economic Development District (BVPD- ED). Action on approving or denying the rezoning application is considered to be a Legislative decision made in accordance with the provisions of Article Twenty (20) of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. If the application to rezone the properties is approved, the BOCC will then take action on the PD/SUP application proposing the development of the property as a master planned :mixed-use commercial site. Action on approving or denying the PD/SUP application is considered to be a Quasi judicial decision made in accordance with the provisions of Article Eight (8) of the Zoning Ordinance. For more information on the review process associated with this project, please refer to Attachment One (1) Request and Review Process Summary and Attachment Two (2) Discussion of Legislative versus Quasi judicial actions. In accordance with the provisions of Article(s) Eight (8) and Twenty (20) of the. Ordinance, staff sent out approximately seventy (70) notices to adjacent property owners within five hundred (500) feet of the subject properties, and posted notices on each properly informing the general public of, the date, time, and location of the proposed Public Hearing. Staff also caused a legal advertisement to appear within the News of Orange and the Chapel Hill Herald on February 13, 2008 and February 20, 2008 announcing the date, time, and location of the Public Hearing wherethese applications would be reviewed. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The Planned Development Guideline Manual (Attachment Three 3 is intended to establish the various land use and regulatory standards that will govern the development of this project. For this abstract, staff is supplying basic information outlined within the Manual to supply the BOCC and Planning Board members with an overview of the project. LAND USE MANAGEMENT: The Buckhorn Village Planned Development is comprised of three (3) individual development districts broken down as follows: • District One (1): This district is approximately forty-one .(41) acres in area and intended to serve no more than four (4) large retail tenants with a total anticipated combined floor area of one hundred eighty-five thousand (185,000) square feet. • District Two (2): This district is approximately forty (40) acres in area and intended to support mixed-use development including retail, office, restaurants, indoor theaters, ' hotels, residential, and other similar uses with an anticipated combined floor area of five hundred twenty-two thousand (522,000) square feet. • District Three (3): This district is approximately forty-eight (48) acres in area and is . intended to support large-scale retail development with the possibility of some mixed-use projects. The developer has also proposed reserving an area of the District for future use by a local government to address the provision of protective services (i.e. police, fire, emergency, etc). The anticipated floor area within this district is approximately six hundred six thousand (606,000) square feet. The applicant is proposing a maximum of 1.114 million square feet of building footprint for the entire property. For more detail on the proposed land uses within the project, please refer to Attachment Three (3), pages twelve (12) through fourteen (14). ACCESS MANAGEMENT: Access to the property is proposed to be as follows: • Three (3) driveway entrances along Buckhorn Road, and • Two (2) driveway entrances along West Ten Road The applicant is also proposing to develop several bicycle lanes and pedestrian sidewalks throughout the development to make it more pedestrian accessible and is proposing to have four (4) bus stops with passenger pick-up and drop-off areas. For more detail on the access management plan, please refer to Attachment Three (3), pages forty (40) through forty-two (42), Exhibit Seven (7), and Appendix D. OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT: The- applicant is proposing a comprehensive open space management plan that involves preservation of existing woodlands, the planting of interior parking lot buffer, and the planting of vegetation along all proposed streetscapes. For more detail on the access management plan, please refer to Attachment Three (3) pages eight (8) through thirty-nine (39), pages forty-five (45) through forty-six (46), Exhibit Five (5), and Appendix C. UTILITY MANAGEMENT: The applicant is proposing to make numerous modifications to existing infrastructure to support this project that is outlined within Attachment Three (3) page forty-three (43) and Exhibit Eight (8). FINANCIAL IMPACT: In terms of the review of this project, there will be no financial impact on the County as existing staffing levels are sufficient to process the application. With respect to the overall financial impact of the project on the County please refer to Attachment Three (3) Appendix B. i 4 RECOMMENDATION(S): The Zoning Officer recommends that the Boards:. 1. Receive the applications of Planned Development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit, 2. Receive the Zoning Officer's assessment report/recommendation on the applications, 3. Conduct a Public Hearing on the applications, 4. Adjourn the Joint Public Hearing (both boards) to a specific date ,time ,and place ,and (See the- Process Timeline Options below) 5. Refer to the Planning Board to allow additional written comments as appropriate prior to the reconvening of the Joint Public Hearing as decided above. PROCESS TIMELINE OPTIONS OPTION A OPTION B OPTION C (Hearing remains open and is adjourned to a dafe, time and p/ace certain.) 1. JOINT QPH FEBRUARY 25 FEBRUARY 25 FEBRUARY 25 2. Planning Board & Staff March 5 -March 5 -March 5 Additional Comments (Regular Meeting) (Regular Meeting) (Regular Meeting) 3. Applicant Responds March 16 March 30 April 13 -------------------------AGENDA PREPARATION--------=----------------- 4.a. Reconvene Joint Public April 1 (GBC) April 15 (SHSC) May 1 (GBC) Hearing ~ ~ 8:30 p.m.. ~ 8:30 p.m. 8:30 p.m: (Regular BOCC) (Regular BOCC) (Regular BOCC) (Special PB) ~ (Special PB) (Special PB) 4.b. Referral to PB for Recommendations due no later than April 13 May 5 ~ May 19 -------------------------AGENDA PREPARATION-------------------------- 6' BOCC Review & Action May 1 ~ May 20 ~ June 3 (Regular BOCC) (Regular BOCC) (Regular BOCC) ATTACHMENT ONE (1) REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCESS SUMMARY: Specific Request: This application involves two (2) components: 1. The REVIEW a petition to rezone several parcels from I-85/Buckhorn Road Economic Development and/or Rural Residential One (R=1) to Buckhorn Village Planned Development -Economic Development District (BVPD-ED) AND 2. The REVIEW of a Class A Special Use Permit proposing the development of a Planned Development commercial center on the subject properties The review of these applications will require the holding of a Public Hearing in accordance with the provisions of Article Seven (7); Eight (8), and Twenty (20) of the Ordinance. Review and Action: These applications shall be forwarded to the Planning Board upon the conclusion of the Public Hearing for review and to make a recommendation. Upon receiving the recommendation of the Planning Board, the BOCC will take separate action on the two (2) applications as follows: • Take action on the rezoning request to rezone the identified properties from: I-85/Buckhorn Road Economic Development (ED) District and/or Rural Residential One (R-1) to Buckhorn Village Planned Development Economic Development District (BVPD-ED). Action on approving or denying the rezoning application is considered to be a Legislative decision that made in accordance with the provisions of Article Twenty (20) of the Zoning .Ordinance. • If the application to rezone the properties is approved, the BOCC will then take action on the PD/SUP application proposing the development of the property as a master planned mixed-use commercial site. Action on approving or denying the PD/SUP application is considered to be a Quasi judicial decision that made in accordance with the provisions of Article Eight (8) of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff Comment: For more information on Legislative versus Quasi judicial decisions please refer to Attachment Two (2) of the abstract. ATTACHIv1ENT TWO (2) LEGISLATIVE VERSUS QUASI JUDICIAL DECISIONS ` Le 'slative Quasi-Judicial Can be: 1. Board of Adjustment, Decision maker Only governing board can make the 2. Planning Board, or decision -other board's ma advise Y ~ 3. Governing Board Only notice to parties involved with the petition is required unless local. Ordinance Notice of Hearing Newspaper and mailed notice to adjoining mandates: property owners is required Staff Note: Our Ordinance mandates . notification of adjacent property owners. Can reasonable limit the number of Individuals are presenting testimony (i.e. Speakers at Hearings speakers and limit the time they area sworn statements and evidence). The Board allotted to speak. can limit any presentation to relevant evidence that is not repetitious None required. Members are free to Speakers must present and enter substantial, discuss issue outside of hearing and competent, material evidence into the record. Evidence speakers at the hearing are not under oath Witnesses are under oath and subject to cross- or subject to cross-examination examination. No ex-parte communication is allowed. Written findings of fact are required. The Board making the decision must explicitly set None is required, but the board making forth what it determines to be the essential the decision is required to issue a facts that it is basing its decision on Findings statement addressing the proposals The Board• making the decision must also . consistency .with local regulations and make specific findings of fact and provide that. the public interests are served in specific detail to inform all parties and a either approving or denying the request. reviewing court as to what induced the decision. A conclusory statement that a standard has, or has not, been met is insufficient A four-fifths (4/5) vote is required to approve the application. In cases where a special or Voting Simple majority is required conditional use permit is issued by a governing board (i.e. BOCC) only a simple majority is required. Conditions Not allowed Allowed subject to mutual agreement between the applicant and governing body agree. Judicial Review Two (2) months to file claim Thirty (30) days to file claim ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director ~aaatP o! ®' Current Planning ~q` , °'~° 306E Revere Road (919) 245-2575 u • P O Box 8181 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) ~. ~ Hillsborough, www.co.orange.nc.us '~°<<e ~a=~~~°` North Carolina, 27278 N~',MOj2.AllTDU1VI TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners Orange County Planning Board Laura Blackmon -County Manager Willie Best -Assistant County Manager FROM: Craig Benedict AICP -Zoning Officer DATE: February 13, 2008 RE: REPORT and ANALYSIS of Buckhorn Village application Per Section 7.5.4 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (herea$er `the Ordinance'), please accept the following document as report and analysis of the Planned Development application, submitted by Buckhorn Road Associates LLC, proposing to develop a unified commercial center on several parcels of property within the Interstate 8SBuckhorn Road Economic Development District. This assessment shall be broken down intro the following sections: • Background of the project, • Application submittal and review, • Staff assessment and findings on the appropriateness of the project per Section 7.5.4 of the Ordinance, and • .Review/Assessment on requested waivers/modifications to existing. development regulations as outlined within the application. 8 BACKGROUND: Throughout the fall of 2007, planning staff began having regular, weekly, meetings with representatives of Buckhorn Road Associates LLC (hereafter `applicant'). The applicant was proposing the development of a phased, unified commercial center on several pazcels of property along Buckhorn Road. Originally, the applicant was proposing to develop a commercial center on the following properties (hereafter called `the property'): • A seventeen and a half (17.5) acre parcel of property (TMBL 3.28..20C /PIN 9834=47-5174) and a one hundred ten (110) acre parcel of property (TMBL 3.28..201 PIN 9834-56-1587) with a current street address of 508 Buckhorn Road. The Buckhorn Flea Market is a nonconforming is presently-operating on parts of both properties that together make up the' property. The property is zoned Economic Development (ED), During our initial meetings, staff and the applicant reviewed the vazious requirements of the Zoning Ordinance governing the review of a Planned Development project within the Economic Development District. Staff informed the applicant that the review of • Planned Development projects is regulated in accordance with the provisions of Article Seven (7) of the Ordinance. With respect to the developing such projects within the Economic Development District, Section 7.21.1 PD-ED District.• Definition and Intent indicates: • PD-ED districts may be established in accordance with the general procedures and requirements set forth in Articles 7.1 through 7.9 and with the intensities and in locations in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and'the Zoning Ordinance and Atlas. The purpose of this district is to provide for properly located and planned non-residential development consistent with Orange County's Strategic Plan for Economic Development. Spec~cally, this district is intended to provide an opportunity for development plans, submitted under the provisions of Article 6.29 [Development Standards for Economic Development (ED) Districts) of this ordinance, to be considered for approval when such plans do not: 1. Meet the criteria for site plan approval listed in Article 14.3; 2. Address agency comments solicited during the site plan review process; and/or 3. Adhere to the design standards applicable within Economic Development Districts asset forth in Article 6 29 of this ordinance; and which propose a design solution which is equal to or better than could be obtained through the application of the criteria and standards contained in the Design Manual. In such cases, application for and approval of a Planned Development District shall be governed by the general and speck standards and 9 procedures for the issuance of a Planned Development Permit as set forth in thzs Article. Staff also informed the applicant that it would be required to obtain a Class A Special Use Permit for the proposed project in accordance with Section 7.2.5 and Article Eight (8) Special Uses of the Ordinance. In reviewing the various provisions of Article Eight (8), staff reviewed the specific submittal and review requirements for all Special Use applications as well as the specific standards governing the review of Planned Development projects outlined within Section 8.8.23 Planned Developments that reads as follows: 8.8.23.1 Additionallnformation In addition to the information required in Subsections 8.2 and 8.8, information shall be supplied as part of the application as per applicable requirements ofArticle 7. 8.8.23.2 Standards of Evaluation The standards of evaluation shall be as per applicable sections of Article 7 APPLICATION 5UBMTTAL AND REVIEW: On December 21, 2007 the applicant submitted the appropriate applications proposing the development of a Planned Development (hereafter `PD/SUP') on the flea market property. The applicant submitted two (2) applications requesting the following: 1. The REVIEW a petition to rezone the properly from I-85Buckhorn Road Economic Development to Suckhorn Village Planned Development -Economic Development District (BVPD-ED) AND 2. The REVIEW of a Class A Special Use Permit proposing the development of a Planned Development commercial .center on the property. The application contained the following information: 1. A detailed proposal outlining the overall development of the property including a description of a. The proposed land uses, b. Open space management plan, c. Utility plan, d. Transportation plan, and e. Development theme for each individual development district 10 2. A draft Environmental Assessment as required by the Orange County Environmental Impact Ordinance, and 3. An executive summary of the Traffic Impact Analysis (hereafter `TlA') as required under Article Thirteen (13) of the Ordinance. Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the submittal requirements outlined within Article Seven (7) and Eight (8) of the Ordinance. The Zoning Officer made the formal determination on January 7, 2008 that the application was complete in accordance with Section(s) 7.5.1 and 8.4.2 of the Ordinance. On January 11, 2008 staff distributed the application to various County departments, and local planning partners (i.e. North Carolina Department of Transportation, City of Mebane), to begin the process of reviewing the application. On January 16, 2008 the applicant submitted a request to amend the application. Within this request the applicant sought: 1. To add two (2) additional parcels to the application, specifically: a. A one point nine (1.9) acre parcel of property (TMBL 3.28..57C /PIN 9834-54- 1735), that has frontage along West Ten Road and is zoned Rural Residential One (R-1) and b. A two and a half (2.5) acre parcel of property (TMBL 3.28..13. /PIN 9834-36- 4225) that is separated by Buckhorn Road, with approximately one (1) acre of the property east of Buckhorn Road and adjacent to the property -that is zoned Economic Development (ED), and the remaining one and a half (1.5) acre portion of the parcel to the west of Buckhorn Road that is zoned Rural Residential One ~-1) 2. Modifications to several exhibits and the project narrative to incorporate the new parcels (hereafter the term `the property' includes all four- (4) parcels). Staff accepted the amendment to the application. On January 23, 2008 the applicant submitted a second amendment request seeking to modify the application. Within this request the applicant sought: 1. To submit a completed TIA labeled `draft' and 2. A final Phase I Environmental Assessment in accordance with the provisions of Orange County Environmental Impact Ordinance. Staff accepted this amendment to the application. On January 30, 2008 the County's Development Advisory Committee (DAC) met to review the project. This meeting was attended by: 11 a. County Planning Staff (Planning Administrator, Flood Plain Transportation Planner), b. County Manager's office, c. Economic Development, d. County Engineer, e. County Attorney's office, £ Health Department, g. Building Inspections, h. Fire Marshall, Director, Zoning Administrator, Subdivision Administrator, Comprehensive Planner, and the i. Sheriff's office, j. Orange County Solid Waste, . k. North Carolina Department of Transportation, and 1. Representatives of the City. of Mebane (City Manager, City Planning Director, Public Works Director, City Engineer) During this meeting, staff outlined several comments/concerns relating to the application. These comments were forwarded to the applicant on February 6, 2008. On February 7, 2008 staff received a final, completed, copy of the TIA. On February 12, ~ 2008 the applicant submitted a final amendment to the application seeking to incorporate comments from the DAC into the project narrative. . The County is scheduled to hold a PUBLIC HEARING on this project at the February 25, 2008 Joint Quarterly Public Hearing. