Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-20-2012 - 6c 4 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 20, 2012 Action Agenda Item No. 6-c SUBJECT: Zoning Atlas Amendment— Darrell Chandler Conditional Zoning to REDA-CZ-1 — Public Hearing Closure and Action (No Additional Comments from the Public or Applicant Accepted) DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. October 3, 2012 Planning Board Abstract Michael D. Harvey, Planner III, 245-2597 Package Craig Benedict, Director, 245-2575 2. Additional Information Supplied to the Planning Board at the October 3, 2012 Meeting 3. Additional Staff Comments 4. Table of Concerns with Planning Board Responses 5. Excerpt from August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing Minutes 6. Excerpt from Approved October 3, 2012 Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes 7. Correspondence from Applicant Accepting Recommended Conditions 8. Ordinance Amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas 9. Ordinance Denying the Amendment of the Orange County Zoning Atlas 10.Resolution Statement of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan 11.Resolution Statement of Inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and make a decision on a Zoning Atlas amendment request submitted by Mr. Darrell Chandler to rezone a 12 acre portion of a 35.8 acre parcel of property(PIN 0910-34-5040)to NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ-1) Conditional Zoning and receive site plan approval for a proposed self-storage facility. As a reminder, the reconvening of this hearing is solely to receive the Planning Board recommendation and any additional written evidence submitted since the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing. This hearing is not intended to solicit additional input from the public or the applicant. While the BOCC may ask staff questions related to the review of a given item, comments from the public or the applicant shall not be solicited. 2 BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing. Materials from the public hearing can be found using the following link: hftp://orangecountync.gov/OCCLERKS/120827.htm A summary of comments received during the hearing are contained within Attachment 1, the abstract from the October 3, 2012 Planning Board regular meeting. Staff will be introducing this document, and all attachments, into the record at the re-convened public hearing for the BOCC to consider as part of its deliberations. Planning Board Review: The Planning Board reviewed this item at its October 3, 2012 regular meeting. During the meeting the Board made the following decisions with regard to several outstanding development issues, specifically: I. Land Use Buffers: The applicant proposed the following: • 20 Foot Type A buffer along NC 57 and Mile Branch Road. • 10 foot buffer along the southern property line adjacent to the Wilson property (PIN 0910-22-6989). • No land use buffer along the portion of property abutting the existing concrete plant(PIN 0910-32-2905). During the public hearing and the September 18, 2012 BOCC work session, staff indicated typical land use buffers for a self-storage facility in comparable general use zoning districts were: • Type F buffer, 100 feet in width, along adjacent property lines abutting AR zoned property, and • Type B buffer, 30 feet in width, abutting adjacent road rights-of-way. With respect to the land use buffers, the Planning Board determined: a. The proposed land use buffer along Mile Branch and NC Highway 57 is acceptable as proposed by the applicant, specifically the 20 Foot Type A buffer. b. There is no need for a land use buffer along the southern property boundary with the concrete plant (PIN 0910-32-2905). c. The proposed land use buffer along the Wilson property (PIN 0910-22-6989) is sufficient, specifically the 10 foot buffer. BOCC members could offer an alternative suggestion to the applicant with respect to an acceptable land use buffer. Per Section 2.9.1 (F) (2), conditions must be mutually agreed upon by the County and the applicant. 11. Installation of a well: a. The Board agreed with the BOCC that a well is necessary to ensure proper care for required vegetation as well as the cleaning of rental units. b. The Board recommended the imposition of a condition requiring the development of the well when Phase 2 of the project is developed. 3 Please refer to Attachment 4 for additional information. The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning request, the submitted site plan, and the imposition of conditions for the project consistent with the attached Ordinance (Attachment 8). Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of this rezoning based on the following: A. The rezoning is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan. B. The application has been deemed complete in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.8 and 2.9.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). C. The proposed use is consistent with Section 5.2.3 Table of Permitted Uses of the UDO. D. Comments received from various County agencies (i.e. Sheriff, Fire Marshal, Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR), Orange County Health, State Clearing House) indicate there are no concerns associated with the request. E. The property is of sufficient size to support the proposed development. It should be noted the Planning Board and staff are recommending the imposition of several conditions. The applicant has agreed to the imposition of these conditions in writing. Please refer to Attachment 7 for additional detail. Public Hearing Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.7.8 (A) (3) of the UDO, the BOCC has requested the Planning Board recommendation be made available in time for the November 20, 2012 BOCC regular meeting. As a procedural note, additional comments on the application should be submitted in writing prior to the Planning Board meeting in order to become part of the official record of these proceedings. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments who have determined that the approval or denial of the request would not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board: 1. Receive the Planning Board recommendation; 2. If necessary, deliberate further on the application; 3. Close the public hearing; and 4. Take action on the request by: a. Approving the Ordinance Amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas, including the imposition of recommended conditions, as contained within Attachment 8; and b. Approving the Resolution Concerning Statement of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan as contained within Attachment 10. Attachment 1 4 October 3, 2012 Planning Board agenda packet ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT COPY Meeting Date: Action Agenda Item No. 8 SUBJECT: Zoning Atlas Amendment: Darrell Chandler Conditional Zoning — REDA-CZ-1 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Table Outlining Areas of Concern Michael D. Harvey, Planner 111 245-2597 2. Applicant's Written Response Craig Benedict, Director 245-2575 3. Additional Staff Comments Received after August 27, 2012 Public Hearing 4. Ordinance Amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas 5. Ordinance Denying the Amendment of the Orange County Zoning Atlas 6. Resolution Statement of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan 7. Resolution Statement of Inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan PURPOSE: To make a recommendation to the BOCC on a request submitted by Mr. Darrell Chandler to rezone a 12 acre portion of a 35.8 acre parcel of property (PIN 0910-34-5040) to NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ-1) Conditional Zoning and receive site plan approval for a proposed self-storage facility. BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing, which was continued to the September 18, 2012 BOCC regular meeting in order to allow the applicant to address specific concerns relating to the development of the project. Materials from the public hearing can be found using the following link: hftp://orangecountync.gov/OCCLERKS/120827.htm. Materials for the September 18, 2012 meeting can be found using the following link: hftp://orangecountync..qov/OCCLERKS/120918.pd During the September 18, 2012 BOCC meeting, the applicant addressed a majority concerns from the public hearing, a summary of which are as follows: a. Planning staff and BOCC members determined access management issues had been sufficiently addressed. b. The stormwater management plan had been revised and tentatively approved by Orange County Erosion Control (please refer to Attachment 3 for e-mail from Erosion Control). A recommended condition of approval is the applicant secure an Erosion Control and Stormwater permit prior to the commencement of earth disturbing activity. 5 c. A dumpster had been located on the property in accordance with applicable UDO standards. ). A recommended condition of approval is the applicant secure final approval for dumpster location from Orange County Solid Waste prior to the commencement of earth disturbing activity. d. Spacing between individual storage units, as well as the width of access lanes, had been widened to address concerns expressed by Orange County Emergency Services and Planning staff (please refer to Attachment 3 for e-mail from Mr. David Sykes of Orange County Emergency Services). e. Impervious surface issues had been addressed. Staff had determined a development permit would be recorded in the Registrar of Deeds office specifically identifying impervious surface limits for the REDA-CZ-1 district and Mr. Chandler's remaining property. This permit will be recorded prior to the commencement of earth disturbing activity. The BOCC provided additional direction to the Planning Board on the following issues: • Land Use Buffer: i. BOCC members asked for pictures to be taken of the surrounding area and other self-storage facilities in the County to aid the Planning Board in its deliberations. Utilizing these pictures, the BOCC has asked the Planning Board to determine the appropriateness of the proposed land use buffer(s). Please note the applicant has provided some pictures on the submitted site plan and within their written response contained within Attachment 2 of this abstract. ii. The majority of the Board indicated the proposed land use buffer along the southern property line and Mile Branch was sufficient. iii. There was not consensus on the proposed land use buffer along NC Highway 57. While a majority of the Board expressed satisfaction with the applicant's proposal, others indicated a more intense buffer would be appropriate. • Installation of a well: i. BOCC members continued to express their desire for a well to be installed, specifically providing a 'hose bib'for building and landscape maintenance. During the meeting the applicant's engineer, Mr. Chad Abbott of Summit Engineering, indicated installing a well for anything other than landscape maintenance and/or cleaning of storage units (i.e. hand washing) might not be possible. If a sink were installed to allow for employees to 'wash their hands' discharge from the sink would have to go into a septic system for treatment. The main issue being there is no soil on the property to install a septic system. The BOCC indicated they understood and suggested the applicant could address `hand washing'through alternative means. ii. Mr.Abbot indicated the installation of a well could be cost prohibitive. The BOCC requested staff obtain a memorandum from Mr. Tom Konsler of Orange County Environmental Health outlining costs associated with installing a well (please refer to Attachment 3) 6 iii. The BOCC indicated it might be feasible to discuss the imposition of a condition requiring installation of a well only when the second phase of the project was developed. Attachment 1 includes a table outlining the various comments/concerns identified as part of the initial review of the project as well as those made during the August 27, 2012 public hearing. Materials for the public hearing are available on-line at http://orangecountync.gov/OCCLERKS/120827c2.pdf. The table provides the applicant's suggestions on how they address these various concerns. Attachment 2 contains the applicant's written responses to the questions and comments from the public hearing. The applicant has provided a copy of the revised site plan for your review in an 11" x 17" format. Attachment 3 contains additional documentation from various County staff members reviewing the project received after the public hearing. Conditional Zoning (CZ) Process: As articulated during the hearing, the CZ process involves the approval of a rezoning petition and a site plan to allow for the development of a specific land use on a parcel of property. Decisions on the viability of the proposal are based on the BOCC's determination that the project is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The normal cadence of review is as follows: • CZ applications are reviewed during one of the four joint Quarterly Public Hearings held by the Planning Board and the BOCC; • The applicant is required to demonstrate how the project is consistent with the provisions of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, is appropriate for the area in which it is located, and embodies the overall spirit and intent of the various provisions of the UDO; • The item will be forwarded to the Planning Board for a recommendation; • The BOCC will receive the Planning Board recommendation and make a final determination on the merits of the request. Per Section 2.9.2 (F) (3) of the LIDO, conditions can be imposed as part this process only if they address: 1. The compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding property, 2. Proposed support facilities (i.e. roadways and access points, parking, pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems, screening and buffer areas, etc.) and/or 3. All other matters the County may find appropriate or the petitioner may propose. ' IR SAO CO l M , :� a III. • If approved, the Zoning Atlas is amended and the zoning designation of the property shall become REDA-CZ-1. • The applicant shall be required to submit a final site plan in accordance within Section 2.5 of the UDO. This is so staff can verify all imposed conditions are adhered to and allow for final peer review by members of the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) as 7 detailed within Section 1.9 of the UDO. There is, however, no additional site plan review fee assessed to the applicant. This is a somewhat unique and new process for the County. The CZ process is intended to allow open dialogue and negotiation between the applicant and the County on the viability of the proposed land use and the overall design of a given project. We are now, technically, in the negotiation phase of the project as the applicant is seeking to modify existing development criteria staff has determined apply to the project, most notably land use buffers. Through this negotiation process, additional conditions and recommendations can be made to address various concerns and finalize the site plan. As we continue this review, staff will take note of potential procedural modifications designed to streamline the process, allow for additional opportunity for dialogue amongst the BOCC and the applicant on the project, and make the process more user friendly for all parties. Planninq Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director can recommend approval of the proposed site plan based and the zoning atlas amendment based on the following: 1. The project is consistent with the goals of the adopted NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan, 2. The proposed land use complies with the provisions of Section 5.2.3 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, 3. The rezoning is consistent with various Principles, Goals, and Objectives of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. 4. Based on the acceptance of design alternatives denoted on the site plan by the Planning Board and the BOCC, specifically on allowable land use buffers and the installation of a well on the property, and FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments who have determined that the approval or denial of the request would not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board: 1. Deliberate as necessary, 2. Consider the Planning Director's recommendation to: a. Approve the site plan recommending the imposition of conditions b. Approve the Ordinance Amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas as contained within Attachment 4, and c. Approve the Resolution of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan as contained within Attachment 6. 3. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the proposal in time for its November 20, 2012 regular meeting. 8 October 3, 2012 Planning Board agenda packet-Attachment 1 Attachment 1 Synopsis of review comments/concerns related to Darrell Chandler project - request to rezone a 12 acre portion of a 35.8 acre parcel of property to the NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ-1) Conditional Zoning district. AREA OF COMMENTS: APPLICANT BOCC RESPONSE CONCERN: RESPONSE: Includes comments made during, and staff comments identified within the abstract for, the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearin TRANSPORTATION The turn radius for the Turn radius has been BOCC — At its County Planning staff access drive to the site is increased to address this September 18, comments were not adequate for turning concern. Orange County 2012 regular outlined at August 27, movements of larger staff met with the meeting, the BOCC 2012 public hearing vehicles, vehicles with applicant on September indicated they were trailers or emergency 7, 2012 to review a satisfied with the vehicles. revised plan calling for modifications. the increase in turn radius around proposed storage buildings as well as the reduction in size of proposed buildings to ensure adequate travel way for vehicles. Drive-aisle, including those Drive-aisle width has BOCC — At its areas in between proposed been increased to 24 September 18, units, are insufficient to feet. The central drive- 2012 regular allow for two-way traffic. aisle has been increased meeting, the BOCC to 25 feet to indicated they were One-way traffic is accommodate Planning satisfied with the recommended around the and Emergency modifications. proposed storage units. Management staff recommendations. 9 AREA OF COMMENTS: APPLICANT BOCC RESPONSE CONCERN: RESPONSE: Includes comments made during, and staff comments identified within the abstract for, the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing TRANSPORTATION The current location of the After reviewing pictures BOCC — At its Continued entrance/exit is extremely of the area where the September 18, close to the adjacent proposed driveway shall 2012 regular entrance for the cement be located (Refer to meeting, the BOCC plant and existing foliage Attachment 2) Planning indicated they were may obstruct drivers' view staff determined during satisfied with the of on-coming traffic. the September 7, 2012 modifications. meeting the drive location was acceptable. There appears to be The applicant has BOCC — At its insufficient stacking space widened the driveway September 18, for vehicles attempting to entrance and increased 2012 regular access the site. the turn radius to meeting, the BOCC accommodate additional indicated they were stacking based on staff satisfied with the comments. modifications. Concerns were expressed Sign locations have been BOCC At its over proposed sign modified to ensure they September 18, locations. Staff wanted are located outside of 2012 regular additional detail to ensure established site triangles. meeting, the BOCC proposed signs were not indicated they were located within established satisfied with the site triangles. modifications. BOCC members After reviewing pictures BOCC — At its expressed concerns over of the area where the September 18, existing, mature, foliage proposed driveway shall 2012 regular near the proposed be located (Refer to meeting, the BOCC entrance and asked for Attachment 2) Planning indicated they were clarification if the existing staff determined during satisfied with the trees would block visibility the September 7, 2012 modifications. or create a hazard for large meeting the drive location vehicles attempting to was acceptable and the access the site. foliage should not be an issue. ~ 10 AREA OF COMMENTS: APPLICANT BOCC RESPONSE Includes comments made during, and staff comments identified within the abstract for, the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing UTILITY SERVICE County Planning staff BOCC members requested Please refer to comments were written documentation from Attachment 2 for outlined at August 27, Orange County Health and additional detail. 2012 public hearing Building Inspections that a chemical or other toilet system could be used to support the proposed office BOCC and Planning Board The applicant is making BOCC At its members expressed the necessary application September 18, reservations over the to the Orange County 2012 regular applicants desire not to Health Department to meeting, the BOCC develop a well on the investigate the placement asked for property. of a well on the property. correspondence from Environmental Several comments were Additional information Health on well made over the need for a concerning this item is permitting well to provide water for contained within procedures and staff, to clean the facility, Attachment 2. costs (Attachment and to address 3) / CONCERN: RESPONSE: 11 AREA OF COMMENTS: APPLICANT BOCC RESPONSE CONCERN: RESPONSE: Includes comments made during, and staff comments identified within the abstract for, the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing SOLID WASTE BOCC and Planning Board August 29, 2012: BOCC — At its members indicated the Applicant informed staff September 18, County Planning staff applicant should provide a the plan would be revised 2012 regular indicated given the dumpster area to allow for to denote the location of meeting, the BOCC numerous revisions to the orderly collection and a dumpster and general indicated they were the site plan, Orange disposal of solid waste use recycling bin on the satisfied with the County Solid Waste generated on the property. property. revision and had been unable to supported the finalize their comments The dumpster would be development of a in time for the August 27, 2012 public hearing screened with a fence in landscape island to given the ever evolving accordance with the aid in traffic nature of the project provisions of the UDO. management. BOCC members wanted Pending written comments from Orange County Solid Waste on the applicant's revised site plan with respect to the adequacy of any dumpster located on- site. A Planning Board member According to the BOCC — At its wanted additional comment applicant large waste will September 18, from the applicant on how be disposed of by a 2012 regular he intended to address the private contractor hired to meeting, the BOCC disposal of large items left haul away waste. Waste indicated they were on the property by former will be disposed of in satisfied with the tenants. accordance with the proposed solid Orange County Solid waste disposal Waste Management methodology. Ordinance. 12 AREA OF COMMENTS: APPLICANT BOCC RESPONSE CONCERN: RESPONSE: Includes comments made during, and staff comments identified within the abstract for, the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing EMERGENCY Emergency Management The site plan was BOCC — At its MANAGEMENT staff(EM) indicated the modified to address this September 18, need for 20 feet of space in concern. Drive-aisles 2012 regular between each building and and spaces in-between meeting, the BOCC a minimum of 20 of drive- storage buildings have indicated they were aisle width to allow for the been increased to 24 feet satisfied with the passage of emergency to ensure proper modifications. vehicles. separation to facilitate emergency vehicle Please refer to access. Attachment 3 for an e-mail from David Sykes, orange County Emergency Management, approving the revised site plan. EM expressed concern The Turn radius has been BOCC — At its over turn radiuses at the increased to address this September 18, north-western portions of concern. 2012 regular the project, along NC meeting, the BOCC Highway 57, as it would be indicated they were difficult to get emergency satisfied with the vehicles through the area. modifications. Please refer to Attachment 3 for an e-mail from David Sykes, orange County Emergency Management, approving the revised site plan. 13 AREA OF COMMENTS: APPLICANT BOCC RESPONSE CONCERN: RESPONSE: Includes comments made during, and staff comments identified within the abstract for, the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing LAND USE BUFFER BOCC members Please refer to response BOCC — A expressed concern over contained within summary of the the proposed clustering of Attachment 2 direction supplied foliage along NC Highway by the BOCC is 57 and Mile Branch Road contained in the rather than a continuous abstract. land use buffer. It was recommended that a continuous vegetative buffer be provided consistent with County standards. There was a lack of consensus over the appropriateness of proposed land use buffer widths along adjacent roadways and residentially zoned properties. 14 AREA OF COMMENTS: APPLICANT BOCC RESPONSE CONCERN: RESPONSE: Includes comments made during, and staff comments identified within the abstract for, the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing LAND USE BUFFER The applicant proposed the Please refer to response BOCC — At its Continued following: contained within September 18, Attachment 2 2012 regular • 20 Foot Type A meeting, the BOCC clustered buffer along indicated the NC 57 and Mile Branch following: Road, • 10 foot buffer along the 1. Proposed land southern property line use buffer adjacent to the Wilson along Mile property (PIN 0910-22- Branch and 6989) adjoining • No land use buffer residential lot along the portion of may be property abutting the acceptable. existing concrete plant. 2. There was a Staff indicated typical land lack on use buffers for a self-storage consensus for facility in comparable general land use buffer use zoning districts were: along NC 1. Type F buffer, 100 feet Highway 57 in width, along with some adjacent property lines advocating for abutting AR zoned a continuous property, and buffer. 2. Type B buffer, 30 feet in width, abutting Staff directed to adjacent road rights- take pictures of of-way. area as a visual aid for Planning Board Staff and Planning Board to determine members asked for direction appropriateness of from the BOCC on this issue. proposed land use buffer 15 AREA OF COMMENTS: APPLICANT BOCC RESPONSE CONCERN: RESPONSE: Includes comments made during, and staff comments identified within the abstract for, the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing LAND USE BUFFER BOCC members asked Staff completed a site Refer to previous Continued staff to complete a field visit on September 7, response survey on.an adjoining 2012 and determined the residentially zoned property is undeveloped. property to verify if it was undeveloped at this time. STORMWATER BOCC members wanted The site plan has been BOCC — At its additional explanation from revised to denote the September 18, the applicant on the proposed stormwater 2012 regular proposed stormwater management system. meeting, the BOCC management system. indicated they were This system has been satisfied with the BOCC and Planning Board deemed adequate by modifications. members requested County Erosion Control additional detail on the site staff. Please refer to plan denoting drainage Attachment 3 for an points on the property. e-mail from Terry Hackett of Orange This request was made County Erosion after the project engineer Control tentatively indicated the property approving the would actually drain from revised stormwater multiple locations due to management existing and proposed system. topography. 