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the BOCC will forward the item to the Planning Board for review and to make a formal recommendation. Upon receiving the recommendation of the Planning Board, the BOCC will take separate action on the two (2) applications as follows: 1. Take action on the rezoning request to rezone the identified properties from: I- 85/Buckhom Road Economic Development (ED) District and/or Rural Residential One (R-1) to Buckhorn Village Planned Development Economic Development District (BVPD-ED). Action on approving or denying the rezoning application is considered to be a Legislative decision that made in accordance with the provisions of Article Twenty (20) of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. If the application to rezone the properties is approved, the BOCC will then take action on the PD/SUP application proposing the development of the property as a master planned mixed-use commercial site. 12 Action on approving or denying the PD/SUP application is considered to be a Quasi- judicial decision that made in accordance with the provisions of Article Eight (8) of the Zoning Ordinance. ZONING OFFICER REPORT: In completing the review of the application, the Zonin$ Officer (hereafter `staff') is required to make a written report, per Section 7.5.4 of the Ordinance, for the Planning Board and the BOCC containing a recommendation on .the approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the application based on the following findings: (a) As to the suitability of the proposals for the general type of PD category, the physical characteristics of the land and relation of the proposed development to surrounding areas and existing and probable future development; Staff Comment: The property is located within the Economic Development Node as defined by the Orange County Comprehensive Plan and as detailed on the Land Use Element Map. The Economic Development district was created in 1994 to spur such activity within the Buckhorn Road area. There is already major commercial development within the area, and the infrastructure (i.e. water and sewer) necessary to support additional high-density commercial development. The property is large enough to support the proposed development and is suited for the development of amulti-tenant commercial operation. In reviewing the application, the Zoning Officer can make the following finding: i. That the project is suitable for development as a Planned Development, ii. That the physical characteristics of the subject property allow for the development of such a project, iii. That the project is similar to surrounding developments, and iv. That the project is consistent with the overall intent and purpose of the Land Use Category, as defined within the Comprehensive Plan, for the area as well as the existing Economic District zoning designation (b) As to relation to major roads and mass .transit facilities, utilities and other facilities and services; Staff Comment: The project is proposing to have three (3) driveways along Buckhorn Road and two (2) driveways along West Ten Road. The Transportation Improvement Assessment (hereafter `TIA') has identified numerous roadway improvements that will have to be completed by the applicant prior to any 13 commercial operation commencing on the property. The applicant is also proposing to develop buss stop facilities on the properly to make the project assessable to mass transit. In consultation with the County Engineer and the City of Mebane, water and sewer services can be provided to support this project. The applicant will be required to make modifications to existing service lines in order to accommodate the proposed development as well as. allow for additional development within the Interstate 85Buckhorn Road Economic Development District. This information is referenced within the Utility Master Plan .contained within the project narrative. . Staff is still awaiting comments from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the City of Mebane, to determine if the proposed modifications to local roadways, or infrastructure improvements, are adequate to support the project. Staff is still waiting on comments from NC DOT and the City of'Mebane. Staff cannot make a finding on this item at this time. (c) As to the adequacy of evidence on unified control and the suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, deed restrictions, sureties, dedications, contributions, guarantees, or other instruments, or the need for such instruments, or for amendments in those proposed; Iii reviewing the application, the Zoning Officer can make the following finding: i. That there is adequate evidence showing unified control and sustainability of agreements for the project. (d) As to the suitability of plans proposed or the desirability of amendments; Staff Comment: Please refer to the next section for a discussion on this item. (e) As to the adherence to PD or general regulations or as to desirable speciftc mod cations in PD or general regulations as applied to the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are necessary or justified in the particular case by demonstration that the public purposes of PD or other regulations would be met to at least an equivalent degree by such modifications. Staff Comment: Please refer to the next section for a discussion on this item. ASSESSMENT/ANALYSIS OF DESIGN SOLUTIONS: As outlined within Section 7.21.1 of the Ordinance, the overall purpose and intent of PD/SUP projects is to: `provide for properly located and planned non-residential development consistent with Orange County's Strategic Plan for Economic Development'. This process i.s intended to provide an opportunity for development proposals to be considered for approval when such plans do not: 1. Meet the criteria for site plan approval listed in Article 14.3; 2. Address agency comments solicited during the site plan review process; and/or 14 3. Adhere to the design standards applicable within Economic Development Districts as set forth in Article 6.29 of this ordinance. In cases where number three (3) applies, the applicant is required to propose a design solution that is equal to, or better than, what could be obtained through the application of the criteria and standards contained in the Design Manual. In reviewing the application, staff has determined that the applicant meets the majority of the standards outlined within the Design Manual. The applicant has requested the waiving of fourteen (14) standards of the Design Manual 'and is proposing fourteen (14) `design solutions' that are equal to, or greater, than what the Design Manual currently requires. The applicant is required to demonstrate to the County .that any .and all deviations from the standards outlined within the Economic Development District Design Manual are necessary and that the proposed solution(s) are consistent with the intent of the manual. Staff is required, under- Section 7.5.4 of the Ordinance, to comment on the appropriateness of the request(s). 1. Waiver One (1) as outlined on page eighteen (18) of the Buckhorn Village Planned Development Guidelines (hereafter `application') reading as follows: `The applicant requests a waiver from Section 2.2 of the EDD Design Manual' The ~ applicant is . requesting the ability to allow for single-family residential condominiums/apartments within the Town Center (i.e. District Il) and possibly within District III of the proposed project. Currently, single-family residential land uses are not listed within the Economic Development Primary (ED-P) zoning district, which the subject property is currently zoned. Staff Comment: Staff supports the design solution and believes there is a benefit in allowing for a small portion of multi-family, condominium style, residential development to occur on the property in keeping with the downtown/town center theme of District II. Staff does not support individual single-family residential dwelling units being developed as part of the project. Staff believes, however, that more specificity is needed in the application concerning the proposed residential development for District III: . .2. Waiver Two (2) as outlined on page eighteen (18) of the application reading as follows: `The applicant requests a waiver from Section 2.3 Land Use Intensity Building, Landscaping, and Site Volume Ratios' 'The applicant is requesting that the existing composite ratio methods established within the Design Manual be replaced with a `floor area ratio' and `maximum building height' limitation to control land use intensity. 15 The rationale for the request is that these concepts aze easier to understand and represent, in both graphic and statistical form, and aze recognized as a universal tool by developers and planners to gauge development intensity. The applicant is proposing a maximum floor area ratio of point thirty (.30) and a maximum building height of six (6) stories. Staff Comment: Staff had originally requested that the applicant supply a detailed breakdown on the various composite ratios outlined within Section 2.3 of the Design Manual to justify modifying the standazd. As part of this analysis, staff has requested that the applicant demonstrate how the proposed new standards will achieve a more desirable result for this project. This information has not yet been provided. • Staff recommends that the applicant be required to include in its Waiver Two (2) request the necessary documentation showing the project's Impervious Surface Ration (ISR); Building Volume Ratio (BVR), and Landscape Volume Ratio (LVR) and showing how the proposed new standards will represent a more desirable solution. While staff concedes that the proposed new standard is a more universally accepted method for dete fining the intensity of a particular development, staff does not have sufficient information to make the determination that the new standard will yield a more desirable result as required under Section 7.5.4 and 7.21.1 of the Ordinance. 3. Waiver Three (3) as outlined on page twenty-three (23) of the application reading as follows: `The applicant requests a waiver from Section 2.4 Environmental Factors - Grading and Erosion Control -Planting Area Slopes of the EDD Design Manual ' The applicant is requesting the ability to utilize a maximum slope factor of 2:1 rather than the listed maximum slope of 3:1. Within the request the applicant indicates that the existing grade of the property would require `unnecessary grading and increase the total footprint of disturbance' if the maximum 3:1 slope ratio was adhered to. The applicant is requesting the ability to use a slope ratio of 2:1 or flatter in an effort to avoid unnecessary disturbance on the property and make use of the natural shape of the land with minimal grading. Staff Comment: Staff supports the design solution in principle from the standpoint that it will allow for the developer to utilize the existing natural slope of the property and . require the minimal grading of the property. Staff does not support granting' a blanket `waiver' and believes the proposed design solution should be considered in the context of asite-specific development plan showing grading limits and stormwater data. Staff recommends that the Board(s) consider allowing for modifications to the grading and erosion control standards outlined within Section 2.4 of the EDD Design Manual only when the applicant can demonstrate on asite-specific development plan the need to, and benefits of, the proposed design solution. 16 4. Waiver Four (4) as outlined on pages twenty-three (23) through twenty-four (24) of the application reading as follows: `The applicant requests a waiver from Section 2.4 Environmental Factors - Grading and Erosion Control -Driveway and Access Drive Slopes of the EDD Design Manual' The applicant is requesting the ability to utilize NC DOT standards of two percent (2%) or 1/a" per foot minimum and a twelve percent (12%) maximum accessJdrive slope where necessary. The applicant argues that with the existing slope standards of two percent (2%) minimum and five percent (5%) maximum for access/driveways is common, there will be need for additional flexibility .given the number of connections proposed with this development. .The additional slope value may . be necessary to achieve the number of connections to facilitate safe, pedestrian friendly, circulation within the development and between individual development districts. Staff Comment: Staff supports the design solution in principle from the standpoint that it is making use of existing NC DOT standards.and that it is an attempt to address the need to make the development more pedestrian accessible. Staff does not support granting a blanket `waiver' and believes the proposed. design solution should be considered in the context of asite-specific development plan showing the location and actual slope of these locations. Staff recommends that the Board(s) consider allowing for modifications to the grading and erosion control standards outlined within Section 2.4 of the EDD Design Manual only when the applicant can demonstrate on asite-specific development plan the need to, and benefits of, the proposed design solution. 5. Waiver Five (5) as outlined on page thirty (30) of the application reading as follows: `The applicant requests a waiver from Section 3.I Architectural Design - Building Setbacks and Height of the EDD Design Manual and the required ten (10) foot driveway setback' The applicant is requesting the ability to modify the existing setback and building height limitations for internal property lines for the Buckhorn Village project to allow for: a. A front, side, and rear yard setback for freestanding buildings and structures of ten (10) feet versus twenty-five (25) feet, b. A setback for in-line shops and buildings of one (1) foot for front and rear setbacks and a zero (0) side yard setback, c. A zero (0) line setback for buildings adjacent to vehicular use areas, storage areas, and signs. d. The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing setbacks outlined within Section 3.1 of the Design Manual for all perimeter property lines. The rationale for the request is that it will allow the applicant to achieve the downtown center theme as proposed within District II. 17 Staff Comment: Staff supports design solution from the standpoint that is will allow for the developer to create the `downtown' theme as proposed subject to site plan review and approval: Staff does not support granting a blanket `waiver' and believes the proposed design solution should be considered in the context of asite-specific development plan showing the location of the proposed buildings in relation to fire lanes and emergency vehicle access points. Staff recommends that the County Manager, upon receiving the recommendation of staff, ensure that the site plans that are administratively reviewed include relevant comments from County Departments, and outside agencies, as part of the later site- specific development plan. 6. Waiver Six (~ as outlined on page thirty-three (33) of the application reading as follows: `The applicant requests a waiver from Section 3.1 Architectural Design - Corrugated Metal; Highly Reflective Surfaces; and Illuminated Roofing of the EDD Design Manual' The applicant is requesting the' ability to have flexibility in using highly reflective roof materials when they are designed to achieve the various energy objectives outlined within the application. The applicant indicates that the use of reflective material will assist them in designed architectural features that are intended to make use of radiant heat and natural light to reduce energy use and costs. Staff Comment: Staff supports the design. solution from the standpoint that it will allow for the developer to incorporate green building standards within the project. Staff recommends that this design solution be approved in concert with a condition, agreed upon by the applicant, that the design solution can only be utilized in situations where it is demonstrated that the reflective roofing will not create a public safety or traffic hazard (i.e. glare). 7. Waiver Seven (7) as outlined on pages thirty-three (33) through thirty-four (34) of the application reading as follows: `The applicant requests a waiver from Section 3.1 Architectural Design - Corrugated Metal; Highly Reflective Surfaces; and Illuminated Roofing of the EDD Design Manual ' The applicant is requesting the ability to have flexibility in using highly reflective roof materials, specifically focusing on use of solar panels. The EDD Design Manual requires that solar panels must be flush with the slope of the roof. The applicant indicates that there may be situations where solar panels cannot be flush with the roof and that flexibility is needed to allow for their use. The benefit here is that panels, that are not flush with the roof, can utilize existing tracking technology to make more efficient use of the suns rays. Staff Comment: As with number six (6) above, staff supports the design solution from the standpoint that it will allow for the developer to incorporate green building standards within the project. 18 Staff recommends that this design solution be approved in concert with a condition, agreed upon by the applicant, that the design solution can only be utilized in situations . where it is demonstrated that the reflective roofing will not create a public safety or traffic hazard (i.e. glare). " 8. Waiver Eight (8) as outlined on pages thirty-five (35) through thirty-six (3~ of the application reading as follows: `The applicant requests a waiver from Section 3.2 Landscape Design - Landscaping Parking Areas of the EDD Design Manual ' The EDD Design Manual requires that a landscape island be provided for every ten (10) parking spaces. The applicant isproposing the following: ` ... shade trees are to be provided at a ratio of one (1) three inch (3 ") caliper tree per ten (10) individual parking spaces provided that ninety percent (90%) of • the spaces are within ftfty (SD) feet of the center of a shade tree' The applicant argues that this provision will require the planting of the same number of tress that would be required under the Design Manual, but would allow far larger trees to be planted, allow for a more compact parking lot with less impervious surface area, and allow for shorter wallcing distances to storefronts for patrons. Staff Comment: Staff supports the proposed design solution. 9. •Waiver Nine (9) as outlined on page thirty-seven (3'7) of the application reading as follows: `The applicant requests a waiver from Section 3.2 Landscape Design -Building and Grounds of the EDD Design Manual' The EDD Design Manual requires that the entire base or foundation of a proposed structure is to be landscaped. The applicant is proposing the following: . ` ... to provide for building and grounds Landscaped Areas along thirty percent (30%) of a buildings perimeter to soften building edges while maintaining necessary sidewalk and outdoor display areas' The applicant argues that this modification will allow for the use of sidewalks and pedestrian plazas to promote the~accessibility of the project. Staff Comment: Staff supports the. proposed design solution, although staff needs more specificity on the proposed `outdoor display areas' referenced above. 10. Waiver Ten (10)' as outlined on page thirty-eight (38) of the application reading as follows: `The applicant requests a waiver from Section 3.2 Landscape Design -Building and Grounds of the EDD Design Manual' The EDD Design Manual indicates that no fence or wall shall be allowed within ten (1Q) feet of any front property line or street right-of--way. The applicant is proposing to reduce this requirement and allow _ for the placement of landscape and architectural walls within one (1) foot of property lines and street right-of ways provided that adequate site triangles and utility accesses are preserved. The applicant argues that this 19 waiver will help to strengthen the architectural edge of the project and provide a more `urban' character for the development. Staff Comment: Staff is concerned about granting a blanket waiver without the benefit of reviewing site-specific development plans showing the location of the proposed landscape and/or azchitectural walls. Buffers along Buckhorn and west Ten Roads should remain intact. Staff recommends that the County Manager, upon receiving the recommendation of staff, ensure that the site plans that are administratively reviewed include relevant comments from County Departments, and outside agencies, as part of the later site- specific development plan. 11. Waiver Eleven (11) as outlined on page thirty-nine (39) of the application reading as follows: `The applicant .requests a waiver from Section 3.5 Signs and Lighting -Signs - General Criteria of the EDD Design Manual' The EDD Design Manual limits the use of signs within this district to: a. A maximum number of three (3) signs per use, b. A maximum number of one (1) freestanding sign per use, c. A total square footage limitation of two hundred (200) square feet for all signs located within the development; d. A maximum size limit of seventy-five (75) square feet, and e. A twelve (12) foot limit on sign height As outlined within the application, beginning on page thirty-seven (37) the applicant is proposing: a. One (1) project identification sign that is fifty (50) feet in height and six hundred (600) square feet in azea, b. A Maximum of eight (8) Tenant/Directory Signs that are fifteen (15) feet in height and have three hundred (300) square feet of sign area each, c. For each `Major/Minor Tenant' three (3) signs (wall, window, etc) for each building, d. One (1) projecting sign for each `Minor Tenant', e. Directional signs at a maximum height of twelve (12) feet with a maximum size of one hundred (100) square feet for each sign Staff Comment: Staff requires additional information in order to make a recommendation on this proposed design solution. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to provide more detail justifying the design solution prior to any recommendation being made by staff. 12. Waiver Twelve (12) as outlined on page forty-five (4S) of the application reading as follows: 20 `The applicant requests a waiver from Section 3.3 Circulation and Parking - Parking Standards of the EDD Design Manual ' The applicant is requesting that required parking for retail "uses be modified from one (1) space for every two hundred (200) square feet to one (1) space for every three hundred. (300) square feet. The rationale for the request is that is will reduce the overall impervious surface area for the project and create more open space. Staff Comment: There is insufficient information for staff to comment on the proposed design solution. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to provide more detail justifying the proposed design solution prior to any recommendation being made by staff. 13. Waiver Thirteen (13) as outlined on page forty-nine (49) of the application reading as follows: `The applicant requests a waiver from Section 3.2 of the EDD Design 11lamtal requiring that breaks in the MTC bujfers be limited to one (1) and no more that twenty-five percent (25%) of the total.buffer' The applicant is requesting that more `buffer breaks' be allowed along the Interstate to afford the development additional sight lines from the highway. The applicant is requesting the ability to create breaks within the required buffer of up to sixty percent (60%). The rationale for the request is that the breaks are necessary to accommodate proposed stormwater `quality devices' and that the areas will be re- landscaped to `create a more visually interesting landscape incorporating the open areas'. The applicant further requests that within the remaining forty percent (40%) protected buffer area that `hand clearing' of any existing vegetation be allowed provided that a minimum of fifty-four (54) trees per acre be maintained at all times. Staff Comment: There is insufficient information for staff to comment on the proposed design solution. Since this is a request to more than double the allowable `buffer breaks', more elaborate detail is necessary for what will remain as well as what low plantings may be part of the water quality retention areas. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to "provide more detail justifying the proposed design solution prior to any recommendation being made by staff.. 14: Waiver Fourteen (14) as outlined on page fifty (50) of the application reading as follows: `The applicant requests a waiver from Section 3.2 of the EDD Design Manual requiring fifty (SO) to one hundred (100) foot buffers along adjacent residential properties alongBuckhorn Road' The applicant is proposing to reduce this buffer to twenty-five (25) feet in width. 21 The rationale for this request is that the existing buffer requirements are too restrictive and that the project will `enhance' the properly value of many of the adjacent undeveloped and older residential properties. Staff comment: There is insufficient information for staff to comment on the proposed design solution. Staff is still evaluating the request to understand the placement, and intensity, of the reduced buffers as they relate to a few specific properties along Buckhorn Road. All other buffers would be suggested to remain at one hundred (100) feet. Staff recommends that the applicant ~be required to provide more detail justifying the proposed design solution prior to any recommendation being made by staff. RECOMMENDATION: The Zoning Officer recommends that the Boards: 1. Receive the applications of Planned Development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit, 2. Receive the Zoning Officer's assessment report/recommendation of the applications, 3. Conduct a Public Hearing on the applications, 4. Adjourn the Public Hearing (both boards) to a specific date, time, and place, allowing the applicant to address staff's comments, and 5: Refer to the Planning Board to allow additional written comments as appropriate prior to the reconvening of the Public Hearing as described above. ZZ ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTiVIENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director t0dnt7 of Current Planning ~ ,gyp` . °°°~ 306E Revere Road (919) 245-2575 ~~ ~ P O Box 8181 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) ~ Hillsborough, www.co.orange.nc.us '"°<<6 e.~•~~°° North Carolina, 27278 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT.AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I, Craig Benedict, Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 8, 2008 I mailed, or had mailed, by certified mail, postage prepaid, a Notice of the Public Hearing to be held to review a request for a Planned Development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit as required under Article Eight (8) and Article Twenty (20) of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance requesting the development of a Planned Development, unified commercial center, to each property owner as listed on the Tax Records filed with the petition submitted by Buckhorn Road Associates LLC, as required by the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The mailed notice specified the date, time, place and subject of the Public Hearing. I also DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 8, 2008 I.have, or have had, the properties subject to the rezoning application, as outlined within the petition submitted by Buckhorn Road Associates LLC, posted with a Public Hearing Notice informing members of ~ the general public of the nature of the request and the date, time, and location of the Public Hearing. WITNESS my hand, this 19th day of February 2008 C ig Bene ict AICP Zoning Officer D o4,0 - ~2vv~r - o~.z. pi APPROVED 5/20/2008 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING February 25, 2008 7:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT• Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr., Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, and Mike Nelson COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geof Gledhill and Brian Ferrell COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant County Manager Willie Best, and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) COUNTY STAFF ABSENT: Laura Blackmon PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT• Chair Jay Bryan and Members Craufurd Goodwin, Sam Lasris, Renee Price, Judith Wegner, Michelle Kempinski, Bernadette Pelissier, Sandra Johnson-Quinn, Jeffrey Schmitt, Brian Crawford PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT• Joel Knight NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE B. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Jacobs reminded the public to keep their comments to three minutes. C. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. D. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Buckhorn Village Planned Development: Request by Buckhorn Road Associates to rezone approximately 130 acres along Buckhorn Road from I-85/Buckhorn Road Economic Development District (EDD) to Buckhorn Village Planned Development EDD. Planning Director Craig Benedict said that since this is both a legislative and quasi- judicial hearing on these two items, the first part of the meeting will require that all people giving testimony or credible evidence be sworn in. The Clerk swore in these individuals as a group. Craig Benedict and Michael Harvey made a PowerPoint presentation. Craig Benedict said that copies of this presentation would be made available to the public. BUCKHORN VILLAGE Applicant: Buckhorn Road Associates LLC •Planned Development Rezoning Buckhorn Economic Development to Planned Development Economic Development • Class A Special Use Permit BUCKHORN EDD (map) • Proposed Buckhorn Village Planned Development ^ 1.14 Million s.f. Mixed Use Retail Development ^ 134 t acres ^ Limited Multi-Family Residential LAND USE CONTEXT • Within Commercial Land Use since 1981 • Designated urban transition growth area since 1981 • Within Economic Development District Land Use since 1994 • Within Water & Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement since 2001 • Within Growth Management System Map since 2003 APPLICABLE ZONING REGULATIONS - Section 6.29 Development Standards and Processes for Economic Development (ED) Districts (i.e. the Economic Development District Design Manual), - Article Seven (7) Planned Developments - Article Eight (8) Special Use Permits, and - Article Twenty (20) Amendments REVIEW PROCESS • Planned Development/Special Use Permit project requires action from the BOCC on: ^ Rezoning request - Legislative decision FROM: I-85/Buckhorn Road Economic Development (ED) District and/or Rural Residential One (R-1) TO: Buckhorn Village Planned Development Economic Development District (BVPD- ED). ^ Planned Development /Special Use Permit application - Quasi judicial decision • Master Planned Mixed-use Project with Findings of Fact and Special Conditions NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS • Legal advertisement in newspaper • Mailings to Property Owners within 500 feet of Property ^ Herein certified by Zoning Officer • Posting of signs on Property Planned DevelopmentlSpecial Use Permit Application Outline • Land Use Management -Chapter 2 • Traffic/Access Management -Chapter 3 • Utilities/Public Services -Chapter 4 • Open Space -Chapter 5 • Planned Development Ownership -Chapter 6 LAND USE MANAGEMENT - 2 • Development Districts: District One: Larqe Retail Tenants • 41 t acres / 185,000 s.f. Floor Area _District Two: Mixed Use Development • 45 t acres / 522,000 s.f. Floor Area _District Three: Larqe-scale Retail Mixed Use • 48 ± acres / 606,000 s.f. Floor area TRAFFIC/ACCESS MANAGEMENT - 3 • 3 Driveway entrances along Buckhorn Rd • 2 Driveway entrances along West Ten Rd • I-85/I-40 bridge widening • Access ramp widening, Auxiliary Lanes • 4 Bus Stops, Internal and external • Bicycle Lanes • Pedestrian sidewalks UTILITY/PUBLIC SERVICE MANAGEMENT - 4 • Proposal to upgrade existing infrastructure and construct major offsite district utility extensions to support this project and adjacent properties including: ^ Water ^ Sewer . Stormwater/drainage . Fire,EMS, Police Site . Buckhorn Road Area Improvements (North and South of Interstate) OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT - 5 • Comprehensive Open Space Management Plan that includes: ^ Preservation of existing woodlands ^ Interior parking lot plantings ^ Streetscape plantings ^ Stream corridor preservation ^ Aquifer recharge PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OWNERSHIP MANAGEMENT - 6 • Ensures long term consistency • Adherence to Special Conditions • Master Planning BUCKHORN VILLAGE -Special Use Permit • Findings of Fact -General and Specific on Multiple Issues . If findings are favorable there will be a Class A Special Use Permit (SUP) identifying conditions of approval . The conditions/standards will be agreed to by both the County and the Applicant that will govern the development of the project in perpetuity, • Concurrent with the next public meeting . These standards will include regulations designed to: . Regulate permitted uses for the project, . Establish design standards and architectural requirements, . Establish standards for open space management and upkeep, . Establish timelines for the implementation of necessary infrastructure improvements (i.e. utilities, transportation, etc) BUCKHORN VILLAGE -Design Standards and Solutions • The application demonstrates or indicates adherence approx. ninety (90) of the existing standards in ED Design Manual, • The applicant is proposing fourteen (14) Design Solutions that are `equal to or better than what can be achieved through the strict adherence to the Design Manual' per Section 7.21.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. With respect to these Design Solutions, staff has found at this time that: . Design Solutions One (1), Eight (8), and Nine (9) are considered reasonable by staff as presenting a standards that is equal to or exceeds elements of the Design Manual, . Design Solutions Three (3), Four (4), Five (5), Six (6), Seven (7), Ten (10), are reasonable but ought to be conditioned on the approval of site-specific development plans, and . Design Solutions Two (2), Eleven (11), Twelve (12), Thirteen (13), and Fourteen (14) require the submittal of additional information by the applicant before staff can make a finding . These findings will be developed conclusively before the next public hearing. History of Economic Development Planning in Orange County • 1975 - "Growth Options for Orange County" 4 125 citizens held a 2-day conference to map out a strategy • 1981 -Land Use Element and Map of Orange County Comprehensive Plan 4 Goal Five -Growth e Goal Six -Economic Development • 1982 - "Policy Memorandum on Recommendations for Economic Development in Orange County" Dr. Ed Bergman led an effort to compile information and make recommendations • 1988 - "Preliminary Economic Development Study" 4 Sarah Rubin prepared 3 reports to start the strategic planning process • 1989 - "Orange County Tomorrow" Economic Development Strategic Plan 4 A 33-citizen Executive Committee prepares a plan which wins NACo awards and directs the EDC work plan • 1994 -Orange County Economic Development District Design Manual e Approved Process and Design • 1995 -The Strategic Plan Update Begins • 2001 -Economic Development District Hillsborough Area Amendments • 2005 -Economic Development Commission Strategic Plan • 2008 -Comprehensive Plan Update including a New Economic Development Element Gross Retail Sales by County (graph) FINANCIAL ANALYSIS • CONDITIONS (Regional): • Second highest per capita incomes • Highest per capita retail sales dollars spent • 53% of retail dollars are spent outside of the county • RESULTS • Residents shop and drive outside of the county to meet their retail demands • Loss of substantial Orange County sales tax revenue • Difficult to `Shop Orange' Expenditures on Retail Goods (graph) • Retail Dollar `Leakage' (STRIPED) • Spent by County Residents in Same County (DARK BLUE) • Purchases by Non-County Residents (LIGHT BLUE) Retail Sales and Income Comparisons (table) Buckhorn Village Potential Tax Benefits • BUCKHORN VILLAGE . 1.14 million s.f. commercial development . $140 million property value and economic development multiplier . $1.3 million in property tax value Currently commercial property tax is minimal • Positive Cost/Benefit Analysis * (See Study) • $5+ Million in Sales Tax Revenues • Will slow the leakage of more than 10 million in sales tax revenues currently flowing outside the county Benefits • As many as 70% of Orange County residents surveyed said they shopped outside of the county over the past 30 days* . Buckhorn Village will provide: . Convenient opportunities to shop locally . Reduced out of county trips and air pollution . Increased local job opportunities . Greater share of tax dollars remaining in County Tax Revenues vs. Expenditures Orange County (graph) • For every $1 of revenue from Residential uses, the County spends $1.31 to provide public services to that sector • Commercial uses generate 4 x's the revenue than they use in public services. Buckhorn Village Location Analysis • CURRENT CONDITIONS: • Two large retail centers in Alamance and Durham County located along the interstate approximately 40 miles apart • Buckhorn Village will be located half-way between these two developments • RESULTS: • Drive time and distance to shopping will be reduced • Most customers will be driving less than 12 miles • More customers driving shorter distances Population inside Mass service areas map 1 (map) Distance to Current Retail Centers (map) Sustainability • Sustainability is a balance of community goals. • Public actions at times have different emphases around the intersection of the three goals. RECOMMENDATIONS • Receive the applications of Planned Development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit • Receive the Zoning Officer's assessment report/recommendation on the applications • Conduct a Public Hearing on the applications • Adjourn the Joint Public Hearing (both boards) to a specific date ,time ,and place (See the Process Timeline Options) • Refer to the Planning Board to allow additional written comments as appropriate prior to the reconvening of the Joint Public Hearing as decided above. Chair Jacobs asked for an update on the water and sewer analysis for the Buckhorn Road area and the zoning outside of the EDD. He asked if this development would affect the zoning outside of this area. Craig Benedict said that there was a presentation on February 19th given to the Board of County Commissioners by the County Engineer on the Northern Buckhorn/Central Efland Sewer Project. This design is complete and going through the review process at the State level. This will go out to bid later this year. The construction is a 12-month timeline. The Board asked the County Engineer and the Manager's office to be diligent in monitoring the timeframe on this project. Regarding the second question, Craig Benedict said that the EDD was designated on the land use map, the zoning map, the water and sewer boundary map, and the growth management map in the 90's and into the 2000's. It is a very specific plan that limits economic development-type activities to particular boundaries. The Orange County land use and zoning maps have been specific over the years with these limitations, and staff has held to these limitations. There will be no spillage of these areas over into adjacent areas. Craig Benedict asked the applicants to state their names and tell the Clerk if they have been sworn in. Staff will write down any questions that the public or boards have and will accept written comments. APPLICANTS: Bill Hutchinson: I represent the applicant. My client has a presentation, so before we get to the formalities associated with the quasi judicial part of it, I would respectfully request that you allow a couple of people speak just to the rezoning request. With that said, I'd like to introduce Ms. Rosemary Waldorf. Rosemary Waldorf: I have been sworn. We really appreciate this opportunity to present to you the details of the proposal for this mixed-use development. Several members of our team area going to be speaking to our proposal this evening as will planning, engineering, and other design experts. We look forward to your questions. I'd like to begin by saying who we are and how we got involved. We are an Orange County team. The partners in Buckhorn Associates are three established local development groups. East/West Partners Management Company, which is represented here by Roger Perry and Ben Perry is a developer of residential and mixed-use projects. Examples include Meadowmont and East 54 in Chapel Hill, Cary Park in Cary, and Davis Park in Research Triangle Park. Tryon Investment Group is another part of Buckhorn Associates, and it is owned and managed by George Horton. George has developed residential and mixed-use projects in Orange County, including Meadowlands and the Gateway Center in Hillsborough. Montgomery Development is a commercial construction firm that has built retail space in 45 states and is owned and managed by John Fugo, who is here this evening. John also has been a partner in the design and construction of The Village Center in Southern Village, and I've worked with John for several years and am working with him on this project. How did we get here? In March of 2007, the County's Economic Development Director, Dianne Reid asked us to consider a destination retail project for the Buckhorn Road EDD. The County had received indications from national destination retail companies that they were very interested in this site. In response to Dianne's inquiry, our group researched the site and we formed Buckhorn Associates, with the intent of creating a predominantly retail development, and gained control of key pieces of property. That makes it sound a lot faster and easier than it was, but that's what we did. We've tried very hard to pursue what we perceive to be the County's goals by proposing a project that is in the EDD. The County went through a very careful public process to establish its desire that development occur here. If successful, I think Buckhorn Village could potentially accomplish one of your economic development goals of adding $125 million worth of commercial space in Orange County and adding new private sector jobs. If successful, we think that Buckhorn Village could provide many new shops and services to Orange County citizens and would help stem that exodus of retail dollars. We'd like to thank Craig Benedict and Mike Harvey for their professionalism. They've helped us get through what is a difficult preparation process. We'd also like to thank the Town of Mebane. At their request, we met with neighbors of the Clearview subdivision and members of the People for Progress. It's important to state, I think, that the success of Buckhorn Village will depend on our ability to attract a variety of stores and restaurants. We would work hard, if approved, to bring national, regional, and local businesses to this center. I know that a lot of people are curious about potential tenants, particularly a potential anchor tenant. There has been lots of speculation, but at this time, we have nothing to report. Our leasing agents can't really conclude any negotiations until we finish the review process with the County. We also view Buckhorn Village as an opportunity for local businesses, and we will recruit existing local businesses that wish to expand and new ones that are considering a store. Thanks again for your time, care, and consideration. I'd like to introduce Jim Parker of Summit Consulting, which is a Hillsborough consulting engineering firm that has taken primary responsibility for preparation of our application. Jim Parker: I have been sworn in. I again also want to commend your Planning staff, which has been very professional, tremendously helpful, and we could not be here without their professional guidance. Summit has also worked closely with Scott Murray, who has sub- consulted on this project, and Scott will be up to speak in a few minutes. He's done a tremendous amount of work on this project as well. The map before you and the slides before you show the three EDDs in the County -one on the eastern side, one on the central part, and one on the western part of the County. As Craig had mentioned earlier, there has been no significant activity in this area since its inception. He showed some maps of the Buckhorn EDD. The PowerPoint presentation is shown below: BUCKHORN VILLAGE Planned Development Economic Development (BUCKHORN VILLAGE PD-ED) Development Team: Buckhorn Road Associates, LLC (East West Partners Management Company, Inc., Montgomery Development Carolina Corp., and Tryon Investment Group, LLC) The purpose of Economic Development Districts is to provide locations for a wide range of light industrial, distribution, flex space, office, service, retail, and residential uses." - Economic Development Districts Design Manual, Sec. 2.1 REZONING REQUEST SUBJECT PROPERTY • Located in the Southeast Quadrant of the Intersection of I - 85 North/ 40 East and Buckhorn Rd. • Existing Location of Jockey Lot !Flea Market • Road Frontage on Buckhorn Road, West Ten Road, and I--85/40 • Approximately 130 Acres to be Rezoned • Requesting Rezoning From EDD to BV-PD-ED JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING PD Districts Shall Be Appropriately located with respect to: 1. Intended Functions 2. Pattern and Timing of Existing or Proposed Development in the Comprehensive Plan 3. Public & Private Facilities Existing or will be available by the time needed for the PD 4. Interstate Highways, Arterial, and Collector Streets 5. A site Suitable for Development in the Manner Proposed w/out Hazards to Persons or Property, on or off the tract 6. Permitting Unified Planning 8 Development -- 7.4 to 7.4.3 Buckhorn Village PD-ED is: 1. In an EDD that was Created for Intended /Proposed Uses and is Adjacent to a Commercial Node 2. Fully Compliant w/ Orange Co. Comprehensive, Land Use Intensity, & Five (5) Year Strategic Plans 3. Within Area Under Orange Co. Water & Sewer Management Planning Boundary Agreement. 