16 AREA OF COMMENTS: APPLICANT BOCC RESPONSE CONCERN: RESPONSE: Includes comments made during, and staff comments identified within the abstract for, the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing IMPERVIOUS BOCC members requested Please refer to BOCC — At its SURFACE AREA additional comments from Attachment 2. From September 18, the applicant on the staff's perspective there 2012 regular intended means of will be a meeting, the BOCC restricting impervious permit/declaration of indicated they were surface area on the restrictions recorded in satisfied with the property. the Orange County staffs proposal to Registrar of Deeds office record a master if this request is approved document outlining denoting allowable levels development of the of impervious surface property in the area for the project. event the request was approved LAND USE There was consensus that the proposed use was acceptable. BOCC members asked for Notes were added to the BOCC — At its clarification from the site plan. Retail September 18, application on the extent of operations would be 2012 regular retail operations. The limited to packaging meeting, the BOCC Board want to be sure all materials (i.e. boxes, indicated they were retail would be connected tape, etc.) necessary to satisfied with the to the self-storage support the self-storage explanation. operation. operation. There would not be additional sale of items (i.e. drinks, food, snacks, etc.) not necessary to support the proposed land use. October 3, 2012 Planning Board 17 "d ;acket -Attachment 2 919.732.38$3 Sa1P11T-ENGiFIEERCCM+t DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES 504 Meadowtand Drive, Hillsborough,NC 27278 September 11,2012 Mr. Michael Harvey Orange County Planning Department PO Box 8181 Hillsborough,NC 27278 Re: Responses to Comments/Concerns Mr.Harvey: On behalf of our client and the applicant,Mr. Darrell Chandler,Summit Design and Engineering Services is providing responses to all comments/concerns discussed at the August 27,2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and as noted from staff in subsequent meetings. Summit Design and Engineering Services will be more than happy to address and provide any clarification needed on the attached responses and looks forward to discussing these matters with you or the respective review agencies and boards further. Sincerely, UMMIT I AND ENGINEERING SERVICES Chad E. Abbott, P.E. Project Engineer 18 Responses to Emergency-Services will be in Bold Red Italics. 1. Emergency Management Staff (EM) indicated the need for 20 feet of space between each building and a minimum of 20 of drive-aisle width to allow for the passage of emergency vehicles. Per Discussions w/Mr.David Sykes at 11:00 a.m. on September 5,2012,this was discussed and noted as an informational comment as all drawings that have been submitted meet this criteria. 2. EM expressed concern over turn radiuses at the north-western portions of the project, along NC Highway 57, as it would be difficult to get emergency vehicles through the area. At the referenced meeting, we reviewed the plans issued to the BOCC and discussed at the August 27,2012 Quarterly Public Hearing. These plans provide for 50'radii at all corners of the site and implement a 25'center isle separating dissecting the overall length of the proposed storage units. The plans that generated the comment above consisted of a solid row of storage buildings that had no breaks mid site and also extended to maintain only the requested 20'drive width at the corners. The new radii as shown resulted in the removal of several end units on the outermost rows where there are acute angles.Mr. Sykes indicated his concurrence with the revised plans that the BOCC has reviewed and will be providing written confirmation to the county planning dept. Responses to Transportation will be in Bold Blue Italics. 1. The turn radius for the access drive to the site is not adequate for turning movements of larger vehicles, vehicles with trailers or emergency vehicles. The drive has been widened and a 30'Radii provided.Per discussion w/Mr. Tom Altieri,Ms.Darcy Zorio and Mr.Harvey at Orange County offices on September 7, 2012,this is acceptable to address the comment above. 2. Drive-aisle, including those areas in between proposed units, are insufficient to allow for two-way traffic. One-way traffic is recommended around the proposed storage units. The interior drive isles between buildings have been widened to 24'and the exterior loop around the buildings has been left at 20'. Per discussion w/Mr. Tom Altieri,Ms. Darcy Zorio and Mr.Harvey at Orange County offices on September 7,2012,this is acceptable to address the comment above and allow for two-way traffic movements to be allowed on site. 3. The current location of the entrance/exit is extremely close to the adjacent entrance for the cement plant and existing foliage may obstruct drivers' view of on-coming traffic. Per discussion w/Mr. Tom Alfieri,Ms.Darcy Zorio and Mr. Harvey at Orange County offices on September 7, 2012,pictures of the field conditions were provided and the entrance was reviewed in detail. Upon review,staff determined that the location of the driveway was acceptable with respect to the adjacent drive and the existing vegetation. 19 4. There appears to be insufficient stacking space for vehicles attempting to access the site. The drive has been widened and a 30'Radii provided.Per discussion w/Mr. Tom Altieri,Ms.Darcy Zorio and Mr. Harvey at Orange County offices on September 7, 2012,this is acceptable to address the comment above. 5. Proposed storage buildings are too close to property lines to allow for an adequate drive aisle. The buildings as shown of the current plan and the plans submitted to the BOCC and Planning Board both show a reduction in end units to allow for adequate drive isles and turning movements.A center drive isle of 25'was also added in response to these comments prior to submitting to the BOCC and Planning Board. Per discussion w/Mr. Tom Altieri,Ms.Darcy Zorio and Mr.Harvey at Orange County offices on September 7,2012,this is acceptable to address the comment above. 6. Concerns were expressed over proposed sign locations. Staff wanted additional detail to ensure proposed signs were not located within established site triangles. Signs will not be allowed in the proposed site triangles in accordance with the approval and permitting of the driveway by NCDOT.Per the proposed locations,signs are located out of the site triangles and AASHTO Site Lines.Per discussion w/Mr. Tom Altieri,Ms.Darcy Zorio and Mr.Harvey at Orange County offices on September 7, 2012,this is acceptable to address the comment above. 7. BOCC members expressed concerns over existing, mature, foliage near the proposed entrance and asked for clarification if the existing trees would block visibility or create a hazard for large vehicles attempting to access the site. The applicant does not recall extensive discussions on the existing foliage by the BOCC members other than those comments already issued by the transportation planner.A packet of site pictures are attached to assist the BOCC and Planning Board members in getting a realization of the existing vegetation.As indicated at the meeting oil August 27,access at the Right of Way will be regulated by NCDOT, however all site inspections and reviews of the existing site conditions do not reveal major concerns for Summit Design and Engineering, especially since the existing vegetation will have to be removed if deemed a hazard prior to receiving a driveway permit from NCDOT. Per discussion w/Mr. Tom Altieri,Ms.Darcy Zorio and Mr.Harvey at Orange County offices on September 7, 2012,pictures of the field conditions were provided and the entrance was reviewed in detail. Upon review,staff determined that the location of the driveway was acceptable with respect to the adjacent drive and the existing vegetation. 20 Responses to Utility Service will be in Bold Orange Italics. 1. BOCC members requested written documentation from Orange County Health and Building Inspection that a chemical or other toilet system could be used to support the proposed office use. The requested documentation is attached. 2. BOCC and Planning Board members expressed reservations over the applicants desire not to develop a well on the property. Several comments were made over the need for a well to provide water for staff, to clean the facility, and to address emergencies. The applicant is checking on the suitability and availability of a well location on the site to meet this request.If this is not possible, then the applicant will be the one who will have the cost and time burden of using a power washer etc to clean out the units. Water supply at a Storage facility is not mandated by regulatory review agencies and if this item is not feasible,the applicant doesn't feel that it should be an overriding criteria related to the application for rezoning the property.If the units are left dirty as members of the BOCC indicated is often the case,and the applicant cannot adequately clean them up,then it is the applicant/owner that will suffer as no potential lessee will rent a storage unit that is dirty. Therefore it is in the applicant's best interest to keep the units clean whether it be by using an on-site well or by a portable pressure washing operation. Responses to Solid Waste will be in Bold Green Italics. 1. BOCC and Planning Board members indicated the applicant should provide a dumpster area to allow for the orderly collection and disposal of solid waste generated on the property. The Plans have been revised to show a proposed dumpster location as requested. 2. BOCC members wanted written comments from Orange County Solid Waste on the applicant's revised site plan with respect to the adequacy of any dumpster located on-site. Noted. At the time these responses were required to be submitted,the applicant was awaiting comments from Orange County Solid Waste on the revised site plan, however the location proposed is the most optimal and accessible on-site and has been discussed w/Planning Staff with no negative feedback. 3. A Planning Board member wanted additional comment from the applicant on how he intended to address the disposal of large items left on the property by former tenants. Per the applicant the customer contract clearly states that there be no unwanted storage items left at the facility. If any are left,they will be taken to the landfill site in Mt. Tirzah,Person County which is approx. 15 miles from the subject property. 21 Responses to Planning will be in Bold Purple Italics. 1. BOCC members expressed concern over the proposed clustering of foliage along NC Highway 57 and Mile Branch Road rather than a continuous land use buffer. It was recommended that a continuous vegetative buffer be provided consistent with County standards. It was noted at the meeting that there was one member that specifically indicated concern over the clustered buffer and landscaping along Mile Branch Road and NC Hwy 57.As stated in the response to the BOCC member,the clustering will allow visibility of the proposed use,but will also provide a visual break up to reduce the monotony of the storage building fagade, especially along NC 57.It was noted at the BOCC meeting that in general,the buffers proposed on Sheet C-6 were amenable to most of the Commissioners and this is still the direction that the applicant would like to move in considering the ability to propose/provide buffers fitting the use and intent in this zoning district with the lack of specific standards. 2. There was a lack of consensus over the appropriateness of proposed land use buffer widths along adjacent roadways and residentially zoned properties. The applicant proposed the following: • 20 Foot Type A buffer along NC 57 and Mile Branch Road, • 10 foot buffer along the southern property line adjacent to the Wilson property (PIN 0910-22-6989) 0 No land use buffer along the portion of property abutting the existing concrete plant. • Staff indicated typical land use buffers for a self-storage facility in comparable general use zoning districts were: I. Type F buffer, 100 feet in width, along adjacent property lines abutting AR zoned property, and II. Type B buffer, 30 feet in width, abutting adjacent road rights-of-way. Staff and Planning Board members asked for direction from the BOCC on this issue. Coming away from the BOCC meeting, the applicant felt that there was general consensus that the buffers proposed were appropriate and that minor modifications or requests may be made in relation to the buffers at the next meeting.However with the ordinance for the REDA-CZ-1 zoning being lenient on the required buffers and setbacks,the applicant feels that the buffers proposed will achieve the intent of the benefits that a buffer would provide in this area,given the use and location.As stated above, the applicant is open to direction from the BOCC if it is a general consensus that the BOCC was not satisfied with the proposed buffers. The applicant would like to state that it does not seem fitting that this use would provide a buffer equivalent to those in the general use districts,otherwise why would the buffer requirements be so flexible and not list this as the minimum requirements? 3. BOCC members asked staff to complete a field survey on an adjoining residentially zoned property to verify if it was undeveloped at this time. 22 Awaiting Staff input,however all other sources indicated that it is currently un- occupied and un-developed. Responses to Stormwater will be in Bold Magenta Italics. 1. BOCC members wanted additional explanation from the applicant on the proposed stormwater management system. Details of the stormwater management, treatment and overall system concept were discussed at the BOCC hearing.Additional questions and comments can be addressed at the next meeting,however the current plans have been reviewed and received concurrence from Mr. Terry Hackett with respect to the ability to meet current stormwater standards. 2. BOCC and Planning Board members requested additional detail on the site plan denoting drainage points on the property. This request was made after the project engineer indicated the property would actually drain from multiple locations due to existing and proposed topography. Drainage arrows are shown and indicate typical flow patterns of the onsite stormwater. Drainage points and additional flow arrows have been provided in addition to the topography which reveals the actual drainage patterns. 3. BOCC members wanted additional written comments from Orange County Erosion Control on the proposed stormwater system and the appropriateness of runoff draining into existing ponds on the property, north of Mile Branch Road. Mr. Terry Hackett has indicated that the proposed,facilities would meet the County standards which regulate both quantity and quality of water. The runoff will be restricted per these regulations. The fact that the runoff enters an existing pond is not integral to the proposed development and is an existing hydrological condition. Responses to Quarterly Public Hearing General Comments will be in Bold Cyan Italics. 