4. Adjacent to I-85/40 &Buckhorn Rd. 5. Located in Area Adopted by Orange Co. as "Urbanizing" under the Growth Management System 6. Governed by Proposed Architectural Review Board and Design Elements to Ensure ALL Development will be Consistent and Unified JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING Development Plans to be Considered for Approval When Plans Do Not: 1. Meet Criteria for Site Plan Approval listed in Article 14.3 2. Address Agency Comments Solicited during the Site Plan Review Process; and/or 3. Adhere to the Design Standards applicable within EDD's as set forth in Article 6.29 of the ordinance. i And which Propose a "Design Solution" equal to or better than the Design Manual. -- 7.21 PD-ED :'Due to `Master Plan' Concept and Nature of Project, Development Plans Can Not: 1. Provide Specificity & Detail required in Article 14.3 2. Address Agency Comments because Comments are Limited Until further Detail is provided, Which will come as the Planned Development transitions into Site Plans & Site Development. 3. Adhere to ALL Design standards in the EDD Manual :'And have Proposed /Provided 14 "Design Solutions" from the Existing 90 and currently noted as "Waivers/ Value Substitutes" to Allow for an More Efficient & Higher Quality End Product Within a PD no use shall be permitted except pursuant to a Special Use Permit authorized by the County Commissioners which shall specify the use or uses authorized....." - Orange Co. Zoning Ordinance, Sec 7.2.5 Bill Hutchins, Attorney representative of the applicant, continued at this point. Bill Hutchins: If there's no objection, I'm going to call several witnesses from several professional groups that have helped in this project, ask them to state their names and qualifications, and I'll encourage all of the witnesses to be as brief as you can. If there's no objection, I'd like to call Mr. Tracy Parrott. Tracy Parrott: I'm the Civil Site Manager for Summit Consulting in Hillsborough, and I'm a licensed professional engineer in North Carolina and have roughly 19 years experience in civil engineering and construction, both in the private and public sector. I've worked a number of years with the North Carolina Department of Transportation. I am hear to speak about the special use permit process. As indicated earlier by Mr. Benedict, there are two actions required here, and I'm speaking to the special use permit process. He continued with the PowerPoint. SPECIAL USE PERMIT GENERAL SPECIAL USE REQUIREMENTS -:If Located Where Proposed and Developed According to Plans Submitted, the Special Use Will: 1. Maintain or Promote the Public Health, Safety and General Welfare 2. Maintain or Enhance the Value of Contiguous Property 3. Be in Harmony with the Area in which it is Located and in Compliance w/ Comprehensive Plan -- Special Uses 8.2.1 ::'Buckhorn Village PD-ED, being located in the Buckhorn / I-85 EDD and being Developed by the Proposed Guidelines will: 1. Provide a Safe, Sustainable Development that also Encourages Pedestrian Movement contributing to the Health of the General Public as well as Allow for a Government Services Site to Aid in Safety Needs 2. Maintain or Enhance Adjacent Property Values through the Quality of the Overall Development and the Nature of Tenants Recruited 3. Comply w/ the Comprehensive Plan and All other Plans or Future Visions of Orange Co. for this Area. Will also set the Tone and Standard for Future Development that will Spur from BV-PD-ED. SPECIFIC SPECIAL USE REQUIREMENTS .Before Issuance of Special Use Permit, Specific Standards to Be Addressed Are the Method and Adequacy of 1. Provision of Water, Waste Water, and Solid Waste 2. Police, Fire, and Rescue Squad Protection 3. Vehicular Access to the Site and Traffic Conditions Around the Site 4. Other Use Specific Standards are set forth in Section 8.8 -- Special Uses 8.2.4 a-d Geof Gledhill asked if Tracy Parrott confirmed that he was sworn. Mr. Parrott confirmed that he had been sworn in. -The Buckhorn Village PD-ED, has proposed and as shown on the following slides 1. A Phased Utility Plan to Water and Waste Water Services through the Town of Mebane. Solid Waste will be handled through Orange County and the Solid Waste Ordinance. 2. Fire or Rescue Station SITE may be located w/ in the Development and Police /Sheriff Patrols to be Coordinated Through the Town of Mebane and Orange County. 3. A Phased Traffic Improvement Plan to follow Recommendations of a Final DOT Approved Traffic Impact Analysis by Arcadis. 4. Other standards in Section 8.8.23 -Planned Developments defers to the Requirements of Article 7 -Planned Developments. Mr. Hutchins introduced Bob Miller, who continued with the presentation. Bob Miller: I have been sworn. I'm a licensed professional engineer in the State of North Carolina and have been an environmental consultant for 23 years, 19 of those years here in North Carolina. I have performed an environmental site assessment on the land in question. The site assessment was performed in accordance with the ASTM Standard E 1527-05, which is the accepted industry standard for performing environmental assessments. The environmental assessment included several parts. One was the physical site inspection; one was a review of available computer databases for federal, state, and local environmental regulations. In a phase I environmental assessment, you are looking to identify what are called recognized environmental conditions. These are defined as the presence of a hazardous substance such as petroleum, when conditions indicate an existing release, past release, or the material threat of release of these materials. In performing the environmental investigation, we found none of these things in the property in question. We did find one recognized environmental condition on an adjacent property, which has an existing gasoline station at the intersection of Buckhorn Road and I-85. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT `'Phase I EA per ASTM Standard E 1527-05 Performed by GEL Engineering of NC, Inc. `' 1 Off-Site Recognized Environmental Condition (REC} -Buckhorn Amoco Mr. Hutchins recalled Tracy Parrott, who continued with the presentation on the comprehensive use plan and land use plan. Tracy Parrott: I would like to add to the environmental assessment aspect of this, that in addition to the phase I assessment that was done; Orange County staff did assist with some determinations on the site of present streams and wetlands. There were two buffered streams that fall within the Neuse River Basin identified on Site I parallel to I-85140, and the other stream comes from the corner of the property and extends back to the middle of the property. There was one wetland that was somewhere in this vicinity just off of the existing Jockey lot. COMPREHENSIVE USE PLAN 144 Million SF of Building Footprint LAND USE FOR DISTRICT I LAND USE APPROX. SF/Seats/ BLDG. # Rooms/Units Retail Trade, multiple use 1-2 25,000 sf Retail Trade, free 1-2 160,000 sf standing building Finance/InsurancelReal 0 0 Estate Services -Hotel 0 0 Services - Theater/Entertainment 0 0 Center Services, free standing 0 0 building Residential, multi-family 0 0 LAND USE FOR DISTRICT II LAND USE APPROX. SF/Seats/ Retail Trade, multiple use BLDG. # Rooms/Units Retail Trade, free 2-10 273,000 sf standing building 6-7 68,000 sf Finance/Insurance/Real 1-2 4,000 sf Estate Services -Hotel Services - 1-3 200 rooms Theater/Entertainment Center 1-2 500 seats Services, free standing building 2-3 8,000 sf Residential,multi- family(above other use) 0 200 units LAND USE FOR DISTRICT III LAND USE APPROX. SF/Seats/ BLDG. # Rooms/Units Retail Trade, multiple use 4-6 81,000 sf Retail Trade, free standing 2-8 338 000 sf ' building Finance/Insurance/Real 1-3 8,000 sf Estate Services -Hotel 0 0 Services - Theater/Entertainment 1-2 500 seats Center Services, free standing 2-3 10,000 sf building Residential,multi- 1-6 200 units family(free standing Government - 1 TBD Police/Fire/Emergency ~n~w u.7C rv11V Use Equivalent to Conversion 30,000 sf Retail Factor Condos 200 units .0067 units/ sf retail Theatre 385 seats .0128 seats / sf retail Hotel 160 rooms .0053 rooms/ sf retail Tracy Parrott: It is fully the intent in setting up or identifying these conversion factors to establish a process by which specific land uses can be identified for the site and the conversions be determined for them such that the overall development and makeup of Buckhorn Village will stay consistent with the accesses that are being considered for the site that you will see in the transportation section. A traffic impact analysis has been performed with those land uses. So, by having the conversion factors, it allows for potential changes in land use to keep the development consistent with the analysis that's been done on the traffic side. Mr. Hutchins then introduced Scott Murray, who presented on the landscape, signage, and general design of the project. Scott Murray: I have been sworn. My role in the Buckhorn development is that of landscape architect. I've been practicing landscape architecture for 22 years in the state of North Carolina. I'm also accredited by the U. S. Green Building Council. I've been asked to speak with you on the open space, buffer plan, and landscape standards proposed for Buckhorn Village. The area that comprises Buckhorn Village is identified in the EDD district as primary development area with a maximum of 70% impervious surtace. That is to say that the remaining 30% would either be landscape buffers, open space, and other landscape features or islands. While merely a third of this area is in the perimeter buffers identified in the landscape plan on the wall, the remaining two-thirds would be in various landscape areas throughout the site, and it is anticipated that it would be generally pretty evenly distributed among the three districts. The landscape and buffer plan standards included in the PD text illustrates the buffer areas as well as the NTC buffer along Interstate 85. It is proposed that the buffer along Interstate 85, which is 100 feet in width, would be subject to one of our alternate design solutions that are proposed here. We are proposing up to 60% of a vegetated area would be allowed to be cleared to accommodate the stormwater pond facility that is anticipated for that area. If you notice on the site, the actual grade falls right along the boundary line between the Interstate property and the site. This pond is designed for water quality, infiltration, and also for retention for irrigation needs. Both aquatic vegetation as well as specimen trees and other types of landscaping that is conducive to that type of facility are proposed in that area. This is an important component of our stormwater quality program for Buckhorn Village. The plan on the wall also illustrates the various landscape standards that have been developed to respond to design issues that are unique to the proposed development. Specifically, the entrance drives, parking lot landscaping, building perimeter landscaping, screen-in and service areas, and landscaping for streets along shop-front areas are proposed and are detailed. These landscape standards, along with the proposed maximum floor areas and building heights, are planned as an alternate design solution to the intensity standards that are identified in the EDD Design Manual. The existing intensity standards include the building volume ratio (BVR), the landscape volume ratio (LVR), and also the site volume ratio (SVR). While those are more exacting in their measurement of development bulk, they do not easily lend themselves to measuring development intensity in this stage of master planning, mainly because we don't have the specific locations - dumpsters, building heights, parking lot layouts, things of that nature. These standards are not easily understood in marketplace, primarily because of the complexity of the mathematics that it takes to quantify all of the various ratios. Most importantly, the existing intensity standards do not ensure a more attractive, necessarily more sustainable development. For these reasons, our alternate design solution proposed establishes the maximum floor area for Buckhorn Village of 23 and a maximum building height of six stories. These measures of intensity represent a common language in the marketplace. The following four slides represent various development patterns. Once specific tenants are decided upon and their specific needs emerge, these four development patterns will be woven into a site plan that will be subject to the final site plan approval. Each of these development patterns represents a specific use type or character, and they all fulfill a distinct purpose. He pointed out each pattern -Main Street, Commons, Anchor, and Independent Retail Establishments. Bear in mind that all final site plans would be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director and staff to ensure that the all standards are met. The Buckhorn development proposes to utilize lighting that is in keeping with the standards established in the EDD Design Manual. These include shielding as well as minimum light levels necessary to protect the adjacent properties. We're also committed to working with tenants in reducing lighting levels during non-business hours and utilizing more efficient, more uniform light design patterns. The standards for signage at Buckhorn describe the intent of those established in the EDD Design Manual, while also balancing the needs of retailers, recognizing that the EDD focuses on some retail, but also manufacturing and light industrial. This is more geared towards what the demands and needs are for major retailers. Our alternate design solution identifies five different signage types that are specific to situations, keeping in mind the scale of the surrounding roadways. The comprehensive signage plan displayed on the wall shows 2 locations for primary project identification. Two locations are shown, and one is an alternate. It also shows locations for entry portals as well as direction signage within the project. Mr. Hutchins called Tyson Graves to speak about transportation. Tyson Graves: I have been sworn in. I'm a registered professional engineer in the state of North Carolina, and have been doing traffic engineering for 18 years. I work with Arcadis. Basically, the traffic impact study was to be done at certain standards, and that means that we need to achieve a level of service C for the development in order to keep the traffic flowing. In order to do that, a widening would need to be done on the bridge at Buckhorn Road over I-85. There would need to be an auxiliary lane added from the weigh stations east of the interchange all the way to Buckhorn Road's on-ramp, just as it is now on the other side of I-85. There would be three entrances to the development just south of the interchange. The first one is a right in/right out, the second is the main entrance, which would be full access, and the third one is a right out/left out. At West Ten Road, there would be another main entrance. Signals would be added to the ramps on both the north and south side of I-85, a signal would be added to the main entrance, and at West Ten Road. Bill Hutchins: At this time, I would like to enter into the record a letter from Robert Wilson, City Manager of the City of Mebane, dated today, which provides some information as to the utility service allocation, etc. This letter is shown below. February 25, 2008 Mr. Craig Benedict, Director of Planning Orange County 306-F Revere Rd. P. O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Subject: Buckhorn Village Dear Mr. Benedict: As requested, we are pleased to provide the following information in regard to the subject project: 0. Utility Service Agreement between Mebane and Orange County By Agreement dated March 1, 2004, the City of Mebane and Orange County entered into a Utility Service Agreement providing for the extension of water and sewer service to -85/Buckhorn Rd. Economic Development District. The agreement indicates that water and sewer extensions will be made at the expense of Orange County with approvals by the City of Mebane. The agreement has worked successfully with the recent extension of water and sewer service to the new Gravelly School on West Ten Road. 1. Allocation and treatment capacity The City of Mebane has a 2.5 MGD wastewater treatment plant (with existing flows in the 1.0 MGD range) and our plant has capacity available for approved users. Based on our understanding of the Gravelly School project, the city approved a design flow of 100,000 gallons per day (average flow) when the Gravelly pump station was designed for that service area. The school is currently only using approximately 3,000 gallons per day; therefore, the Gravelly pump station appears to have sufficient capacity available to accommodate the first phase of the project. The project engineer has provided some preliminary estimates that indicate the project may generate approximately 200,000 gallons per day at full project buildout; therefore, it appears that future upgrades will be needed to the infrastructure to accept the buildout flows. In terms of water availability, the City has a 4.0 MGD allocation in the Graham/Mebane water plant and our usage currently averages 1.1 MGD. The project engineer has provided preliminary water usage required for fire flows, and it appears that some pipe line extensions will be needed to accommodate these estimated fire flows. 