1. BOCC members requested additional comments from the applicant on the intended means of restricting impervious surface area on the property. The applicant did not recall this request, however,the plats associated with the property will be restrictive related to the allowed increases or limits for impervious area for each property. This property is subject to the same laws and regulations for inspections and reviews as any other properties located in restrictive watersheds. Perhaps the County Staff can provide the BOCC with SOP on ensuring land owners comply with the allowable impervious surface. 2. A BOCC member indicated concern over placing so much impervious surface area on the 4 acre portion of the property west of Mile Branch. The intensity of the impervious area is not regulated as long as the treatment of such areas meets the regulations. From a planning and engineering standpoint, it is better to have it all located in one spot to maintain more existing natural areas and allow for easier collection and treatment efforts. 3. There was consensus that the proposed use was acceptable. 23 Noted. 4. BOCC members asked for clarification from the application on the extent of retail operations. The Board want to be sure all retail would be connected to the self- storage operation. Anticipated retail operations are related to materials needed for storage and operating a storage business such as tape, boxes,padding, etc. Responses to Additional Comments received via email from staff on 91612012 will be in Bold Orange Italics. 1. Driveway location along the eastern property line, adjacent to the concrete property, is still a major concern for staff. There appears to be potential for vehicular conflicts due to the presence of existing large trees in the area impeding sight visibility. While it is difficult to ascertain the exact distance, the driveways appears to be 25 feet apart. Traffic attempting to turn left from the storage facility will be unable to see traffic emerging and turning left from the concrete plant. Also the existing driveway and turn radius are not conducive to allowing for 2 way traffic entering and exiting from the site. There will be a bottle neck with large vehicles attempting to enter and leave the site at the same time. Staff would recommend the following: a. Move the driveway approximately 220 feet north and locate it directly across from the proposed driveway for the office/retail area north of Mile Branch as noted on sheet(s) C-3 and.0-4. b. Widen the driveway to approximately 35 feet to allow for adequate spacing for cars—2 way traffic entering and exiting the site. c. Internal circulation will have to be modified in order to accommodate proper stacking and turn radius for vehicles As an alternative, you could do the following: d. Have a dedicated, separate, entrance and exit points for the property. The entrance could be adjacent to the concrete plant property (in fact if this option is chosen this will be the mandated entrance only point). If this option is selected the driveway radius will have to be widened to accommodate large vehicles entering the site. e. Dedicated exit would be directly across from the proposed driveway for the office/retail area north of Mile Branch as noted on sheet(s) C-3 and C- 4. f. Staff would recommend the placement of landscape islands in the drive area under this scenario to further regulate traffic flow. Either way staff is concerned the proposed means if ingress and egress will not address turn internal turn radius issues or allow for proper staging of 24 vehicles attempting to enter and leave the site. Staff also does not believe current drive location is adequate given site visibility issues. Per discussion w/Mr. Tom Altieri,Ms.Darcy Zorio and Mr.Harvey at Orange County offices on September 7, 2012,the revisions to the entrance width, drive isle width and corner radii shown oil the current plans are sufficient to address the comments above. 2. Turn radius around buildings need to be at a minimum of 35 to 40 feet (You show 35 feet at the intersection of Mile Branch and NC Hwy 57 which is good but it appears tight throughout the rest of the site). Per discussion w/Mr. Tom Alfieri,Ms.Darcy Zorio and Mr.Harvey at Orange County offices on September 7, 2012,the revisions to the corner radii shown on the current plans are sufficient to address the comments above. It should be noted that it is not the corner clearance that would dictate the allowable turning movement, but the inside radii adjacent to the buildings. The revisions to these corner radii were not in efforts to address this comment, but to save wasted gravel and associated impacts to the impervious areas. 3. You will need to designate one-way traffic flow on the site plan to provide staff with a notion on the intended internal traffic flow You will need to add signage internally throughout the site directing traffic flow. Please note anticipated locations for this signage. Per discussion w/Mr. Tom Altieri,Ms.Darcy Zorio and Mr.Harvey at Orange County offices on September 7, 2012,the revisions to the entrance width,drive isle width and corner radii shown on the current plans are sufficient to address the comments above. Two-way traffic is still proposed.Signage locations remain oil the plans in the same locations as previously shown. 4. We need and will require a 25,foot distance between buildings. Per discussion w/Mr. Toni Altieri,Ms.Darcy Zorio and Mr.Harvey at Orange County offices oil September 7, 2012, the revisions to the entrance width,drive isle width and corner radii shown on the current plans are sufficient to address the comments above. A 24'interior drive isle between buildings has been discussed and proposed oil the revised plans. 5. Staff strongly recommends elimination of approximately 60 individual storage units so that building sizes can be reduced to eliminate traffic flow problems. Building locations and orientations will need to be modified to address internal access concerns. Per discussion w/Mr. Tom Ahieri,Ms.Darcy Zorio and Mr.Harvey at Orange County offices on September 7, 2012,the revisions to the entrance width, drive isle width and corner radii shown oil the current plans are sufficient to address the comments above. Units have been adjusted as needed to allow access and site maneuverability as needed to address all previous comments. 25 Other issues 6. Provide a note on the site plan denoting no storage units can be used for habitation or used to store flammable materials on site. See note#6 on Sheets C-2 through C-4 for details and restrictions oil the use of the units. This is language that has been provided by the applicant as part of the tenant agreement that will be in place with all Lessees. 7. Provide a note on the site plan indicating storage units cannot be used as repair garages or to support commercial operations inconsistent with the self-storage facility. See note#6 on Sheets C-2 through C-4 for details and restrictions on the use of the units. This is language that has been provided by the applicant as part of the tenant agreement that will be in place with all Lessees. ATTACHMENT I 27 , y South of Mile Branch Road Looking East towards Concrete Plant &Proposed Drive Entrance to the site y r`bt xq "Wit, b} s, :j 4.. South of Mile Branch Road Looking East towards Concrete Plant 28 T. h "ss tf 11 Z � J North of Mile Branch Road Looking South-East towards Concrete Plant &Proposed Drive Entrance to the site by Existing Oak Trees a West of HWY 57 Looking East towards Site (*Note vertical curve/blind spot along Mile Branch Road, on the left hand side of this photo, in regards to driveway location) ATTACHMENT 2 30 Pr • t l^ ii mot. i. i Existing Treeline along Southern Property Line i r Existing Treeline along Southern Property Line b 4 ��'�'��t�' )� `� •'� � _ yr�.�* fi` ,' Existing Treeline • ' Southern • •' • a ti a I �,fir, yi• yv � ���, i Existing Treeline along Southern Property ATTACHMENT 3 33 Orange County Health Department at s�, Ca,. Colleen Bridger,MPH,PhD t Prevent•Promote•Protect Health Director ,r az Partnering for the Public's Health o� �<<i 6asa�i MEMORANDUM To: Michael Harvey AICP, CFIM, CZO Current Planning Supervisor Orange County Planning From: Alan Clapp REHS,LSS Soil Scientist Orange County Health Department Date: August 17, 2012 RE: 0910-34-5040 Darrell Chandler rezoning request Mile Branch Road and NC 57 A site plan review was recently completed on the proposed rezoning request. The following items were noted. 1. Water Supply—No well is proposed 2. Sewage Disposal—No septic system is proposed. Incinerating toilet can be used if no public restrooms are required per NC Plumbing Code. Building Inspections would be the permitting agency for this type toilet. No Environmental Health issues were identified on this site since well and septic systems will not be required for permitting. Please feel free to contact me directly by phone at(919)245-2360, or by my e-mail aclappAco.oran eg nc.us if you have any questions, or I may be of further service. Environmental Health Services 131 W.Margaret Lane,Suite 100•Hillsborough,NC 27278 Phone:(919)245-2360 1 Fax:(919)644-3006 www.orangecountync.gov/envhlth u pro wavaa NV1d SNOI114N0O CO)NLLSIX3 •®m°•®• iY �W- �•,�•••/.aeai.r..i-`••la VNf1p7WJHixowAmnoo3oN o-Qoa NOlJtla9n El- JDARnis? iNOWEMOU m Sl•IF�Zd ams-R`OWHO,LS-31dS . B / I U �' R �'- t'w` y • cY4 9� gg: '10111 - -- �ieav"•"d°"oi.,°` S.o f ✓'/ __ mhd 11111131 fill ill", ION zo }• �� �r 44,E 1 1 `t 1 / i �' /� //I I .-ti x. w Hot 1 g J 1 10 • xe .ova snomn3s yl _ _ _ 1 uu, •vrv<4�Y�tse4�Y�w+.r. N`dld 3115 � _� _ - ° vrawav�waor+'unno��r+vao-avoa�ur+vaenw �`�a lly. f1Sm SNV is arcs-aovuots-nas N o Z . INOWaonou aza�vauo WO smog s p I�. �iyg� cF C 444 if '��c8d D77¢ag �y� Ap a iii Mall gli 1 k84 �a f '` R �`• nela .I-----le,® Y Y Will 111\1\Ail- \ l @ +pie ¢ 111� !'Z4 gqgg y3 g LaS QyE Y @ 3q3 HIM (� gg `p 8e C 0111,g e6 pCY YY4 \\\\ •� ?J q. qg °®gdayi a O ®®x a I $ ill' aC z8 a I 8i a a I ji r R�e � ill' Jill $ i@ di g ag silo Jill 1 o s ■ e , Qii @4 4 35�1i?'dist •� A. azva a+awn V-19SVHd-Nb ld 3LS „"" nm" = ' vwloav�Waal•ur+no'a�rrvao-avon H�r+vae anw v °" .. Y z 3 s xz 1 ■V� SNV-1 l 9IIS ZNOISOIIO-u S Jg1�fl2IvO c L11S Tn-31I3Hw S �o.�� !g U AM 0 HUM if C ` ga €pp 3 yyg qg q ®y gg y�y B q / 8g HI a �/^ _ Whil lip ®p pg 0q0yy8 Y� �I Ipa 1 RIP ni Ak 11h��;Yi4 p g aY IN R p.LOW qq gg gg gg Sr jig p gg �t g I v. a g� Il na El"ap =8 lien eggg I , �t;� pp £�� \\\\\ 18 s is M3 PR3 � I'ga8$$a Oy�� z $ aa48 °a4 a o Qb 4eaa�I WIEL6I $s's �$ aBg @�i a9 s a �g� �a 'rg$g�� ja� �Sagpp� ¢a b� 9g�1yq� 3 �$: � �'�:>o>.��;m.��■.e II#II I i 9II 1�I I!d }III I[[$[( e6t� .. 8� ? €33 ? i Pa: 3 ? 5PdY lip. 08=®�09 11 I I 1 I 1 I I F �� •• Ur _ All I fit All HIN ill IX lo I ha all �j say it Hill <1 lit in ml 1110 lijolmil 111111 lit R woes z �a '` q •a °� NVId 30VNIVSa VQO1S 8 JNI4V?J'J � `•��•°° � _ _ u= • �� • ° � vwwavo luawl+•wmoo aorrvao-avow xorrvaa�liw a � RS sl�za a ris-aovuois-azas 41 16 iNO aonou aaavaao�v x a Y till 1 ¢ �� i \ ������ \ � • ' p Xa HUM VEH /' / Sal \\mil \ I Il ��� / / / /�'�`�'�../ // / / ;•�/ \ gill A All Hill HH, 11 fit pp ins � sp;i_l�� IN 8 R 0 11 a \ ffil 4 F Y$� _ v AB 3lvU 91d9A3D y. Z NV'1d JNIdVJS4NVl _ ••� �' "10a D—ON'A n 03ONVa0-OVMHONVa931M O' 1 SNV'Id HJUS-d9MOIS-11121 mmn�owxamus ■ � �®>,� �� '•,,,,,,,,,,,••.• � .LNOLNdOf102i 31gdQx033—d 1 ¢¢Cb [ yy S •'i - I= z � € ea r O c aZ i iii z o as a as < ! fz z0 6 n mm {gam am e Bea call I it ; I�O�i Wa _ tit s �d�a_r� ' I I x o It ! ! z§ff 3a 2c zg 1 I VZ o pill. 0 j/S r OR Ills MH jig Fw oil � � ie � � ��€ \ \�y\�', ��pr • _ � y to f�/.�1 gE 4s B3 �4qQ o \\ \ 1 CgEeb €gE:g S Is 8 11 OSigg �ag IL October 3, 2012 Planning Board 40 agenda packet -Attachment 3 Michael Harvey From: Tom Konsler Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 4:47 PM To: Michael Harvey Subject: Well Procedure in Orange County Hi Michael, Here is a quick rundown of the process for constructing a well in Orange County. The applicant submits an application and a site plan to our office. The cost is$430. Staff will meet the applicant on site. The property lines and proposed buildings will need to be staked on site for this visit. Staff will make a determination that the well can be located on the property while meeting all of the setback distance requirements. Provided the site is acceptable,staff returns to the office and issues the well permit along with an attached site plan. The permit packet is emailed to the applicant. Elapsed time is approximately 2.5 weeks from time of application. The applicant contacts a well contractor and gives them a copy of the permit. The driller constructs the well,calls the health department for a grouting inspection which Is provided the same day as requested. The driller(or his subcontractor,or a subcontractor of the owner) completes the well and installs the pump,wiring,seal,etc. Once the well head is completed the contractor contacts the health department for a final well head inspection. Staff visits the site,assures that all components of the well are present and acceptable. They will issue a certificate of completion. Elapsed time is dependent on factors controlled by the owner or contractor. It could be as quick as 2 days from the well permit issuance date. Based on average well depths and construction requirements. The range of cost for a turn-key project is$6,000 to $8,000. Within 30 days of the completion of the well,our staff will return and collect water samples. The cost of this sampling is covered in the well permit cost. This is a description of a normal water supply well. For geothermal wells and monitoring wells,there are a few other steps in the process that involve state review and approval along the way. This may be more detail than you wanted, but I hope this information helps. Tom Tom Konsler, R.S. Environmental Health Director Orange County Health Department PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 tkonsIer(&_co.oranqe.nc.us Please tell us how we are doing by taking this very quick survey. We appreciate your comments. hftp:/AwAv.surveymonkey.com/S/CQRLSJR CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:All email messages,including any attachments,generated from or received by this site are the property of Orange County Government and as such are considered public domain and are subject to the North Carolina Public Record Law.The Orange County Health Department does not transmit client/patient medical information via email,Certain other confidential information may be transmitted,however,and any unauthorized review,use,disclosure or distribution is prohibited.If you are not the intended recipient,please contact the sender by reply email and 41 Michael Harvey From: Terry Hackett Sent: Wednesday, September 05,2012 9:20 AM To: 'Kelly Sue Woody'; Michael Harvey Cc: Chad Abbott Subject: RE: 12-0191 Affordable Rougemont Self Storage Kelly, Thank you for your updated submittal for the proposed Affordable Rougement Self Storage project. Based on this updated submittal,the project is proposing to convey stormwater from the proposed self-storage buildings and other impervious surfaces underneath Mile Branch Road to a proposed engineered stormwater control device or"best management practice" (BMP). The proposed BMP is a 10,000 square foot bioretention cell with internal water storage. Your submittal also included preliminary nutrient calculations. With the addition of the bioretention it appears that stormwater nutrient loadings will be met. The bioretention should also meet the peak flow and total suspended solid reduction requirements. Therefore,I believe the updated proposal will meet Orange County's stormwater requirements as outlined in Section 6.14 of our Unified Development Ordinance. However,please understand that this is a preliminary review. A detailed stormwater management plan,as well as an erosion control plan submittal will be required once the project has been finalized. At that time county erosion control/stormwater staff will complete a detailed review. We look forward to working on this project with you as things progress. If you need any additional information from me, please let me know. Thanks, Terry Terry L. Hackett Stormwater Resource Officer Erosion Control Divsion Orange County Planning&Inspections Department 131 W. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 919-245-2588 From: Kelly Sue Woody rmailto:kellvsue.woody asummit-engineer.coml Sent: Friday,August 31, 2012 2:40 PM To: Terry Hackett Cc: Chad Abbott Subject: 12-0191 Affordable Rougemont Self Storage Terry, 1 42 Attached is the Grading&Storm Drainage plan for"Affordable Rougemont Self Storage". Please note that the plan has been revised since your last issued comments. Let us know if you have any new comments otherwise please provide a revised memo noting that all comments have been addressed to Mr. Harvey. We will be happy to discuss continued concerns with you if needed. Thanks for your help, Kelly Sue Woody Civil Designer, Land Development Branch Phone: (919) 732-3883 Fax: (919) 732-6676 AWE E H.H ff oetM AM WOORMNO SMICU Creatively Inspired-Technically Executed www.summit-enciineer.com j Please consider the environment before printing. 2 43 Michael Harvey From: David Sykes Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 9:21 AM To: Michael Harvey Subject: chandler self storage Michael, I have reviewed the latest plan for the Chandler storage facility.The access roads throughout the property meet the width requirements that are required by the fire code.The revised plan does include an increase in turning radius for the access road around the outside of the storage facility. I have also been advised there will be a key pad at the gate for 24 hour access to the facility.All questions regarding emergency response and access have answered to my satisfaction. Thanks. David Sykes Assistant Fire Marshal Orange County Emergency Services 510 Meadowlands Drive Hillsborough,NC 27278 Office:(919)245-6125 Cell: (919)537-2148 Fax: (919)732-8130 Email:dsykes@co.orange.nc.us October 3, 2012 Planning Board agenda packet- 44 Ordinance#: Attachment 4 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS WHEREAS, Orange County has received and processed a petition seeking to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and WHEREAS, This petition seeks to rezone 12 acre portion of a 35.8 acre parcel of property (PIN 0910-34-5040) to NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ- 1) Conditional Zoning for the purpose of developing a self-storage facility. WHEREAS, This petition has been submitted in concert with a formal site plan in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.9.2 (C) of the UDO, and WHEREAS, the portions of property to be rezoned are identified further as follows: (PENDING FROM APPLICANT) and, WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 and 2.9.2 of the UDO have been deemed complete, and WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County Zoning Atlas is hereby amended to rezone the 12 acre portion of the aforementioned parcel to NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ-1) Conditional Zoning district. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption. Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this day of , 2012. I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on , 2012 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board. 1 45 WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , 2012. SEAL Clerk to the Board of Commissioners October 3, 2012 Planning Board Ordinance#: agenda packet-Attachment 5 46 AN ORDINANCE DENYING AMENDMENT TO . THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS WHEREAS, Orange County has received and processed a petition seeking to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and WHEREAS, This petition seeks to rezone 12 acre portion of a 35.8 acre parcel of property (PIN 0910-34-5040) to NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ- 1) Conditional Zoning for the purpose of developing a self-storage facility. WHEREAS, This petition has been submitted in concert with a formal site plan in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.9.2 (C) of the UDO, and WHEREAS, the portions of property to be rezoned are identified further as follows: (PENDING FROM APPLICANT) and, WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 and 2.9.2 of the LIDO have been deemed to have not been complied with, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, 1.1.7, and 2.8 of the UDO and to Section 153A- 341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds there is insufficient documentation within the record supporting the proposed atlas amendment or that the rezoning will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. and BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the proposed Orange County Zoning Atlas, as detailed herein, is denied. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption. Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this day of , 2012. I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on , 2012 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board. i 47 • WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , 2012. SEAL Clerk to the Board of Commissioners October 3, 2012 Planning Board 48 agenda packet-Attachment 6 4 RESOLUTION CONCERNING STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, Orange County has received and processed a petition seeking to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and WHEREAS, This petition seeks to rezone 12 acre portion of a 35.8 acre parcel of property (PIN 0910-34-5040)to NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ- 1) Conditional Zoning for the purpose of developing a self-storage facility. WHEREAS, This petition has been submitted in concert with a formal site plan in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.9.2 (C) of the UDO, and WHEREAS, the portions of property to be rezoned are identified further as follows: (PENDING FROM APPLICANT) and, WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 AND 2.9.2 of the UDO have been deemed complete, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 153A-341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within the record denoting that the rezoning will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, or part thereof including but not limited to, the following: a. The Land Use Element Map. b. Chapter 3— Economic Development c. Chapter 5— Land Use Element, including: 1. Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern and designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County's population and economy consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives d. The NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on August 27, 2007. and, WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be reasonable and in the public interest as it promotes public health, safety, and general welfare by adopting the goals and purposes of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof, 49 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the proposed zoning atlas amendment, as described herein, has been deemed to be consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the BOCC hereby adopts this statement of consistency signifying same. Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this day of , 2012. I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on , 2012 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , 2012. SEAL Clerk to the Board of Commissioners October 3, 2012 Planning Board 50 agenda packet -Attachment 7 RESOLUTION CONCERNING STATEMENT OF INCONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, Orange County has received and processed a petition seeking to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and WHEREAS, This petition seeks to rezone 12 acre portion of a 35.8 acre parcel of property (PIN 0910-34-5040) to NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ-1) Conditional Zoning for the purpose of developing a self-storage facility. WHEREAS, the portions of property to be rezoned are identified further as follows: (PENDING FROM APPLICANT) and, WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 AND 2.92 of the UDO have not been complied with, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, 1.1.7, and 2.9.1 (E) of the UDO and to Section 153A-341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds that the applicant has not submitted sufficient documentation denoting that the rezoning will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof including, and WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment is not reasonable and is not in the public interest as it will not promote public health, safety, and general welfare, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the proposed zoning atlas amendment, as described herein, has been deemed to be inconsistent with the goals and policies of the adopted Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, is not reasonable, and is not in the public interest as it will not promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and the BOCC hereby adopts this statement of inconsistency signifying same. Upon motion of Commissioner I seconded by Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this day of 2012. 1, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on , 2012 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this _ day of 2012. SEAL Clerk to the Board of Commissioners Attachment 2 52 . Additional Information Supplied to the _ Planning Board on October 3, 2012 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION—ITEM 8 ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT—DARRELL CHANDLER • Pictures of`other' self-storage operations within the county • Pictures from Chandler property of adjacent parcels Se/f.,�tora mn�erc�a/ Rural �QS�a$ f. r A P UhArot er n CC4 } f' 4 boiot NG 27278 S h6ter EQ�e awls Satvey Wa Par Data a rov�© fit�►ody Water eature Exact p from a"ae cocrrty Ai'w ins t'Yabr»Bound Y Li►ntts red CSJ 109 YR . D' a C.,� t'O j�6'v'riya bW cc" s "'Wary CI ETl t q rkdw, Fboy� pt t- a►' . sy Nw w y Conservation E, �s ive p2,oy07)2!02!07) •�1t8 i r Oti1e mehts® s taut'fEffective 1)2/02/07) N nservat on Easeh8nt9 der and Sewer goundery I k-h p tti.t35 feat -� �60 Feat 54 SELF-STORAGE—WOODS BROTHERS-NC HIGHWAY 86—GC4 ZONING View from NC Highway 86—front yard Self.. stOra�e facili _ OR Ex�sti - ng Co BOOM Road RB Cq - +�niversi�fake d CS i" Cy J°r�a�Lake StattO!Etc i Po BOX 3131 chapai 10. NC 27514 ►. Mhf FeaMae su" Vlditer F CJ pawls `OC �Ntrra mated Mkater Fewra rx �Ionply #Ago &asks 9ia sc�ypa SYstem Sotrndary •C:j ® ��@}r� �"of Cftv soft t asen,�„ts { a o roft7 N 0 Hoch. ftWfeet ss 130 260 SELF • a 'POINT s I Booth iewf Road side ST • Yard land use buff., R041) BC5 ZoftVC 56 z 1 i fk at 3 a S � � Zoned E aTell efacliity xisting Comm t�/,� �rea�sbor e)hWin 5 0load tic-51 and u aral B offer lRB1 IV pr�tec erstty���ake ted;Wate `d e �t # j sz p r y S 2816 OLp GR om C�prL kliLL.NG 1g1?�5 ►,-uts rS yuda tl yhefatnre ah"ere, Dafa *b em rC7N#t crasamdayQtaTJLt+ralts �ipp,.y.R � `� yaati°wbm.AY �dNy �serka' ,�y cov,Oft ;Ye azt� a •� by 0;.Ea rrrents 4 it ft7) c0unty Q f °ft2l°n N ,"kn Easements Sew ry p t inch 1G9.440 feet es tap �t 60 Feet fast 58 , SELF STORAGE FACILITY—OLD GREENSBORO HIGHWAY—EC5 ZONING View from Ferguson Road View from Old Greensboro Highway—front yard land use buffer i�r 4 a:. ' ti f�+• K3 mix SelfstoF. Town ge faoiiify C Jo ° arry nes F oro pia , N A R oad. nnin - 9 Jurisaicfwri Npp � Jordan UnArotected Wa eermshed t:1 Y` 1 f� � t t9TT�31T� Y M ftRGEL 21 � iNgRR ST c USGS Watgr geaitAra SOfiS SUryey Q p�� tx►atet eatUra a]iFxvnsris� low Sq�00 33 f Op Ya F n ptipa„��� ®M14ta� a ontcwr g""naary p Ejlts w br+r BOU"dalr'Y '��°"Sp^+iuun as app t ecuw a ants �r°°dprarn(& ►w� fit °Mort n servants gnat Sewer 130uwa y 0 1 i� ket jjy 110 280 Feet 61 SELF STORAGE FACILITY—TOWN OF CARRBORO JURISDICTION—JONES FERRY ROAD View from Jones Ferry Road—front yard land use buffer y, .C; + �'aFti > r S i 'IT +� sTOeerrAwHUe art vaw.n n...,u ew. Pictures of Darrell Chandler property—view from portion of lot housing storage facility: Picture(s) I and 2 NC Highway 57—view of We 3 Investors property kart property) . : . . , . .a. . . . � :. . . �< . _ v© kn� y, y: «5: 63 Picture 3: Intersection of NC High-way 57 and Mile Branch Road ,= t; ;a Picture 4: View Chandler property across from Mile Branch si J'M`!`•+.^n:bi/� bFh'^�'nYa i '.i-ar+k n i$k:,F �F.. �� '.' - .: ... Picture(s)5 i i of plant property vg VC Ok yy } 65 Picture(s) 5 and 6: View of adjacent undeveloped property—southern property line t '•r Attachment 3 66 Michael Harvey From: Tom Konsler Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 4:47 PM To: Michael Harvey Subject: Well Procedure in Orange County Hi Michael, Here is a quick rundown of the process for constructing a well in Orange County. The applicant submits an application and a site plan to our office. The cost is$430. Staff will meet the applicant on site. The property lines and proposed buildings will need to be staked on site for this visit. Staff will make a determination that the well can be located on the property while meeting all of the setback distance requirements. Provided the site is acceptable,staff returns to the office and issues the well permit along with an attached site plan. The permit packet is ernailed to the applicant. Elapsed time is approximately 2.5 weeks from time of application. The applicant contacts a well contractor and gives them a copy of the permit. The driller constructs the well,calls the health department for a grouting inspection which is provided the same day as requested. The driller(or his subcontractor,or a subcontractor of the owner) completes the well and installs the pump,wiring,seal,etc. Once the well head is completed the contractor contacts the health department for a final well head inspection. Staff visits the site assures that all components of the well are present and acceptable. They will issue a certificate of completion. Elapsed time is dependent on factors controlled by the owner or contractor. It could be as quick as 2 days from the well permit issuance date. Based on average well depths and construction requirements. The range of cost for a turn-key project is$6,000 to $8,000. - Within 30 days of the completion of the well,our staff will return and collect water samples. The cost of this sampling is covered in the well permit cost. This is a description of a normal water supply well. For geothermal wells and monitoring wells,there are a few other steps in the process that involve state review and approval along the way. This may be more detail than you wanted, but I hope this information helps. Tom Tom Konsier, R.S. Environmental Health Director Orange County Health Department PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 tkonslera-co.orange.ric.us Please tell us how we are doing by taking this very quick survey. We appreciate your comments. hftp:/ANww.surveymonkey.com/S/CQRLSJR CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:All email messages,including any attachments,generated from or received by this site are the property of Orange County Government and as such are considered public domain and are subject to the North Carolina Public Record Law.The Orange County Health Department does not transmit client/patient medical information via email.Certain other confidential information may be transmitted,however,and any unauthorized review,use,disclosure or distribution is prohibited.If you are not the intended recipient,please contact the sender by reply email and 67 ^ Michael Harvey From: Hackett Sent: Wednesday, September 0S' 20I29:30AK4 To: 'Kelly Sue VVuody';Michael Harvey Cc: Chad Abbott Subject: RE:12'Ul9l Affordable Rougemont Self Storage ' Kelly, Thank you for your updated submittal for the proposed Affordable Rougement Self Storage project. Basedonthis updated submittal,the project is proposing to convey stormwater from the proposed self-storage buildings and other impervious surfaces underneath Mile Branch Road to a proposed engineered stormwater control device or"best management practice"(ByNP). The proposed BMP is a 10,000 square foot bloretention cell with internal water storage. Your submittal also included preliminary nutrient calculations. With the addition of the Woretentionit appears that otomnv*ater nutrient loadings will bemet. The bioregent}on should also meet the peak flow and total suspended solid reduction requirements. Therefore,I believe the updated proposal will meet Orange County's stormwater requirements as outlined in Section 6.14 of our Unified Development Ordinance. However,please understand that this is a preliminary review. A detailed stormwater management plan,as well as an erosion control plan submittal will be required once the project has been finalized. At that time county erosion control/stormwater staff will complete a detailed review. We look forward to working on this project with you as things progress. if you need any additional information from me,please let me know. Terry Terry L.Hackett Stormwater Resource Officer Erosion Control Divsion Orange County Planning&Inspections Department 131 W. Margaret Lane Hillsborough,NC 27278 From: Kelly Sue Woody rmailto:kellysue.woodv(&summit-engineer.comI Sent: Friday,August 31, 2012 2:40 PM To: Terry Hackett Cc: Chad Abbott Subject: 12-0191 Affordable Rougemont Self Storage ' 68 Attached is the Grading&Storm Drainage plan for"Affordable Rougemont Self . Please note that the plan has beenrevbed since your last issued comments, Let usknow if you have any new comments otherwise please provide a ^ revised memo noting that all comments have been addressed to Mr. Harvey. VVe will be happy to discuss continued concerns with you ifneeded. Thanks for your help, Kelly Sue Woody Civil Designer, Land Development Branch Phone: (919) 732-3883 Fax: (919) 732-6676 E OwtAtIff Creatively Inspired-Technically Executed 10 13 0 Please consider the environment before printing. GB Michael Harvey From: David Sykes Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 9:21 AM To: Michael Harvey Subject: chandler self storage I have reviewed the latest plan for the Chandler storage facility.The access roads throughout the property meet the width requirements that are required by the fire code.The revised plan does include an increase in turning radius for the access road around the outside of the storage facility. I have also been advised there will be a key pad at the gate for 24 hour access to the facility.All questions regarding emergency response and access have answered to my satisfaction. Thanks. David Sykes Assistant Fire Marshal Orange County Emergency Services 5 10 Meadowlands Drive Hillsborough,NC 27278 Office: (919)245-6125 Cell: (919)537-2148 Fax. (919)732-8130 Email:dsykes@co.oranjzc.nc.us 70 Attachment 4 Synopsis of review comments/concerns related to Darrell Chandler project - request to rezone a 12 acre portion of a 35.8 acre parcel of property to the NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ-1) Conditional Zoning district. AREA OF COMMENTS: APPLICANT BOCC PLANNING CONCERN: RESPONSE: RESPONSE: BOARD Includes comments RESPONSE: made during, and staff comments identified within the abstract for, the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing TRANSPORTATION The turn radius for the Turn radius has been At its September At its October 3, County Planning staff access drive to the site increased to address 18, 2012 regular 2012 regular comments were is not adequate for this concern. Orange meeting, the BOCC meeting, the outlined at August turning movements of County staff met with indicated they were Planning Board 27, 2012 public larger vehicles, vehicles the applicant on satisfied with the indicated they hearing with trailers or September 7, 2012 to modifications. were satisfied emergency vehicles. review a revised plan with the calling for the increase modifications. in turn radius around proposed storage buildings as well as the reduction in size of proposed buildings to ensure adequate travel way for vehicles. Drive-aisle, including Drive-aisle width has At its September At its October 3, those areas in between been increased to 24 18, 2012 regular 2012 regular proposed units, are feet. The central meeting, the BOCC meeting, the insufficient to allow for drive-aisle has been indicated they were Planning Board two-way traffic. increased to 25 feet to satisfied with the indicated they accommodate modifications. were satisfied One-way traffic is Planning and with the recommended around Emergency modifications. the proposed storage Management staff units. recommendations. 71 AREA OF COMMENTS: APPLICANT BOCC PLANNING CONCERN: RESPONSE: RESPONSE: BOARD Includes comments RESPONSE: made during, and staff comments identified within the abstract for, the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing TRANSPORTATION The current location of After reviewing At its September At its October 3, Continued the entrance/exit is pictures of the area 18, 2012 regular 2012 regular extremely close to the where the proposed meeting, the BOCC meeting, the adjacent entrance for driveway shall be indicated they were Planning Board the cement plant and located (Refer to satisfied with the indicated they existing foliage may Attachment 2) modifications. were satisfied obstruct drivers' view of Planning staff with the on-coming traffic. determined during the modifications. September 7, 2012 meeting the drive location was acceptable. There appears to be The applicant has At its September At its October 3, insufficient stacking widened the driveway 18, 2012 regular 2012 regular space for vehicles entrance and meeting, the BOCC meeting, the attempting to access the increased the turn indicated they were Planning Board site. radius to satisfied with the indicated they accommodate modifications. were satisfied additional stacking with the based on staff modifications. comments. Concerns were Sign locations have At its September At its October 3, expressed over been modified to 18, 2012 regular 2012 regular proposed sign locations. ensure they are meeting, the BOCC meeting, the Staff wanted additional located outside of indicated they were Planning Board detail to ensure established site satisfied with the indicated they proposed signs were triangles. modifications. were satisfied not located within with the established site modifications. triangles. 72 AREA OF COMMENTS: APPLICANT BOCC PLANNING CONCERN: RESPONSE: RESPONSE: BOARD Includes comments RESPONSE: made during, and staff comments identified within the abstract for, the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing TRANSPORTATION BOCC members After reviewing At its September At its October 3, Continued expressed concerns pictures of the area 18, 2012 regular 2012 regular over existing, mature, where the proposed meeting, the BOCC meeting, the foliage near the driveway shall be indicated they were Planning Board proposed entrance and located (Refer to satisfied with the indicated they asked for clarification if Attachment 2) modifications. were satisfied the existing trees would Planning staff with the block visibility or create determined during the modifications. a hazard for large September 7, 2012 vehicles attempting to meeting the drive access the site. location was acceptable and the foliage should not be an issue. UTILITY SERVICE County Planning staff BOCC members Please refer to At its October 3, comments were requested written Attachment 1 of the 2012 regular outlined at August documentation from November 20, 2012 meeting, the 27, 2012 public Orange County Health packet for additional Planning Board hearing and Building Inspections detail. indicated they that a chemical or other were satisfied toilet system could be with the used to support the information proposed office use. provided by the applicant. BOCC and Planning The applicant is At its September At its October 3, Board members making the necessary 18, 2012 regular 2012 regular expressed reservations application to the meeting, the BOCC meeting, the over the applicants Orange County Health asked for Planning Board desire not to develop a Department to correspondence voted well on the property. investigate the from Environmental unanimously to placement of a well on Health on well recommend the Several comments were the property. permitting imposition of a made over the need for procedures and condition a well to provide water Additional information costs. requiring the for staff, to clean the concerning this item is installation of a facility, and to address contained within well prior to the emergencies. Attachment 1. commencement of Phase 2 construction 73 AREA OF COMMENTS: APPLICANT BOCC PLANNING CONCERN: RESPONSE: RESPONSE: BOARD Includes comments RESPONSE: made during, and staff comments identified within the abstract for, the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing SOLID WASTE BOCC and Planning August 29, 2012: At its September At its October 3, Board members Applicant informed 18, 2012 regular 2012 regular County Planning staff indicated the applicant staff the plan would be meeting, the meeting, the indicated given the should provide a revised to denote the BOCC indicated Planning Board numerous revisions dumpster area to allow location of a dumpster they were indicated they to the site plan, for the orderly collection and general use satisfied with the were satisfied with Orange County Solid and disposal of solid recycling bin on the revision and the modifications Waste had been waste generated on the property. supported the and the placement unable to finalize property. development of a of the dumpster. their comments in The dumpster would landscape island time for the August be screened with a to aid in traffic The Board also 27, 2012 public fence in accordance management. indicated approval hearing given the with the provisions of for the new ever evolving nature the UDO. landscape island of the project shown on the revised pla ns. BOCC members wanted Pending At its October 3, written comments from 2012 regular Orange County Solid meeting, the Waste on the Planning Board applicant's revised site voted plan with respect to the unanimously to adequacy of any recommend the dumpster located on- imposition of a site. condition requiring final approval of the site plan by Solid Waste prior to earth disturbing activity. A Planning Board According to the At its September At its October 3, member wanted applicant large waste 18, 2012 regular 2012 regular additional comment will be disposed of by meeting, the meeting, the from the applicant on a private contractor BOCC indicated Planning Board how he intended to hired to haul away they were indicated they address the disposal of waste. Waste will be satisfied with the were satisfied with large items left on the disposed of in proposed solid the information property by former accordance with the waste disposal provided by the tenants. Orange County Solid methodology. applicant. Waste Management Ordinance. 74 AREA OF COMMENTS: APPLICANT BOCC PLANNING CONCERN: RESPONSE: RESPONSE: BOARD Includes comments RESPONSE: made during, and staff comments identified within the abstract for, the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing EMERGENCY Emergency The site plan was At its September At its October 3, MANAGEMENT Management staff(EM) modified to address 18, 2012 regular 2012 regular indicated the need for this concern. Drive- meeting, the meeting, the 20 feet of space in aisles and spaces in- BOCC indicated Planning Board between each building between storage they were indicated they and a minimum of 20 of buildings have been satisfied with the were satisfied with drive-aisle width to allow increased to 24 feet to modifications. the modifications for the passage of ensure proper to address EM emergency vehicles. separation to facilitate staff concerns. emergency vehicle access. EM expressed concern The Turn radius has At its September At its October 3, over turn radiuses at the been increased to 18, 2012 regular 2012 regular north-western portions address this concern. meeting, the meeting, the of the project, along NC BOCC indicated Planning Board Highway 57, as it would they were indicated they be difficult to get satisfied with the were satisfied with emergency vehicles modifications. the modifications through the area. to address EM staff concerns. 