2. Utility Extension Agreement Based on the preliminary engineering information provided by the project engineer, it appears that some utility extensions and system upgrades will be needed to serve this project. The City of Mebane looks forward to working with Orange County in developing a Utility Extension Agreement to address the infrastructure needs in this area should this project move forward. Should you have any questions concerning these issues, please contact me at 919-563-5901 Sincerely, Robert L. Wilson, City Manager Bill Hutchins called Jim Parker to provide testimony regarding the utility plan. Jim Parker: I'm with Summit Consulting, and I have been sworn. I'm a professional engineer in North Carolina, with 25 years experience. Thirteen of those were with NCDOT. The remainder has been private industry. I want to go back to the transportation plan. To piggyback on what Tyson testified to, the internal circulation of the Buckhorn development is...he pointed this out on the presentation. Again, sensitivity would be given to users and tenants. In relation to the testimony you've heard from Scott in regards to the different areas and the different looks and feel, those internal drives and roads may be somewhat flexible, but most importantly is all of the access points along Buckhorn Road and along West Ten Road that Tyson testified to will remain consistent, therefore remaining consistent with the TIA that has been submitted. In addition to that, there are bus drop-off locations identified inside the project, and we welcome input from committees or groups that are working with mass transit plans within the area to try and coordinate with those strategic plans. This is the main entrance here, this is a full access entrance -lefts in and out and rights in and out - it is signalized, and it will be the main artery into the development. From that point, we would anticipate that there will be a left or right movement into District II or District III. Certainly, the size of this main road in is more than likely as depicted in the sections that are in your report, afour-lane section with a median, bike lanes, and crossovers. At some point that will probably be narrowed down to a two-lane facility as it reaches the back. We've shown a proposed stub-out and connectivity to the next parcel there at the easternmost point of the project. The drive just to the north of the main entrance at Buckhorn is a right in/right out. We envision that there would be a divided median on Buckhorn Road for some distance from the interchange. That right in/right out driveway will obviously only allow the outward movement to the north or an inward to the site coming from the south. We anticipate connectivity or alignment in some fashion with the Petro driveways, which we will investigate as we go forward. The southernmost entrance is, like Tyson indicated earlier, left outright out and potentially just a right in, no left in. That also is probably athree-lane section, which is in your report. As far as further circulation, we're just showing driveways and streets that somewhat traverse throughout each district to provide access. Those are things that I alluded to earlier that may or may not be exactly in the same location as the site plan. UTILITY PLAN Mr. Hutchins introduced the letter from the City of Mebane earlier. We met with the City of Mebane as well as County staff and the County Engineer. As I alluded to earlier, the master plan for water and sewer infrastructure in this area, we are complying with the future buildout of that infrastructure. We have a phased utility plan in respect to the potentially phased development, which means that we will step into the full buildout of the water and sewer. We will initially probably work off a temporary pump station for up to about 165-185,000 square feet. That temporary pump station would pump to an outfall just west of Buckhorn Road. At some point in time after that, upon development of the next stages, we would install the ten-inch gravity main that crosses from the Buckhorn property cross-country to the Gravelly School pump station. That is in compliance with the master plan that is referred to in the design manual. That ten-inch line will be a gravity line that wilt serve the entire buildout of Buckhorn Village. The Gravelly pump station will have moderate upgrades to allow that station to facilitate what we anticipate being 180,000 to 200,000 gallons per day of wastewater. That full capacity will be pumped up an existing six-inch force main that is along West Ten Road at this point in time, and will be further extended from West Ten/Buckhorn to a regional pump station that is just west of the site on Bowman Road. The City of Mebane is, I believe, finishing that project within the next month or so. It is a large regional pump station that would handle this and much more capacity. Water line service for predominantly fire flow is the problem with the site. We need to have probably around 2,500 gallons per minute for fire flow service. In discussion with Daryl Russell and the City of Mebane, we will extend an approximately 16-inch water line from the northern side of I-85 coming from the Washington Street area, and it will be taken down Buckhorn Road, crossing over I-85, and connecting in to an existing 12-inch line just adjacent to the site. That should provide sufficient fire flow and water capacity. Mr. Hutchins called Roger Perry to provide testimony on sustainability, site selection, etc. Roger Perry: I'm with East West Partners, I have been in Orange County approximately 25 years. I have been sworn in. He continued with the presentation as shown below. SUSTAINABILITY • Site Selection & Design • Water Efficiency • Energy and Atmosphere • Materials and Resources • Indoor Environmental Quality Site Selection and Design • Site Designated as Economic Development District • Previously Developed Site (flea market & farmed timber) • Multi-Use Development Program reduces trips • Provide Carpool/Vanpool Information (kiosk, bulletins, etc.) • Provide Bus Loading Stations and Bus Route Information • Comply with EPA and NPDES Standards for Pollutant Discharge (including bio-swales for infiltration, etc.) • Storm Water Retention for BOTH 1 yr. and 2yr. Design • Plan for "Walkability" in Site Design Water Efficiency • Plan for Water Efficient Landscaping • Use ONLY Reclaimed Stormwater for Irrigation • Use Low Flow Water Fixtures • Make available Reclaimed Stormwater for Tenants HVAC Needs Energy ~ Atmosphere • Reducing Energy Needs by Use of Day-Lighting in Architectural Design • Engage in 2yr. Contract for 35% of Energy from Renewable Sources • Work with Tenants on Requiring • Commissioning of Building Energy • Enhanced Energy Performance • Refrigerant Management • Use High Reflective Roofing Materials in Architectural Design Materials 8~ Resources • Comply with Orange County Solid Waste Management to Provide a Waste Stream Audit • Provide easily Accessible Areas for Recycling & Waste Collection • Include Individual Waste and Recycling Collection Points for Use by Patrons • Work in Collaboration with Orange County in helping Tenants on Diverting Construction Waste Indoor Environmental Quality • Work with Tenants on Meeting Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Standards • Work with Tenants on the Use of LOW VOC Emitting Adhesives, Paints, and Other Construction Materials o Other • Retain LEED Accredited Professional on Development Team FINANCIAL IMPACT INFORMATION Projected Annual Revenue to Orange County Upon Project Completion $1.3 million in Ad Valorem Taxes $100,000 in Lodging Fees $6 Million in Retail Sales Taxes Roger Perry: There are 84,000 cars going up and down this road (I-85) per day. This will be a method for Orange County to, without degradation to the rest of the County, to capture those people, bring them into an economic development district in Orange County, and cajole them and convince them to spend money. In terms of social equity, we will probably create somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000-1,500 jobs during the construction period, and then ongoing permanent jobs within the community of approximately 1,500-2,000. Bill Hutchins called George Horton to provide a summary of the project. George Horton: I have been sworn in. I thank you again for your time and careful attention to this presentation tonight. I just have a few remarks. We made every effort in our proposal to respond to the economic development goals of Orange County. We believe those are reasonable goals and we are pleased to be part of the public input process, helping to alter what has historically been unfavorable ratios of residential to commercial properties in Orange County. As you have heard tonight, we propose to go beyond Orange County's Economic Development District standards, with a number of design solutions that would create a better looking, better functioning, and more attractive mixed-use community. We want a walkable retail and entertainment district with a pleasant and safe atmosphere both day and night. We are committed to a project of exceptional quality in land planning, architecture, signage, landscaping, and street-scaping. We are committed to the aggressive pursuit of sustainable goals, sharing parking and other strategies to reduce impervious surfaces; water conservation and reuse; use of daylighting; energy efficient designs; and green building materials. Finally, I want to emphasize how positive I am about this development team. We have good chemistry and complimentary ability.. We:all have been part of the landscape of Orange County for many, many years. This is a powerful motivation for us to make Buckhorn Village a great destination location, and a development that we will set high standards for future developments to come. Bill Hutchins: In closing, I hope and think that we have provided evidence sufficient to allow the issuance of the SUP. Craig Benedict said that the County Commissioners could ask questions of the applicants or staff, or turn it over to the public for comments and questions. Chair Jacobs said that he consulted with the attorney about what is desirable for the Board of County Commissioners to do now, since there are 39 people signed up to speak. Geof Gledhill said that if the staff recommendation is followed, this matter will not be concluded tonight, and thus the County Commissioners can hear public comment tonight and then save the Board of County Commissioners' comments to the next meeting. The Board can also ask questions of the developer. The Board agreed to hear from the public and then reconvene at a later date for discussion. There will not be a recommendation from the Planning Board until the Board of County Commissioners has had a chance to discuss this matter. Bill Hutchins asked how they would know if the speakers are providing comments on the SUP or on the legislative portion of this. Geof Gledhill said that each person could state their intention. If they are providing comments on the legislative portion of this, then they will have to be sworn in. Chair Jacobs said that it would be easier to go ahead and swear in everyone that wants to speak. Bill Hutchins said that he would like to provide cross-examination of the witnesses on the legislative portion. Public Comment: Jack Adams: I have been sworn in. I am on the Board of Directors on the Efland Fire Department, and have been a volunteer firefighter for 24 years, and have served as Captain and Assistant Chief of the department. I am now the Safety Officer. While the growth of new business in the economic development zone in Efland balances out the County's tax load between residential and businesses, the Efland Fire Department would like to make the Commissioners aware of some of the ramifications of these decisions. In the past decade, the City of Mebane has annexed the majority of the businesses in the Efland Fire Tax District. The results of this are that the fire department is being funded primarily by the fire tax levied on the homeowners. So while these developments are benefiting the County's tax base, Efland residents will have to pay more taxes for fire protection. Since the businesses in the economic development zone are in the City of Mebane, the response that Efland provides to these areas is one engine and two volunteer firemen. We would like the County to be aware of this, and its impact on including business through this area. The Efland Fire Department has had a contract with the City of Mebane where we pay Mebane to respond to calls in our tax district. They respond in these areas where they would have a quicker response time. The cost of this contract has gone up every time it has been brought up for renewal. This puts a further strain on our budget. We would like the opportunity to work with the County and Mebane on an interlocal agreement that balances out local tax revenues and the County's need for economic development. Our new substation near Buckhorn Road changes our response time and would factor into these discussions. Efland has enjoyed a big surge in houses over the last decade because it is such an affordable area. Many firefighters who work in municipalities elsewhere in the County live in Efland.. It is our hope that as the economic development zone grows, that the Efland Fire Department can be included in the process to avoid having-the homeowners bear a disproportionate amount of the burden in this growth. Norman Umstead: I have been sworn in. I am the Pastor of Mt. Moriah Missionary Baptist Church located on Buckhorn Road, and I also Chair the People for Progress. First, I'd like to say that we are happy to hear that the water and sewer project is gaining some attention again. It certainly has been a long process and we are happy to hear that something is being done. Secondly, I've heard from many citizens in our area who are happy about the idea of being able to shop close to home. But our churches, we have two churches located on Buckhorn Road, and we are not so happy or so thrilled about the idea of invading some of our churches' properties -maybe siphoned away in order to accommodate the traffic that this particular project is going to bring. One church in particular is situated very close to Buckhorn Road, and the traffic analysis says that they are going to widen Buckhorn, but he didn't say how far up Buckhorn, nor did he include Highway 70, or I didn't hear Highway 70 mentioned, which is also going to have an impact. Currently, we face some problems in our church on Sunday mornings with our members who live in the Graham area or Mebane area who travel Interstate 85 going in the northern direction, being able to get off the interstate and make a left turn onto Buckhorn Road because of the existing traffic there already. And then we have people who are coming south, going toward Burlington, who are getting off the interstate, coming up and turning around in our church's parking lot, in order to get back in line to go back toward the flea market. And we have had some of our members pause to be hit in the parking lot because some people are in such a haste to get back in line. I think this project would be a benefit to Orange County, but we are concerned about the churches and roads. Naola Fearrington: 1 have been sworn in. I live at 710 Buckhorn Road. I'm a member of People for Progress. The question that I have, at our last People for Progress meeting, we had several questions, and I think you answered two of those in the presentations that were made tonight. But there's one thing that, in addition to what Rev. Umstead has said, the other thing that concerns us, in our area, the residents are concerned about property taxes -tax values, County tax increases, and the possibility of Mebane City taxes if they are annexed. Chair Jacobs: Just so you know, the Northern Buckhorn/Central Efland Sewer project will go to public hearing in this room on April 1St David Permar: I have been sworn. I'm an attorney from Raleigh. I'm here representing McLeod Oil Company. McLeod Oil Company operates the BP Buckhorn station right at the southeast corner of this interchange. McLeod is headquartered in Mebane, it is a petroleum marketing and distribution company, it has been in existence since the 1940's. The Thompkins family has owned and operated it since the 1970's. It has approximately 70 employees. It distributes and sells petroleum products to the retail public through approximately 30-40 outlets in the central Piedmont area of North Carolina. They have owned and operated what !call the Buckhorn BP station since the 1980's. It is one of McLeod's best outlets in terms of volume. The retail gasoline business is highly competitive. Price is an important factor. Higher volumes mean lower margins and lower prices. But access in and out of a station is even more important than price -ease of access in and ease of access out. At the Buckhorn BP, 99% of the business comes right off the interstate and returns immediately to the interstate. All of those customers must make a left turn into the Buckhorn BP. Currently, that left turn is very easily accommodated, it's good access in and it's good access out. If, however, our customers and the motoring public lose the ability to make a left turn into that site, it will be devastating to the Buckhorn BP business. It is no exaggeration to expect a loss of 50% in sales if that were to occur. Traffic impact analysis indicates that Buckhorn Road would need to be expanded to four lanes, with a turn lane in the center. The second concern for us is whether or not additional rights-of-way will need to be taken in order to accommodate the four lanes plus the turn lane. I urge you not to take any additional right-of-way from the Buckhorn BP site. If very little additional right-of-way being taken would require that the pump islands be moved, if the pump islands are moved, the entire UST system must be replaced, and if you're going through all of that, you're likely going to have to replace everything on the site. That becomes a very expensive process. I'm really sure that the developer or the Department of Transportation doesn't want to take on that expense. I urge you to do two~things. First, keep the current traffic patterns on the site and keep the left turn into the BP site open. Second, keep all of the improvements in the current right-of-way. If all of that can be accomplished, we have no objection to this proposed development. We look forward to working with the DOT, the developer, and Orange County to see if we can accomplish all of our goals and let the project move forward. Michael Collins: He gave his handout to the Clerk. I have been sworn. Tonight I'm speaking on behalf of the Intercity Visit Sustainability Workgroup. We are a group of concerned citizens that grew out of meetings with progressive community groups and leaders during the Chamber of Commerce's trip to Madison, WI in the fall of 2006. We have remained active since then in an effort to find better ways to implement the concept of economic sustainability at the local level. Our research and activities have convinced us that the key to a thriving and sustainable local economy is to focus economic development efforts on supporting local business, entrepreneurship, and a culture of "think local first." This idea was recently captured by Senate candidate Jim Neal. Neal wrote about the importance "... of creating not just jobs, but careers. Not just jobs, but jobs that pay good wages. Not just jobs, but jobs that add value. In short, quality, sustainable jobs that are grounded in entrepreneurship. North Carolina's future depends on building and enabling `homegrown wealth': businesses formed by entrepreneurs in the State which create both lasting economic wealth and employment opportunities." What's true for the state is just as true for Orange County. In last week's issue of Newsweek, Daniel Gross reported on the extreme glut in retail space across the country. Numerous chains and big-box retailers are closing hundreds of storefronts -with all the associated effects on local employment. Even if this development is able to bring in large retailers from outside, the jobs created are likely to be low-wage and ephemeral. Hardly a recipe for sustainability. If that is the case, then the proposed development for the Buckhorn Road site is 180 in the wrong direction. Here in Orange County, we are used to seeing our local governments lead, not follow. We urge the County to insist on a project that is worthy of the future, not a blast from the past. A mixed-use, transit-friendly development instead of just another strip mall. A home to locally-based entrepreneurs and forward-thinking residents and business owners, not to exploitative outside retailers. A project that makes a statement about where Orange County's priorities lie, and resists the temptation to follow the retail gold which is, as James Carnahan recently pointed out in the Chapel Hill News, more often than not, Fool's Gold. Last time I looked, the unemployment rate for Orange County was well below the state and national average. This would seem to indicate that the issue to address regarding jobs in Orange County is quality, not quantity. So, if this development does proceed, we propose the following stipulations be attached to it: 1. That the county requires a commitment to bring in tenants who pay living wages and whose employees will not create a burden for county services because of inadequate employee pay and/or benefits.. 1. That the county include a `local first' mandate stipulating a specific and aggressive level of local tenancy and ownership. 2. That the county establishes and provides incentives for local entrepreneurs to encourage the rise of locally-owned businesses, for exmple in the form of a revolving loan fund. 3. That the county seek, to the extent feasible, to have the development adhere to Orange County's new Comprehensive Plan, or, failing that, to adhere to specific principles of sustainability as agreed on in the near term by the county's boards and commissions. A project that does nothing but add to our environmental burden, increase traffic, and create low-wage jobs, all in the name of sales tax revenues that evaporate in additional public service costs, is not worth having in Orange County. If this project is just to be Orange County's version of our neighbors' shopping malls, then we urge you to reject this proposal and to join the growing number of citizens who understand that a sustainable economy is one moored in the local community and one that starts from the perspective of "think local first." Remarks prepared by Mike Collins, 967-4119, mmcc.collinsCa)_mindspring.com Anthony Corbett: I do confirm that I have been sworn. I am a property owner of 104 Frazier Road in Mebane, N. C. 27302. I would like to have some questions addressed and answered hopefully at this meeting. If this application is approved, what are the expected and/or desired timeline and target dates for start and completion of the proposed Buckhorn Village development and the East mixed use development at the railroad track location? If the quasi- judicial application is approved and the existing residents experience the traffic patterns that would affect them adversely, who would pay for the traffic engineer? I have heard that a traffic engineer would have to be paid by the residents. It was my understanding that the traffic engineer would have to be paid by a resident to survey the traffic, if the traffic was affecting the public adversely. So, who would have to pay for that? I also heard something in regards to the woodlands. What woodlands do you plan to preserve in the proposed Buckhorn Road phase I and subsequent commercial developments. There are woodlands located on the east side of Buckhorn Village. Could I get the specific locations of district I, II, and III? We had a map up there, but I did not see the specific locations of the proposed districts. Chair Jacobs: We can provide a map as part of the public record. The plan also has, as I recall, the instances regarding what woodlands are going to be protected. I think the Planning Director said that in order to provide credible evidence on the adverse impact of traffic, that one (a community or a person) has to hire a traffic engineer after the project is done, and then we have to work with the NCDOT. As far as the timeline, I don't know that anybody has addressed that, but the developer could just state what the timeline is projected for the different phases. John Fugo: I have been sworn and I am one of the development partners. The timeline as we have it now is groundbreaking mid-2010, and completion 4'/z to 5 years later. That is about as specific as we can get at this time. Debra Elmore: I have been sworn in. {t seems that numbers are very important to this committee and to everybody on the Planning Baard and this organization. I just wanted to state that I have been living in Orange County 41 years, and have been living on the property that I now live on, which is at 1015 Buckhorn Road, a stone's throw from this development. This has not been a consideration because we are further down the road from the development. I would have to go past the development to get to my home. I've lived in the home where I'm at right now for 41 years. It was passed down to me from my mother and it was bought by my grandmother in 1938 from, ironically Orange County Board of Education. This development is going to be detrimental to my property. I know that my taxes are going to go through the roof when this development goes in beside my property. Guess what, nobody's going to want to buy my land because it's right beside a mall. I just want this Commission to know that this township where we're located has always been like the stepchild of Orange County because we don't really belong to Mebane, we're in Orange County, so all of a sudden all of these developers are coming in and now we're the golden child of the County because we live in the I-85 corridor. This just upsets me. I want everyone on this committee to know that people's lives are going to change in that community, not just on that corner, but ones that live down the road, on the other side of the road, up the road, and they're all going to change. And I just want you to keep that in consideration when making these decisions. James Carnahan: I have been sworn in. I'm a resident of Carrboro and a designer. I'm going to briefly talk about some more lengthy comments and analysis, and I'm going to give to you two documents. The first one is an Op Ad written and endorsed by the Board of Directors of The Village Project, anon-profit in Carrboro, North Carolina. The remainder of material is entitled, "Assessing Buckhorn Village in the Context of Global Warming." Basically, this is asking you all first to find out, either from staff or from the applicant what will be the vehicle miles traveled, what will be the carbon emissions impact of this project. I think that is fairly easy to determine with GIS and other data. The applicant estimates something like 46,000 daily trips in and out of this development. We are being asked to consider and build this kind of a project that would be primarily automobile dependent, because we don't have any public transportation down by I-85, at a time when the message about global warming and climate change is becoming more and more ominous. So, the bulk of the material that I have prepared here, first of all talks about some of the consequences of global warming, and second, talks about the fact that many of these consequences are accelerating to the extent that James Hanson, who is the NASA scientist who first started talking about wanting to establish an upper limit for concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, recently wrote that the limit needs to be reduced to 350 parts per million. We are already at 380 parts per million. We need to have this information A and B. I think it is a concern that we're being asked to approve this based on a pretty outdated comprehensive plan, very outdated guidelines for the economic development districts, and also we have not completed the carbon inventory for the County much less established guidelines and standards for achieving some kind of carbon reduction in the County. Given the gravity of what former U. S. Vice President AI Gore calls the Global Climate Emergency, and given that the County's planning ordinances do not now effectively address the urgent need to reduce CO2 emissions, approval of the Buckhorn Village application at this time is not in the County's interest. The accumulation of knowledge about CO2 and climate change in conjunction with the significant increase in CO2 that Buckhorn Village would produce indicates that this project would pose a threat to the health, safety, and welfare to the people of Orange County and beyond." Glendel Stephenson (Mayor of Mebane): I have been sworn in. I am here tonight to support the proposal that was presented by your applicant concerning the property at the Buckhorn location. About two and a half or three years ago, the officials of the City of Mebane and Orange County met to talk about the need to supply water and sewer for the new Gravelly Hill Middle School that needed to be built in western Orange County. The City agreed to do that, and at that particular time, we also talked about what might take place over the next number of years with the properties on both sides of the interstate, particularly, that property that was occupied by the Jockey Lot. You asked us at that time if we could also make an allocation of water and sewer in each of those properties and we agreed to do that. I think we gave you a letter along that line. In the course of the conversation there, we said that this is not an open- ended deal, but a limited amount of uses that you can get from the City of Mebane, but it was far in excess of anything that's been described here tonight that would be needed on this development. We also said in our conversation, and I'd like to emphasize a few things, that the tenants going into that area would not be large users, and we're talking about industrial type users, of either water or sewage. That they would provide good employment opportunities, and we've heard something about the number of employees that might be involved here. That they would be a good addition to the tax bases of both Orange County and Mebane. In addition to that, that any development that takes place there should be to the benefit of the surrounding neighborhood. We have been approached by a number of people who live along Buckhorn about their septic tank problems and other things and asking that we provide some help, and that was part of the conversation we had with the Orange County officials. Mebane has provided water and sewage for Gravelly Hill and we are now ready to provide both of those services to the area. We are and we have been making an investment in the Southeast Pump Station just off Mebane-Oaks Road. I just spoke to our City Manager, and he tells me that it's going to have a capacity of a million gallons, far larger than anything needed here. We anticipate that this is going to be large enough to handle all future development between Mebane-Oaks and Buckhorn Road, as it might development over the next 20 years or so. We are in a position to do that, and we do have adequate facilities and adequate capacity to take care of both of those needs. I think that this presentation is one of the most comprehensive that I've ever heard in the time that I have served as Mayor. I would urge the committee, and I know this is a volatile situation that you're into, and it's not going to be decided tonight; but I would urge both of the committees to approve the request and that you do all you can to assist in the implementation of the project. We feel in our direction that it's a good thing. I think it's going to be good for the neighborhood, I think it's going to be good for both communities and both counties. I look forward to being one of the customers in that part of the County. I offer my support for the applicant tonight. Allan Rosen: I affirm that I have been sworn in. I want to start off by saying, generally speaking, that I am definitely in favor of economic development. As a taxpayer in Orange County since 1994, I think it's fair to say that the timeline that Craig Benedict presented with this being an economic development district in 1994, a water and sewer agreement in 2001, I think it's fair to say that this project is at least seven years too late, perhaps more than that. If it does happen to go forward, I hope the County officials will be modest in their taking credit for it, because it's really been a long time coming. I also think the elected officials need to show some leadership to build some bridges with the adjacent community members. I think it's good that the applicant definitely has the roots, I think that's to their credit; I think the work that they have done definitely speaks well of their efforts, probably better than the industry standard, although it will be a challenge. I would like to mention tonight, that if it does go forward, I have particular concerns with the application. One, with respect to the social equity dimension of sustainability. You know, 1.14 million square feet of non-residential space and 200 residential units that seem to me to be a pretty unsustainable ratio. I don't know if it is on this 140-acre parcel or adjacent parcels, but speaking as a former member of the General Housing Advisory Board, I think additional housing would be good and would certainly make a more sustainable project. Also, to the extent that before the property ages out, commercially speaking, which a lot of developments eventually do, if climate change issues really impact our land use patterns, if the cost of fuel really impacts our land use patterns, I think it should be incumbent upon the applicant during this approval stage to submit sort of a plan B site plan, so that if the property needs to be re-zoned, due to sort of these outside factors, which really call for concentrated development, there should be an alternative site plan that emphasizes a definite pedestrian- friendly street grid; vertically mixed use buildings, including residential; the ability to infill the currently planned parking lots with buildings in a way that integrate with apedestrian-friendly street grid; the minimization of wide roads. Those are my concerns and I certainly think that as the County moves forward with the comprehensive plan update that there will be a synergistic impact between this project and the comprehensive plan update, particularly with respect to bringing the aspect of housing into the sustainability equation. Thank you. Sally Goerner: I have been sworn in. I'm an engineer and a systems theorist and a 25-year resident of Orange County. I'm also the Director of the Integral Science Institute, an international scientific consulting firm. I just spent six years researching and writing a book on the causes of long-term economic vitality and its implications for current economic development theory and what the alternatives are. I can shorten my speech to say that I agree wholeheartedly with what Mike Collins said earlier. So a lot of what I will say is in support of many of the kinds of things that he was talking about in terms of the benefits of developing local economies as opposed to importing big guys. I was deeply impressed by the quality of your presentation, particularly along the sustainability lines; I think his four suggestions or modifications to encourage the local businesses would make a big difference. I previously submitted a document that has a summary of my concerns, plus some of the evidence. So hope that will get into your packet. I would say that I see Buckhorn as an important issue because it highlights the tough choices we're facing as how to best build long-term economic vitality for all regions of Orange County and all its constituencies, both rural and town. The question for me is less how many shoppers are we going to get into Orange County, but how many kinds of things is Orange County going to be producing, what kind of services we're going to be adding that we can sell to other people and exchange among ourselves. I am very impressed with how thoughtfully this project has been developed and researched, but I also have to say that, unfortunately, there is good reason to believe that this research is based on an economic development model that is in the process of failing nationally and globally, and certainly at locations across this country. I see it as a terrible mistake to try to apply it here, especially in light of the increasing problems of peak oil, of drought, and of global warming. So, the evidence, as I see it, suggests that Buckhorn Village is likely to do more economic harm than good. Current economic theory places a huge emphasis on GDP growth and the large corporation and development projects that increase it most. About 30 years ago this emphasis spawned an economic development strategy that has been irreverently named "The Big Game Hunting Project." That is, using incentives to lure big manufacturers, retailers, and other large corporations, which officials hope will bring in jobs and tax revenues. Unfortunately, while this strategy may increase tax revenues in the short-term, research shows that it erodes the surrounding local economic networks, siphons away local dollars, and costs more in tax dollars infrastructure overhead, increased pollution, and lost jobs than the local businesses that it destroys. Unless we can make allowances for creating local enterprise networks I suspect that Buckhorn is less an advantage than a detriment. Bill Bunch: I have been sworn in. I'm here tonight as a resident of Orange County and also as a Certified Public Accountant and a local business owner. I'm also Chair of the Chapel Hill- Carrboro Chamber of Commerce. I'd like to applaud the Commissioners for your foresight in putting an economic development district right beside a major transportation artery many years ago. The projected sales tax revenue, $5 or $6 million, from this project will materially increase the County sales tax base. And the projected $125 million in commercial property value will materially increase the projected property tax revenue. These funds can be used to pay for school teachers. There is significant pressure from the two school boards for the County to fund schools at a regional level, and this project would bring more revenue that would fund a lot of school teachers. We're using local developers, and I applaud Buckhorn Associates. The project is being developed by some of the best and brightest developers in the area who are sensitive to the culture and desires of the citizens, they have experience doing very high-quality mixed-use projects. This isn't outside developers coming into town, these are our local Orange County developers, and we support that. We encourage proactive collaboration with the County and also the local neighbors -with Efland, with Mebane, with the Town of Chapel Hill, with Carrboro, with Hillsborough, the Hillsborough Chamber of Commerce, and the Chapel Hill- Carrboro Chamber of Commerce. We think that if we work together and collaborate, we can attract the type of local business that will be the right mix for our community. On behalf of the 950 members of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, we enthusiastically endorse this project. Jim Stock: I have been sworn in. I am a Carrboro resident. I own a small business that would in all likelihood benefit financially from alarge-scale commercial development at Buckhorn, yet I am almost appalled that the vision for the future of Orange County is a mall. This is not why we live in Orange County. We would live in Charlotte or Cary, and I just think that there is such a lack of leadership that people are being led by their noses by developers who are telling us that big box stores for the future. They're already the past, they're already failed, they're already abandoned and empty and scars on the landscape. I just think that, with more Ph. D's per square foot than you can shake a stick at, this County ought to be able to come up with something beneficial to the future. He said big boxes are part of history and he said this county ought to come up with something that is beneficial for the future. I just don't think we're trying. I think the sales tax revenue is great, but it's going to cost a lot of money. I read in the paper today, $314,000 for three firemen in Carrboro for three years. That's not trucks, that's not a building, that's not equipment. And three firemen aren't going to do it; I believe the first gentleman that spoke was a fireman. My father always told me, there's two kinds of wealth in the world -what you can make and what you can dig out of the ground. This spends wealth rather than produces wealth. It spends wealth on credit cards. We're already hopelessly indebted in this country. It produces jobs that are low-wage. I don't want my child cooking burgers at Red Robin. With all the Ph. D's here, I know we can find something better. I'm trying to think of ideas, I'm a college dropout, I'm a small business guy, but I know that there's going to be a lot of money, especially if the Democrats win, for green technologies. The people that thought of RTP could have put a mall there. Why can't Orange County be known for something, why can't we create a green technology center that trains new trades people that creates new jobs and new technologies. I just think it's very short-sighted, and we have enough malls. There's one 17 miles that way and 20 miles that way. That's all the shopping I need to do, and I just think it's short-sighted. We can say no to this, I think. I have not paid enough attention to local politics, but I'm going to start counting who votes for what, and elections are close by. I think that people are concerned about this as whether this is the direction we want the County to go. Anita Badrock: I have been sworn in. I currently serve as the Chairman of the Economic Development Committee for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, and I also serve on the citizen's advisory committee for the Orange County Economic Development Commission, which is not taking a position tonight on this particular project. I would like to come to you as a 30-year resident of Orange County, as a small business owner, who has owned a small, local business in Orange County for a long time, and as a partial owner of another business, to encourage you to support this project for a couple of reasons. First of all, I know that for the last 15 years, we've had that economic development district identified through a process that involved a lot of public input, a lot of hearings around the area, and we came up with three economic development districts. But I didn't know until I came tonight that we've actually been looking at that particular site for economic development for 25 years. So we have for a long time been waiting for the right thing to go into this district. The current proposal proposes 130 acres out of a 900-acre piece of land for development to fill what we have identified as a gap in Orange County, which is retail services. The stuff that your own staff showed you tonight showed you clearly that we have retail leakage that's going into other counties. Our residents are spending money elsewhere, and I'd like to see them spend that money here, because I'd like to see those voluntary tax contributions go to give my son's teachers a raise. And I'd like to see it used for Sheriff's Deputies and for emergency personnel, and to provide and mental health services to residents who need it. It is consistent with the County's Economic Development Strategic Plan in terms of promoting non-residential development for the taxbase. It is part of the identified gap, as I mentioned earlier, and most importantly, I think this project allows for the rest of that property to be considered for other uses down the road. As a local business owner, I know that my business, when I've had a retail outlet, has done better when good, high-quality regional and national retail has been around it. So, I think that the developers have stated that that's their goal. We're fortunate that these are not people that we've never seen or heard of before, these are people who live and work in Orange County, and have done other developments in Orange County, and we see that in the way that they lease and use their property that that's what they're trying to achieve is a mix of national, local, and regional business owners. I hope that you will consider this as part of a jumpstart of an overall economic development strategy for Orange County. Thank you. Ben Lloyd: I have been sworn in. I'm a longtime resident of Efland. In 1981 Ken Thompson came to Orange County as the County Manager. He didn't have enough money to pay the bills from July to December when the new tax money came in. He created what he referred to as an 11-point plan, which was nothing more than to rob Peter to pay Paul. He kept moving money around and kept us afloat. The following year, I became a member of that Board of County Commissioners. We were in the same predicament. I became partially responsible to provide for the needs of Orange County. Relative to this, I contacted the North Carolina Department of Commerce. Three of them visited with me, one being their chief environmentalist. I rode them from Durham County to Alamance County, up and down 70, 85, came back and sat down and they looked at me and told me that I didn't need to show them anything. "With this US 70/Southern Railway/Interstate 85 corridor, you have the most potential area in the state of North Carolina and any surrounding state that we're aware of to attract good, clean, high- paying, low water using, non-polluting, economic growth." But due to the lack of interest and cooperation from Orange County over the prior 15 years, when economic development interests come to Raleigh looking at North Carolina, they had Orange County marked off the list. Twenty- five years later, not one brick has been laid in this so-called potential corridor. As a result of that, the property tax in Orange County has increased 524% in the past 20 years. In the last 19 years, we have increased property tax every year. Orange County is known widely as a no- growth county. In October of last year, I was visited by a gentleman who's job is to promote economic development within the state of North Carolina. He had been on his job approximately a year. He told me when he accepted that job, his peers told him, "Don't waste your time in Orange County, they don't want anything." That's such a shame, when nearly half of Orange County's workforce has to leave the County. They should both live and work in Orange County, which would lower the traffic and lower the pollution that people complain about so much. This Buckhorn Village proposal, I applaud. It's the first positive step in years relative to providing the needs for the people in giving us tax relief. I support them 200%. With the projected needs of Orange County and the school capital needs over the next ten years being in excess of $300 million and the debt service payment on current projects exceeding $60 million, something has to give somewhere. People are paying all they can pay. I would suggest that this be project #1. We need to Continue to live without these outrageous property taxes that we now pay. Thank you. Joan Jobsis: I have been sworn. I'm a resident of Orange County, I live in Efland on Bushy Cook Road, approximately a mile and a quarter south of the proposed Buckhorn Village, and I came to support the project that's proposed. I've been in my current home for the past 23 years, and am committed to this section of Orange County. I have been a past member of the Orange County Planning Board for six years, and the Chairman of that board for one year. Back in the 90's, I was part of the process that established the three economic development districts, one of which we're now talking about, and talking about converting it into another version of that. To give you some frame of reference, back in the 90's, when we were discussing this and basically promoting it, our thinking was that Orange County needed economic development, it didn't have anything going in the way of economic development, and the logical place was the I-85/I-40 corridor. It is still the logical place for economic development. I think we chose our geographical placement correctly at that time, and I think this is where we do need development in this County. I don't think there's any question that we need some kind of economic development, not just to become a county of houses. Eventually, we would be like the elite Poughkeepsie area, where basically people have houses that they use for property taxes, and they all commute down to New York City for their jobs. I don't think that is the future for us. I think we do need, within our County, economic development. I think this is the logical place to have it. I think the proposal is very solid, and I'm very pleased that they are local developers that are planning it, and that they are planning to have local businesses included in this. I do think it would provide us jobs and taxes and bring more revenue into the County. Thank you. Margaret Cannella I have been sworn in. I am the Director of the Hillsborough/Orange County Chamber of Commerce. However, I'm not here to represent the Chamber of Commerce, I'm here to represent myself. There's been a lot of things that people have said that I would like to rebut one way or the other, but that's not my position. I do want to say that I think it's very important that the economic development districts have been in existence for 14 years with virtually no economic development going on. One of the maxims of economic development is, if you have a property that does not have infrastructure, water and sewer, then you really have nothing. I think that it's very important to provide that, and of course Orange County does not have the ability to provide water and sewer, because that's not the business that Orange County is in. The City of Mebane has offered through the work of these people to provide water and sewer to a very large area, and I think that this project has the potential to jumpstart the economic development district, and potentially to get some activity going there. While retail is not the highest and best use potentially of this project, and it would be really nice to have something where Ph. D's could go to work, no one has come forward and said, "You know, I think we'd like to put IBM out here." This is what has been presented to us. I think it is a great use, and I say that not just because I'm a rabid shopper, but because I think that this is something that the people of Orange County could really get behind and potentially enjoy. Some of the things that the project proposes are to have entertainment in addition to shopping, restaurants. Yes, Southpoint is one of those places that you go to, but I was out there the other day, I was up there Saturday, and interestingly enough, I had to go to Southpoint to return some items that I had bought at Alamance Crossing. So I drove through Orange County both ways to do this shopping. And when I was out at Southpoint on a Saturday afternoon, it was a beautiful day, and I had to park an entire parking lot away from the shopping center because it was packed. Those people, I would guess that a great number of them were not from Durham County, they were from Orange County, they were Chatham County, and they were from Moore County, Harnett County. But, if we have a facility with destination shopping, we could capture some of those dollars that are coming from other parts of the state. In addition, we could capture those people to come back and visit the wonderful tourist attractions that we have here. We already have over a million visitors that come every year to visit Orange County. If they came and did some shopping, that would be great. These people are going to be driving down I-40 and I-85 anyway, so perhaps we can capture some of their dollars while they're here. I do have a question too. Some of the documents that other speakers have made reference to, will those be part of the public record as well? It was answered yes. Karen Pratt Morris: I have been sworn in. I'm just speaking as a property owner, a mother, and a grandmother. I live in Timberwood Trail, which is off of West Ten Road, very close to Gravelly Hill Middle School. One of my first and main concerns is safety. It is a proven fact when malls go in, crimes go up. We're talking about firemen, how many policemen are you going to put on the payroll, and will they protect our properties and properties away from the mall. Number two, one of the main places throughout the country for child abduction are amusement parks, malls, and country roads now, just within the last two or three years those kinds of abductions have increased. So you are building a mall right next to a middle school in the country. So please think about that. Drainage, we have multiple concerns about drainage. We have a flow going down West Ten Road, and you ask for legal and whatever examples, my example would be Crabtree Mall back when we had rain. Every time there was rain, they had flooding and drainage issues, and that may impact us. The other thing, we moved to where we are because we liked country life, we like clean, green living. All of us in our neighborhood have pets, we do organic farming, organic bee-keeping. This will all be threatened by the pollution and traffic, and I still have to talk about the traffic coming off of Buckhorn Road, and we're going to widen it. I mean, we have to be in a dreamland to think that people are not going to take side roads like West Ten all the way down past where we live. We're just going to have traffic, pollution, and have you thought about, back to Gravelly Hill Middle School., the affect of this traffic in December and November and shopping times on school bus traffic. My last thing, so many people have already covered, again, so many intelligent people here, and this is all we can think of is a mall. I can guarantee you that all of us that are driving out of the County are not going to stay here to work, because we will not be working in the mall for minimum wage. The last thing is, my husband and I used to live in Pittsburgh, and I talk about the shortcuts. The one thing they did in the mall that was abandoned, it grew up and was a beautiful mall, and literally five to six years later, it was abandoned and an eyesore. Somebody went in there and redid this mall, and some of things they did would have music festivals. And the other thing thought -make this a green area, make it a park where people can come in and play volleyball, ping-pong tournaments -things like that where you have other areas where they can still come in, still spend money. A theater, for heaven's sake, maybe Carrboro and Chapel Hill do, but we don't. I'm not talking about movies; I'm talking about a theater with plays, both outdoor and indoor. There are thousands of good small businesses coming in here. Try to find other businesses that will develop in this area in a green atmosphere, but not a mall. And don't ruin our homes, please. Becky Bolinger: I have been sworn in. I'm a resident of Efland. I'm Karen's neighbor. Mostly what I wrote down has already been said, but I just wanted to be on record that I do not think this would be very good for our community. I don't think it's the right direction to go when we're in a big global warming crisis. Mike Collins, I think everything he said is something you should really consider. Mike Swaim: I have been sworn. I live a mile from the proposed development site. What I would like to do tonight is propose an idea for the developers and for the County Commissioners. I apologize to you in advance if this idea is something you're fairly sick of hearing about. Asa 20-year resident of Orange County, the general Buckhorn area, I've been hearing proposals for this region west of Orange for quite some time. Initially, I was extremely dismayed that one of the plans was to turn the Jockey lot into a giant retail center. It seems that that would just increase congestion in an area that locals have been avoiding on weekends for a long time, due to flea market traffic. Over the years, I've watched Hillsborough and Mebane struggle with decisions regarding big box retailers and ever-expanding retail sprawl, with Efland caught right in between. It seems to me that simply attempting to halt proposed retail space expansion rarely works well. If anything, in this case, it might just move the project down the interstate a few exits in neighboring Alamance, meaning that once again, Orange could see no benefits but still experience the negative consequences of increased traffic. So, I have an idea on how this area might be developed in a manner that would benefit residents in both Orange and Alamance Counties and still meet the larger goals of The Village Project and distinctly different than Buckhorn Village. What Buckhorn Village needs is a regional farmers' market, a regularly daily schedule coupled with a restaurant featuring locally-grown products and an art consignment gallery featuring works by local artists and craftspeople. There are a number of reasons why Buckhorn exchange area is neatly suited to a regional farmers' market. Both the Raleigh and Piedmont NCDA farmers' markets are currently at capacity, both for growers and for buyers. Buckhorn is sited between these two giant markets, drawing people from Greensboro to Durham, actually decreasing the amount of driving necessary for residents of Orange, Alamance, Caswell, and Person Counties, which would shop or sell there. While the individual farmers' markets in Carrboro, Hillsborough, and Durham are quite successful on the weekends and selective evenings in season, there is no local daily market or private outlet such as Weaver Street or Whole Foods for growers to sell wholesale. These individual farmers' markets cannot keep up with current demand, either from consumers or from growers that would like to sell there. A regional farmers' market/restaurant/artistgatlery complex at Buckhorn would not only draw more people to Buckhorn Village, but would encourage Buckhorn Village patrons to spend some money at the vendors that would be more likely to keep that money local. A farmers' market retail space for locally-produced items would make this project a whole lot more palatable to many of us that live in the area. Robin Taylor-Hall: I have been sworn in. My family has actually lived in this County at least five generations. I'm a taxpayer, and I represent the Efland heirs, which Efland was named after. They are very excited that this project has been proposed. They have 180 acres in the EDD, and they also have another 80 acres that is a proposed commercial development. This was from the water and sewer that is moving in the area and just growth and money that would be coming to the County. So they wanted me to speak and say that they are very much in favor of this project. Martha Brown, I represent her too, she also is in favor of the project. Tom O'Dwyer: I have been sworn in. I serve on the Orange County Commission for the Environment, I'm a member of the U. S. Green Building Council, and I am an avid believer in principles of sustainability, where the economic, environmental, and social impacts of our actions are measured for our future. As a design builder and small developer, I am a committed participant in an architecture program called the 2030 initiative, where everything I build is 50% energy efficient. I'm finding we can do it. This is why I personally believe, this is an aside, I personally believe that sustainability should not only be a policy, but it should be institutionalized for the purpose of coordinating and implementing adopted goals with developments such as these. More on this subject hopefully in the future. Regarding the Commission for the Environment's letter that you all have a copy of, I'll give some highlights about it. The proposed Buckhorn development would be located in the Seven-Mile Creek area of the Upper Eno Protected Watershed. Now, we can reduce the environmental impact of a large complex such as this by streamlining traffic flow, reducing vehicle miles traveled, reducing wastes through less generation and recycling, and encourage water and energy efficiencies and low-impact design principles. In our advisory role to the Board of Commissioners on environmental matters, the Commission recommends the following: Plan and build according to the LEED Neighborhood Development Standard, at a minimum using the current LEED ND pilot standards. Right now, they're not accepting anymore programs, but one of the developers here is participating in East 54, and they're using LEED ND guidelines for that development. I feel it's important that there should be a set of standards that you ask them to follow. There is a historical tract of developers and builders at UNC and other places, I'm not accusing these people of anything, they are doing good things, but sometimes what people say they're going to do, does not verify. So commissioning verification of the things that are standards can be asked of you to these developers. So, what we're recommending is the LEED ND pilot standards for the revised adopted standard plan for release in 2009. You have an attachment of the guidelines and frequently asked questions about what that is about. These standards address things in transportation, bicycle use, bicycle storage for commercial and residential, reduction of water. Commission for the Environment is recommending a 30% less use of water than the water use baseline calculated for the building after meeting the Energy Policy Act of 1992 fixture performance requirements. This is an obtainable goal, and if they're asked to do this, you'll find that it's possible. It's being done in State buildings right now. And 30% energy efficient. There's more for you to read in the submittal, but this is the gist. Thank you. Ruffin Slater: I have been sworn. I'm the General Manager of Weaver Street Market, we have grocery stores in Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and soon we'll have one in Hillsborough. I've been involved in economic development in the County for the last 20 years as a businessperson. I've been on various boards and commissions, including serving as the Chair of the Economic Development Commission, where I became familiar with retail leakage and other economic development issues. While this project may provide solutions to some economic development challenges, it may well exacerbate others. I urge you to consider the project's net economic impact and whether or not it will truly be beneficial for our local economy. While it's likely a development of this size will attract some stores that we don't have in the County, it's equally likely it will house other businesses that are in direct competition to our traditional downtown. Southpoint has had a dramatic negative impact on our downtown businesses, not just retail, but restaurant and entertainment businesses. Another center of this size on the other side of our downtowns will further erode the fortunes of our downtown businesses, especially in Hillsborough and Mebane. This development is specifically sited to attract national chains, which, although they pay the same taxes as local businesses, beyond that, have dramatically different economic impact. About 85 cents of every dollar spent in the national chain leaves our community, and the 15 cents that stays typically goes to pay low-wage jobs. By contrast, about 50 cents of every dollar spent in a focal business stays in the community and supports other local businesses and typically pays higher wages. I urge you to consider the true economic impact of this project, the impact not just on new business, but the impact on existing business, and also to consider the difference in the economic impact on national chains and local businesses. Janine Zanin: I'm a property owner on Timberwood Trail in Efland. I was sworn. I have not yet made up my mind about how I feel about this development. I came here tonight to learn more about the developers' intent and just to get some specifics. I am leaving here with some questions that I'd like to ask, and also some concerns that I didn't have before I came. There's been a lot of talk about two different ideas, one is keeping Orange County dollars in Orange County and getting Orange County residents to stay at home for their shopping. On the surface, this sounds like a fabulous idea. I question whether this specific location is appropriate for that goal. We just built some new soccer fields next to the middle school, and all I've been reading in the paper is about how the folks in Chapel Hill don't want to drive to those soccer fields. I'm not really convinced that they're going to want to come to the Buckhorn Village shopping area. I do think that one thing that might encourage that travel is if this was a unique, green, local development. I haven't heard who's going to be there, I haven't heard enough details to really make up my own mind whether I think that's what it's going to be. I did move and buy property though in Orange County because I trust the leaders of Orange County more than surrounding counties to base their decisions on priorities of Orange County residents, and think you've heard some of them here today. Those are transportation issues, the environment, and keeping local folks in good business. One thing I heard that concerned me today, that I hope is not the goal of the developers, is that one of the great things about developing this particular location is that they will access the 84,000 cars a day that travel through the area without degradation to the rest of Orange County. Does this mean that they're going to be degrading the place where I live? And I certainly hope that's not the case and that it's not the intention of the developers. That was one of my concerns, a lot of what's been in the paper and a lot of what was presented tonight was designed with catch phrases and key words to make me feel good about sustainability and jobs and things like that, but that one phrase is the one that gave me the most pause. Some specifics, I'm concerned about commercial traffic, obviously there's going to be tractor-trailers to load these stores and the products they're going to sell. Where will they be accessing the property? Will it be restricted to the interstate exchange, or will this traffic be coming down West Ten Road past the middle school that my son is one day going to be attending? I'm somewhat concerned about the traffic on West Ten Road. I'm also concerned about noise, air, and light pollution coming from the highway. Their plan shows that they're basically going to take down most of the trees in the area, and those trees, in addition to helping with air pollution also provide a lot of noise reduction to those of us who live on that side of the highway, and I'd like that to be taken into consideration, particularly since the economic development district marches all the way down West Ten basically to the middle school, providing a great deal of buffer of sound and noise and light as well to those of us who live south of it. Thank you. Mark Zimmerman: I have been sworn. In the past few weeks, there's been an awful lot of discussion about revenue, and I've been involved in a lot of that discussion with you all. But, through all of that, there's actually one thing that stuck in my mind that wasn't about the issues that we're talking with taxes, it's the parallel process that's going on with your CIP ten-year plan. It's the one thing I kind of think back on an awful lot. Pages and pages, dozens and dozens of projects that will improve the quality of life here -schools and parks, social services. Despite our tight property taxes, we don't have enough money for those projects, and I know you're keenly aware of that. My question really is, if we're going to accomplish those goals, where are we going to get that money? Here we have a group of people who have stepped up and said that they can help us with that. According to their projections, upon full buildout, this project will generate about $6 million a year in sales tax revenue. To put that in context, if my memory serves me correctly, that's about 20-25% of the sales tax we take in in this County right now. It's not often that someone steps up and gives you a 25% raise. If you combine that with the million dollars plus in commercial property taxes that are going to come with this project, at $7 million a year, that equals the two revenue choices that we've all been talking about for the past couple of weeks. With that having been said, it's not really the money itself that's important, but what that money will go to. You just have to go back to your CIP document to look at those projects -all of those services that will help citizens across Orange County, and at the same time provide more diversity to our tax base to alleviate this relentless pressure on our property taxes for residential property. Thank you very much. Bob Ward: I have been sworn. I've been a resident here for 60 years, and my family goes back prior to the Civil War. Orange County EDDs have been sitting for almost 15 years. The only tangible development we've seen at this point is a soon to be open branch of the community college, and we're proud of that. The Buckhorn Village presents an opportunity to develop awell-planned, coordinated, substantial improvement to that area of the County. The commercial tax base is in desperate need of being expanded. Commercial property equals money for schools and public safety. We've heard how commercial development pays for itself with a 4:1 ration, where residential development actually has a negative cost factor. There are many residential units that are proposed or planned now in western Orange County jurisdiction in the Town of Mebane. That is going impact our schools and our public safety. Most importantly, the track record of the people involved in this development should give us confidence that this project will be done in a way that we can all be proud. Bryant Colson: I have been duly sworn in. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to talk to you tonight. I'd also like to applaud the residents that are here at this hour and who were here earlier for exercising an important and cherished civic responsibility of being here. I am currently the Economic Development Commission Chair. The EDC is not at this time taking a position on the issues tonight, we have a meeting on Thursday at which time we will review and advise. At that meeting, I plan to let our commissioners know or remind them of our purpose, that is to make Orange County a smart, innovative place, a great place in which to live. We encourage private and public investments to provide jobs for the County residents and to increase the non-residential tax base. Through these investments, we enhance the financial well-being and quality of life of County residents, and the ability of the local government to provide high-quality services. I know you guys know that that's the EDC mission on the Orange County, North Carolina website. I also plan to advise them of all the calls and meetings that I've had with individuals in Orange County where the common concern with these individuals was the residential tax burden that Orange County residents are feeling, and the need for commercial development to offset the tax base. I personally am in support of this controlled, sustainable economic development at Buckhorn Village. It is my hope that, with developments like this, it would draw us one step closer to the County's Five-Year Strategic Development Plan, and that is 5,000 new private sector jobs and adding about $125 million in new commercial property by June 2010. I'm advising them of all of this information in hopes that we do not let opportunities like this slide by and continue to have our hands tied, and once again let economic development pass us by. Karen Bley: I have been sworn in. There are a few things that I'm really confused .about. I've been a resident in Orange County for almost 40 years. I've lived on Buckhorn Road, and now I live on Bradshaw Quarry Road, which is right down the road from Buckhorn. I'm really confused, I live in Mebane, but I think there's a drought going on in Mebane right now. I keep hearing about all this wet water that's going to be coming from Mebane, and I don't understand that, how does that work, where is this water. Why isn't Raleigh, why isn't Durham, why aren't all of these other communities that are starving for water saying, "Ok, Mebane, send us the water." It just doesn't make any sense to me. The other thing that really doesn't make any sense to me at all is the transportation plan that was presented tonight talked about expanding the bridge on I-85 and I-40 and the left turn into the BP station and all of that, there was no talk at all about all the roads that leave from Carrboro, Saxapahaw, Chapel Hill up to this development. If I live in Carrboro, I'm going to be going down through Calvander, Dairyland Road, up Orange Grove Road. All of those roads are so overburdened right now. What's the plan for all of the roads that are leading into the Buckhorn Village? What really scares me is that anytime there's a development that's called "village", it really makes me scared because it's not a village. I think there needs to be a lot of answers and a lot more discussion along these lines. Heather Main: I have been sworn. I live on Buckhorn Road, on that part that Karen's talking about. I'm also concerned about the transportation issues. She asked Tyson Graves about the southern end of Buckhom Road. Tyson Graves: I have been sworn in. Basically, the southern end doesn't generate as much traffic as the northern because of the highway. That's where most of the development traffic would be coming from. Therefore, there are some improvements for West Ten and Buckhorn, but otherwise, it doesn't need any other improvements. Heather Main: I've put together a petition, which people have signed. She read this petition, as follows: Concerned Citizens of Orange County Responding to the Buckhorn Village Project in Northern Orange County As concerned citizens of northern Orange County in the district surrounding the proposed Buckhorn Village development, we would like to petition the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County to consider the following issues: 1) We do not wish to see irresponsible and environmentally degrading development in this area. New development should contain "green buildings and landscape." Natural resources degradation is a concern with large-scale development in Northern Orange County. 1) As stewards of our county, we ask the Commissioners to consider improving the Efland and Northern Orange County communities by requiring the developers of the Buckhorn Village plan to include enhancements to the community by donating the following at or near the "Village" complex: A community recreational sports complex for youth of Northern Orange County. This would include soccer fields, baseball fields, a playground, outdoor and indoor pool facilities and an indoor gym and basketball courts. This would be free to youth in the community. Within this complex, include a Senior Center, which would have a small gym complex and meeting areas. 2) Donate a parcel of land and build a charter school for Orange County. Please preserve our land and resources and enhance our communities when considering development of Northern Orange County. Aaron Nelson: I serve as the present CEO of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce. I had planned to put something on the overhead, but it seems like that has long since passed. So, let me just give you my comments and I'll turn in the slides. First, I just want to say congratulations. For almost my entire life, you have wanted that section developed. You have three times reconfirmed your interest in that. You dispatched your Economic Development Director to find somebody who could do that. She didn't have to go far and all over the place. Most communities have to go outside before they can find someone to develop a project like this. She was able to go to people with tried and true records in our community. So I wanted to say congratulations, you. did it. You piqued the interest of local developers to bring forward a project in along-identified economic development node. And I also want to say thank you to the developers. This is a great deal of risk for them to come forward and be the first to propose something in an economic development node that has sat empty for a very long time. It is a risky proposal and it risks their professional record. I have confidence, I have seen their projects, these are the folks who go above and beyond and bring twice the amount of affordable housing, when there's a standard that most people object to or who are excellent at downtown redevelopment or developing city centers, so I'm real pleased that you've found great partners. Sustainability is a balanced approach, and unfortunately it is a word that's being used a lot, and I'm worried that because it's said so often, it loses its meaning. What it really means, I believe, is a triple bottom line -environmental stewardship, social equity, and economic prosperity. I want to look at that not just project by project, but also to back that out and look at our entire County. You all have done a remarkable job with environmental protection in our community. You are doing a remarkable job with respect to your social responsibilities. We have work to do on our economy and balancing that. We are close to accomplishing the $125 million in additional development in five years. I think the new issue of environmentalism is that we are going to have to go dense and develop along our transit corridors. If we're going to protect the green stuff, then we're going to have to develop on the stuff that's already messed up. So, this is a brown field in existence at the intersection of major transit corridors, and is the exact sort of place that you in your good wisdom in 1981 began talking about. Many of the previous speakers spoke eloquently on the nexus between successful economy and successful community, and that's one that's going to get more and more important, and we need to generate revenue to support the things that we want. What I'm going to hand into you is, at our expense we hired a graduate student of the Department of City Regional Planning to use a software program to project a construction grid and all of the economic impacts of the project. Many of the numbers you have heard here today, with an estimated total of 2,465 jobs created both through the construction phase as well as the retail sector, 1,700 of those filled by Orange County residents; the sales tax revenue of almost $900,000 during the construction phase for Orange County, and $2.5 million totally; and another $5.5 million in sales tax revenue projected every year once it begins, plus million of dollars in property tax revenue. That's an extraordinary opportunity to do the things that you all have long set out and desired for the County. I'm pleased to be part of it and to be here expressing our organization's support and congratulations. He added that he had not been sworn in. The Clerk swore in the remaining speakers. Tom Studemayer: We've heard lots of testimony, a lot of it very moving, and a lot of it very emotional. I don't have a lot of details, I don't have a lot of charts, I don't have a lot of facts. I bring simply my experience growing up in a community not in Orange County that did not have a plan for smart growth. I also bring it as a local businessman who deals with residents of Orange County daily. In my business, I do a lot of tax planning. The one tax plan that I can't help them with is their property tax, and it is about the single biggest complaint that I hear. So my question simply is, if not here, where? If not now, when? And if not these folks, who? I enjoy the rural nature of Orange County just like everyone else. Clients give me the pleasure of the use of their land during hunting and fishing seasons and I enjoy it immensely. It's how I grew up, and I would hate to see that go away. This property and the decision to develop this property was made long before I took residence here. If not now, when? As stated, the residential property tax burden that the citizens of Orange County are bearing is crushing. Our school systems are crushing under that burden as well. This is a small parcel of one EDD that would bring infrastructure, which I hope will make room for the small businesses and the start- ups that don't have the shoulders and the Ph. D's that are leveraging our homes and our mortgages to start businesses and putting their families at risk that are now taking those businesses outside Orange County because they don't have room to build in here. I would prefer to see this in downtown Hillsborough or downtown Carrboro. That's not your fight. If not these folks, who? Business, from a transactor's point of view, is a one-time deal. You come in, you either buy what you want or the service you receive, and then leave. But from my side of the desk, it's my lifetime pursuit. The assumption that folks that live here and work here are somehow going to ravage the communities that they serve is just bad business. I leave you with those three points - if not here, where? If not now, when? And if not them, who? Because growth is coming, and if you squeeze it out of Orange County, your problems are going to get worse. Tatiana Jones: I live at 610 Buckhorn Road. If you would look at section 3, I am part of the road front that is not included in the development. I have two small children -one who is three years old, one that is five months old. My children can't play outside as it is now on the weekends because of the traffic from the flea market. If this comes in, being that we are not included, my house will still be there. My children could still not play outside. Another thing that someone touched on earlier was the traffic. No one mentioned anything about the traffic on I- 85. Yes, there are 84,000+ people on the highway going south and north, but they're not all getting off the exit at the same time. There are already traffic issues. I can't get out of my driveway if I wait after 11:00 on Saturday and Sunday. I have to wait 20-30 minutes to exit out of my driveway as it is. If this development comes in, it might be longer than that. During busy shopping season, Thanksgiving and Christmas, I'd have to stay in my house all day long. The truck stop is already enough traffic. The flea market is too much traffic. There is a taco stand across the street from my house that causes chaos early in the morning. There's loud music early in the morning until late afternoon. I do not have peace and quiet now. If this development comes in, it will be worse than what it already is now. Like I said, to touch on the weighing station; the weighing station is right there going northbound if you get on the interstate. Saturdays and Sundays there's already problems that the trucks have to merge to get in the weighing station. No one touched on how that's going to back up Buckhorn and 70 from both ends from people trying to get on northbound 85. Tom Darnell: I'm an Orange County landowner. I have two questions and one comment. The gentleman mentioned a national, unnamed tenant. What if they lose the tenant? Do they lose the budget? Would all of this work be in vain? The second thing, there was an amendment, I got this on the Internet, they added a couple of acres, which an acre and a half of it adjoins my property and it's on the east side of Buckhorn. What are they going to do if it wasn't addressed? The acre and a half that was not even mentioned, but it's going to be zoned the same as the west side, and it absolutely adjoins my property. That affects me, and I don't mind it, I just would like to know what their intentions are with that property. The third thing that wasn't addressed when the firemen were here -they're asking for six-story buildings. A five-story building is as far as a ground ladder will go. They'll need a ladder truck and you're going to have to come up with about $1 million for a ladder truck. Some company, either Mebane or Efland is going to have to maintain that ladder truck. I don't know if anyone has thought about that. If they donate a place for a fire station, well that's the place it needs to be. The last comment is that I've owned the land for ten years or so, but since 1981 or so, you or your predecessors have worked diligently to put approximately 600 or 900 acres in an EDD and told everybody that it's going to be economic development. If not these guys, next week there will be somebody else. This is not going to stop. Basically, I'm for it, because the next one will be right down the street. If they leave and don't get the approval, six months from now we'll be back in here for another go. So, you can control with all your rules and regulations and come up with something good, but they are coming because you've already told them, "Here's our EDD." Chair Jacobs: Can someone answer the question about the property adjoining Mr. Darnell's. Jim Parker: I believe the property he is referring to is a piece of property that resides on the west side and the east side of Buckhorn Road and is not two separate parcels; it is one parcel that is connected. The portion of that parcel on the west side, which is shaped somewhat like an "L", we anticipate that that will be used for access in some form or fashion to Rabbit Drive and/or the Petro. Chair Jacobs: I don't know if you can or want to answer the question about what happens if you don't get the anchor tenant. Jim Parker: We keep trying. That's my answer. End of public comment. Chair Jacobs said that the remaining items would be deferred to the next public hearing. He asked Craig Benedict to walk the Board through page 4 of the agenda abstract. Craig Benedict said that the staff received the application for Planned Development and Class A Special Use Permit. Part of the package was the Zoning Officer's assessment of the report. As part of that report, the staff also submits for evidence the County's existing zoning code or land use element and EDD Manual. The staff conducted at least part of the public hearing on the applications tonight. Item 4 is when the Board intends to adjourn this meeting to a time certain to hear additional public comment. The process timelines are on the bottom of page 4. The staff suggests that on March 5'" some additional questions can come forward in writing so that the developer can answer those questions or staff can research in the short-term. Depending on when the Commissioners would like to decide on this item, there is a timeline that sets up when the various meetings can occur. It is recommended that this meeting be adjourned to a time certain where the Planning Board would have to come back and meet jointly with the County Commissioners at a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. At that time, staff would be able to provide any additional information that they have uncovered. Also, it's very important to understand that the special use permit part of this -all of the evidence and all of the information that comes forward needs to be held very closely so that the information can be spread equally to all parties concerned (elected bodies, appointed bodies, developer, and the public). Chair Jacobs suggested trying to put this item back on the agenda on April 1St. The Board agreed. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to adjourn this meeting (11:08 p.m.) to April 1St at 7:30 p.m. at the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. VOTE: UNANIMOUS The meeting was adjourned at this point, so the below items will be on the re-convened meeting on April 1St 2. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments: a. Telecommunications Towers: Amendments to promote consistency with December 1, 2007 revisions to NC General Statutes concerning Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. b. Planned Development: Amendments to address inconsistencies between existing ordinance requirements and NC General Statutes, specifically the requirement that imposed conditions be mutually agreed upon by the County and petitioner. Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board