75 AREA OF COMMENTS: APPLICANT BOCC PLANNING CONCERN: RESPONSE: RESPONSE: BOARD Includes comments RESPONSE: made during, and staff comments identified within the abstract for, the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing LAND USE BUFFER BOCC members Please refer to BOCC members At its October 3, expressed concern over response contained asked for pictures 2012 regular the proposed clustering within Attachment 1 to be taken of the meeting, the of foliage along NC surrounding area Planning Board Highway 57 and Mile and other self- indicated they Branch Road rather storage facilities were satisfied with than a continuous land in the County to the proposed land use buffer. aid the Planning use buffers as Board in its denoted on the It was recommended deliberations. plan and did not that a continuous Utilizing these recommend the vegetative buffer be pictures, the imposition of a provided consistent with BOCC has asked condition requiring County standards. the Planning additional Board to vegetation along There was a lack of determine the NC Highway 57. consensus over the appropriateness appropriateness of of the proposed proposed land use land use buffer(s). buffer widths along adjacent roadways and Please refer to residentially zoned Attachment 2 for properties. the photos A majority of the BOCC indicated satisfaction with the proposed land use buffer along Mile Branch Road. There was no consensus on the proposed buffer along NC Highway 57 with some members requesting a more intense buffer. 76 AREA OF COMMENTS: APPLICANT BOCC PLANNING CONCERN: RESPONSE: RESPONSE: BOARD Includes comments RESPONSE: made during, and staff comments identified within the abstract for, the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing LAND USE BUFFER BOCC members asked Staff completed a site Continued staff to complete a field visit on September 7, survey on an adjoining 2012 and determined residentially zoned the property is property to verify if it undeveloped. was undeveloped at this time. STORMWATER BOCC members wanted The site plan has At its September At its October 3, additional explanation been revised to 18, 2012 regular 2012 regular from the applicant on denote the proposed meeting, the meeting, the the proposed stormwater BOCC indicated Planning Board stormwater management system. they were indicated they management system. satisfied with the were satisfied with This system has been modifications. Mr. Hackett's BOCC and Planning deemed adequate by comments. Board members County Erosion Please refer to requested additional Control staff. Attachment 3 for detail on the site plan an e-mail from denoting drainage Terry Hackett of points on the property. Orange County Erosion Control This request was made tentatively after the project approving the engineer indicated the revised property would actually stormwater drain from multiple management locations due to existing system. and proposed topography. • 77 AREA OF COMMENTS: APPLICANT BOCC PLANNING CONCERN: RESPONSE: RESPONSE: BOARD Includes comments RESPONSE: made during, and staff comments identified within the abstract for, the August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing IMPERVIOUS BOCC members Please refer to At its September At its October 3, SURFACE AREA requested additional Attachment 2. From 18, 2012 regular 2012 regular comments from the staff's perspective meeting, the meeting, the applicant on the there will be a BOCC indicated Planning Board intended means of permit/declaration of they were indicated they restricting impervious restrictions recorded satisfied with the were satisfied with surface area on the in the Orange County staffs proposal to the impervious property. Registrar of Deeds record a master surface limits and office if this request is document with staffs approved denoting outlining proposal to record allowable levels of development of a master impervious surface the property in the document area for the project. event the request outlining was approved development of the property. LAND USE There was consensus that the proposed use was acceptable. BOCC members asked Notes were added to At its September At its October 3, for clarification from the the site plan. Retail 18, 2012 regular 2012 regular application on the extent operations would be meeting, the meeting, the of retail operations. The limited to packaging BOCC indicated Planning Board Board want to be sure materials (i.e. boxes, they were indicated they all retail would be tape, etc.) necessary satisfied with the were satisfied with connected to the self- to support the self- explanation. the information. storage operation. storage operation. There would not be additional sale of items (i.e. drinks, food, snacks, etc.) not necessary to support the proposed land use. Attachment 5 August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing 78 Minutes—Except APPROVED 10/1612012 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING August 27, 2012 7:00 P.M. The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, August 27, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Central Orange Senior Center, Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier, and Commissioners Alice Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Valerie Foushee, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert, and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt(All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Larry Wright, and Planning Board members Pete Hallenbeck, Andrea Rohrbacher, Maxecine Mitchell, Tony Blake, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Alan Campbell, and Johnny Randall PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: H.T. "Buddy" Hartley, Lisa Stuckey, Dawn Brezina, Chair Pelissier called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM. She asked for a motion to add a closed session at the end of the meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to add closed sessions after the public hearing: 1. Per N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a)(3): To Consult with the Attorney to protect the attorney-client privilege. 2. Per [N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a)(5)] To establish or instruct the staff or agent concerning the negotiation of the price and terms of a contract concerning the acquisition of real property 3. Per [N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a)(4)]: To discuss matters relating to the location or expansion of business in the area served by this body. 4. Per [N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a)(6)] : To consider the qualifications, competence, performance, condition of appointment of a public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee. VOTE: UNANIMOUS OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR A. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 79 B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 2. Zoning Atlas Amendment—To review an application to rezone approximately 14 acres of a 36 acre parcel of property located at 9925 NC Highway 57 from Agricultural Residential (AR) to NC Highway 67 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ-1)for the purpose of developing an enclosed mini self-storage facility with accompanying accessory uses including office space, a retail office selling boxes and packing supplies, and a truck rental area. Michael Harvey made reference to the PowerPoint presentation. This is near the go-cart track on NC 57, which is currently for sale. The Orange County Speedway is also nearby. This proposed use is consistent with the land uses that are anticipated within the adopted NC 57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan that was adopted in 2007 by the County Commissioners. This land use is listed as a permitted use. The applicant is in a position where he needs some guidance from the County Commissioners before moving forward. The abstract identifies the concerns related to this project and the staff needs direction from the Board. There will be approximately 400 individual storage lockers. The applicant is proposing the installation of a land use buffer. There is also some transportation planning concerns. Staff is asking the Board to give necessary feedback on this issue. STAFF COMMENTS: - Land use consistent with recent REDA-CZ-1 district amendment - Approved Small Area Plan envisioned this as an acceptable land use in the area - Staff is concerned over the lack of well for the site and recommends the applicant revisit this matter - Erosion Control has expressed concern over proposed storm water plan - Transportation planning comments will need to be addressed - Staff will need direction on the proposed land use buffer modifications Commissioner Yuhasz informed the Board and the public that he did represent Mr. Chandler during the time of the development of the NC 57 Small Area Plan and that representation ended when he became a County Commissioner. He has no interest in this particular project. Commissioner Foushee made reference to toilet facilities and that the applicant has been made aware of this condition and expressed reservations. She asked what needed to be done so that this does not continue to be a concern. Michael Harvey said that Orange County Environmental Health will review the proposal, and staff can provide additional information once it becomes available. He understands that it will not be an issue to have toilet facilities just for staff use and not for the public. The resolution of this issue will be provided in writing. Commissioner McKee said that his only concern is the lack of well water and adequate bathroom facilities. 80 Chad Abbott, with Summit Consulting, said that the applicant and staff will reevaluate this issue and will ask Planning staff to work with him to secure the necessary written responses. Commissioner Yuhasz said that part of the property is on the northeast side of Mile Branch and asked if there has been any investigation of a well/septic system in that 12 acres. Chad Abbott said that the land does not perk, but there are alternative systems. Commissioner Hemminger said that she has a lot of concern about the storm water. She asked what was being proposed. Michael Harvey said that the initial review of the site plan with Erosion Control did not turn a favorable response in terms of storm water. The water runoff will be significant. Chad Abbott said that there has not been time to design the storm water control yet. He made reference to sheet c-5, which has storm water calculations. He said that the runoff is proposed to be caught at Mile Branch and NC 57. Commissioner Hemminger said that she has concerns about needing a well, not just for bathrooms, but maintaining the aesthetics of the facility, as well as the safety. Commissioner Gordon requested some additional materials. She made reference to access to the facility and the turn radius. She has concerns about this. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to the buffer and the adjoining property. He said that the property to the southwest has the same soil characteristics, presumably. He said that this suggests to him that this property will never be developed as a residential property. He thinks that it is not necessary to provide this kind of buffer against property that is not actually going to need it. He suggested showing some flexibility with regard to the buffer requirements. Commissioner McKee said that the Board should keep in mind that this is an economic development area. He does not see any issues that cannot be overcome. He agrees with Commissioner Yuhasz about the buffers. This is not a general use area. He said that the soil is not very amenable to perking. This property will probably not be used for any use if not this type of use. His said that this is a proposal for low-impact economic development and it is the type of business that he would like to attract to these areas. Commissioner Foushee echoed Commissioner McKee's comments. Andrea Rohrbacher said that storage areas generate a lot of waste and there needs to be some mechanism to dispose of things on-site. Secondly, she echoed Commissioner Hemminger's concerns over the water. She said that units need to be hosed out from time to time. There should be a mechanism for this and she does not think that a pressure washer is viable for this. Larry Wright said that he would like for the applicant to consider looking at an area for solid waste disposal. He also supports Commissioner McKee's viewpoint. Chad Abbott made reference to the transportation comments and said that he would like to see how DOT would respond to some of these comments. He said that it would be best to push back the entrance as far away from the intersection of NC 57 as possible because of the potential truck traffic. He will provide written responses to the comments from staff. He said that this use fits this site because the soil does not perk and not many other uses could be placed here. s 81 Commissioner Hemminger said that she wants this project to succeed, but there are many issues that were not covered in the documentation the Board received (i.e., traffic, storm water runoff, etc.). She just wants it to be the best possible project and have it succeed. She feels like the application is disjointed. Michael Harvey said that this was supposed to be a negotiable site development process. There are several concerns of staff and there are issues that need to be addressed. He said that the applicant is seeking the Board's guidance on what should come next and he thinks it would be perfectly reasonable for the Board to ask and provide direct guidance on what should occur next and allow the Planning Board to continue this review at the October meeting. Commissioner Jacobs said that he is glad this proposal is coming forward. He said that the next presentation should have the staff concerns and the responses from the applicant. He is more interested in having buffers along NC 57 than on other parts of the property because these facilities are not very attractive. He suggested having some bullet points come back to the Board. Chad Abbott said that he is certain that the applicant has addressed the storm water and the traffic/fire and turn radius issues. The big item is the buffer, and he needs guidance on this. He said that the applicant will put in a well if needed. He said that the staff-requested buffer is very expensive. Commissioner Jacobs said that all of this needs to be put in writing. Michael Harvey said that the Board has some options - identify areas the applicant needs to address, adjourn the public hearing to a date and time certain asking the applicant to submit written responses to the issues, asking the Planning Board to review the project, and asking the Planning Board to continue the dialogue at the October meeting. He said that there is information that is lacking and everyone is frustrated with that. Chair Pelissier said that she has heard that the Board really does want a well on this site. Regarding the buffers, she thinks that there should be some flexibility. She said that all of the storage facilities that she has seen around here do not have buffers. She would not want to put restrictions on this project when other similar projects did not have the same restrictions. Commissioner Hemminger said that she would like to keep this process on track and come back at a September meeting. Larry Wright asked the Board to provide some options for the buffer for the Planning Board to discuss. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would support the small buffer on the perimeter as shown, as well as the clustered buffer. Chair Pelissier said that the Board is happy with the proposed buffer. Commissioner Gordon said that she does not agree with the proposed buffers. She said that she would still like to see the Planning Board comments. She would like to see a summary come back on September 18th. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to seek further clarity, get responses back in writing and come back at the September 18th meeting, and to use that meeting to provide further direction to the applicant and Planning Board regarding the Commissioners' preferences on the items that have been identified as areas of concern and that are addressed in writing by the applicant and by appropriate agencies; and to adjourn the public hearing until September 18th to allow staff and the applicant to bring forward the written requests and information as required by this meeting. 82 Commissioner Yuhasz said that this process and the need to get feedback from the County Commissioners points to the possibility that they may not want to limit conditional use applications to the Quarterly Public Hearings. If there is going to be this kind of month-to-month bringing something back, it might be more appropriate to accept conditional use applications on a more frequent basis. Commissioner Gordon said that she objects to that suggested change. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner McKee to target a November 20th decision point and to have a recommendation by the Planning Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Attachment 6 83 Approved 11/7/12 EXCERPT-APPROVED PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 3,2012 REGULAR MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Wright (Chair), At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; Peter Hallenbeck (Vice-chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Alan Campbell, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township Representative; Dawn Brezina, Eno Township Representative;Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative MEMBERS ABSENT: Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative;Johnny Randall,At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Andrea Rohrbacher,At-Large Chapel Hill Township; STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz; Special Projects Coordinator; Abigaile Pittman, Land Use/Transportation Planner ll; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor;Jennifer Phillips, Property Development Specialist;Tina Love,Administrative Assistant II OTHERS PRESENT: Paul Baker, Ryan M.Jackson,Jeff Akin,Chad Abbott Agenda Item 8: Zoning Atlas Amendment — To make a recommendation to the BOCC on an application to rezone approximately 14 acres of a 36 acre parcel of property located at 9925 NC Highway 57 from Agricultural Residential (AR) to NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ-1). This item was heard at the August 27, 2012 quarterly public hearing Presenter: Michael Harvey,Current Planning Supervisor Alan Campbell returned to the table and rejoined the Planning Board Meeting Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract. Michael Harvey: Mr. Chandler has requested that if a well is required that it be installed in Phase 2 and he understands he is responsible for bringing in water to clean and maintain the landscape until Phase 2 is built. Larry Wright: Where will he put that water? Michael Harvey: Into water plants and clean buildings with a pressure washer. Larry Wright: To get emergency vehicles around this water that is stored. Michael Harvey: It would not be permanent but be brought in a vehicle or truck for watering the plants or cleaning the facilities. Buddy Hartley: Why does he need to wait until Phase 2? 1 84 Approved 11M12 Michael Harvey: His concern is the cost of the well. We have documentation provided by Mr. Konsler providing ` information on the cost of the well in attachment 3. Alan Campbell: What is the time frame for Phase 2? Michael Harvey: Mr.Abbott would be the best person to speak to that issue. Maxecine Mitchell: How many units will be in the first phase? Michael Harvey: Essentially five buildings. A couple hundred units based on market conditions. Chad Abbott: Those units are a minimum of 10 by 10 and can be expanded up to 10 by 20. About 144 units perhaps. Alan Campbell: Are there any other type of uses of operations that is fairly standard not to have any water at all. Michael Harvey: The argument by the applicant is since there will not be restroom or other retail facilities, he doesn't believe he should be required to have a well or even a septic system. Part of my answer is that if Orange County Environment Health says it does not require a well or well service,then there is no obligation from a planning standpoint to say you have to provide a well. One point Mr.Abbott provided at the BOCC meeting was that if you provide well water for use of washing hands or other purposes,you have to have a septic system to treat that water. You can recommend to the BOCC that the well be installed now or the applicant's that the well be installed in Phase 2. 1 don't see why a well can't be installed now. Larry Wright: When we start discussing buffers and the wells, are we discussing Phase 1 and Phase 2 together or just Phase 1? Michael Harvey: You are discussing the project being built out. I Michael Harvey: Reviewed the buffers. Larry Wright: Mr.Abbott,would you please review the photos and tell us which of those buildings and sites best match this projected one. Maxecine Mitchell: Because it is such a rural area, I probably won't realize there is storage shed there with an interrupted buffer especially over time. I think it will work out fine. Michael Harvey: There are two issues the planning board is charged with;make a decision on the proposed buffer and make a recommendation on the well issue. The remaining issues have been addressed. If you can make those affirmative findings, you can approve the ordinance amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas in Attachment 4 and approve the resolution statement consistency or make a recommendation for the resolution statement and recommend conditions. Chad Abbott: What benefit versus cost does the applicant receive from the well? The buffer is required buffer and is required to be maintained. If we take out the landscaping,what is the purpose of the well? If we look at how often this well will be used, I am not sure it matches. My client would like to see if he is making enough money to expand his facility then a well would not be a big impact. Alan Campbell: Is there a secondary process for Phase 2? Michael Harvey: The condition would be once the commencement of Phase 2 which requires any compliance and building permit,he would have to build a well. 2 _ Approved 11/7/12 85 Peter Hallenbeck: I am good with the shrubbery but it sounds like the BOCC will have fun discussing that on their own. On fire, this thing is about 4.7 miles from the Caldwell Station. By the time someone gets there, a garden hose will not do anything for you. I like the idea of letting them do the four buildings without a well and would like some assurance he won't use the rest of the area for bulk storage. If he puts in a well, he will need to bury about 1,400 feet of pipe. My overall take is that is some economic development. It fits in with the race track and concrete plan fine. Give it a chance. Michael Harvey: Five buildings. MOTION made Alan Campbell to accept this as on the map submitted by the applicant and not require a well until the development of phase 2. Tony Blake seconded. VOTE:UNANIMOUS MOTION made by Alan Campbell to adopt Attachment 4 as presented. Dawn Brezina seconded. VOTE: UNANIMOUS MOTION made by Peter Hallenbeck to approve Attachment 6 as provided in the document. Tony Blake seconded. VOTE:UNANIMOUS MOTION made by Peter Hallenbeck to make a recommendation that the additional property is not used for storage beyond the five buildings until the well is on site. Tony Blake seconded. VOTE:UNANIMOUS Tony Blake: Is there a different process for exterior or is that permitted by use or right? Michael Harvey: The applicant has proposed and submitted the application with external storage. 3 Attachment 7 86 Michael Harvey From: darrellwchandler @aol.com Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 10:56 AM To: Michael Harvey Cc: Michael Harvey Subject: Acceptance Letter for Affortable Rougemont Self Storage Center The conditions that has been talked about and set forth by the Planning Department are agreeable. I have forwarded the Storage Centers Customer Contract to the Planning Dept. (Mike Harvey) that the customer must sign and obey and I believe it covers any concerns the County may have. If I can be of more assistants, please contact me! Sincerely, Darrell Chandler 919-698-9748 i 87 AFFORDABLE ROUGEMONT SELF STORAGE CENTER RENTAL& STORAGE AGREEMENT 8927 MILE BRANCH ROAD ROUGEMONT,NC 27572 CUSTOMER CONTRACT CONTRACT# DATE OF EXECUTION BUILDING & UNIT NUMBER(S) ( )is hereinafter referred to as TENANT(S)and AFFORDABLE ROUGEMONT SELF STORAGE CENTER is hereinafter referred to as MANANGEMENT OR OWNER! TENANT NAME AND ADDRESS: ALTERNATE PERSON INFORMATION: NAME NAME STREET RELATIONSHIP CITY STREET STATE ZIP CODE CITY HOME PHONE STATE ZIP CODE CELL PHONE HOME PHONE WORK PHONE CELL PHONE DRIVERS LICENSE# VEHICLE MAKE MODEL TAG IT IS TENANT(S)RESPONSIBILITY TO IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY MANAGEMENT OF ANY CHANGE OF ADDRESS! SPECIAL OFFER=6 MONTH CONTRACTS=50% OFF ON THEIR LAST(6TH)MONTH. SPECIAL OFFER=12 MONTH CONTRACTS RECEIVES THE LAST MONTH FREE. THIS IS A MONTHLY LEASE SIX MONTH TWELVE MONTH LEASE FOR THE STORAGE BEGINNING_/ / . ENDS- OTHER THAN SIGNED LEASES,LEASE PRICES CAN CHANGE ANYTIME AT MANAGEMENT DESCRETION! MONTHLY RENT PAYMENTS IS HEREBY DUE ENTIRELY ON THE FIRST DAY OF EACH MONTH! LATE PAYMENT CHARGE APPLIES FIVE DAYS AFTER DUE DATE_ $ 15% AFTER DELENQUENT 15 DAYS OF DUE DATE AN ADDITIONAL $ 5.00 RETURN CHECK CHARGE= $ 25.00 (CERITIFIED MAIL&BANK CHARGES EXTRA)_ $ CHARGE FOR REMOVING LOCK(PER NC STATUE 44A) TO OPEN UNIT= $ 20.00 MANAGER FEE FOR SENDING STATUTORY NOTICE= $ 10.00 PERFORMANCE DEPOSIT,REFUNDABLE IF LESSOR COMPLIES TOO ALL RULES AND PAYS RENT ON TIME AND LEAVES UNIT CLEAN AND UNDAMAGED $ 25.00 ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE=ONE TIME CHARGE NON-REFUNDABLE $ 5.00 FIRST MONTH PRO-RATED CHARGE= $ SPACE/UNIT NO(S) BLDG. RENTAL RATE= PER MONTH $ TOTAL DUE= $ 88 NO REFUND ON PREPAID RENT. TENANT(S)agrees to give MANAGEMENT a minimum 15 days written notice with the intent to vacate the leased unit or space. This will avoid TENANT(S) responsibility for the following month's rent.The TENANT(S)must have all personal possessions out of the unit and the unit clean and broom swept! MANGEMENT DOES NOT SEND OUT BILLING FOR MONTHLYRENTAL CHARGES. IT IS TENANTS SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE RENTAL PAYMENTS ON THE IST OF EACH MONTH WITHOUT DEMAND! 1. MANAGEMENT OPERATES THIS FACILITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH N. C.GENERAL STATUE 44A,ARTICLE 4 ENTITLED SELF-STORAGE FACILLITIES. 2. No special provisions exist unless set forth below or attached as an addendum or rules and signed by both OWNER MANAGEMENT and TENANT(S)which will prevail over this form. 3. INSURANCE=TENANT(S) is strongly encourage to insure all stored property against all possible losses(theft,wind,water, flood,fire, lightning,etc. TENANT(S)acknowledges that MANANGEMENT has no obligation to provide insurance coverage on personal property under any condition. TENANT(S) leases and stores property at on risk and releases MANAGEMENT of any responsibility occurring from such loss or damage. 4. RELEASE OF LIABILITY/INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS/WAIVER OF SUBROGATION=TENANT(S)expressly releases MANAGEMENT from any damages or losses to said property caused by theft,unlawful entry,criminal trespass,act of others, fire,smoke, fumes,water,rainstorms,leaks,steam,explosions of any kind,chemicals,petroleum products, rodents, insects,tornado,earthquakes,wind,electricity, power failure,land vehicles,airplane crashes,ATV's,riot,civil disturbances,sonic boom,explosions, bombs,negligence of another tenant,act of od,etc.whatsoever! TENANT(S) agrees that property stored is at sole risk of the TENANT(S)! TENANT(S)agrees to waive its rights and the rights of its insurance company for any damages or loss against MANANGEMENT. TENANT(S)shall indemnify and hold MANAGEMENT harmless from all claims,suits,attorney fees for losses,fines,iniuries,or damages to person or property directly or indirectly arising from this agreement and or the use of facility from TENANT(S)or TENANT(S)associates,whoever they might be! TENANT(S) agrees NOT TO BRING FORTH OR PARTICIPATE in any class-action lawsuit brought against MANANGEMENT. 5. ATTORNEY'S FEE= TENANT(S) agrees if any action is instituted, or any proceedings taken to enforce any covenant herein to recover any rent due or to recover possession of the premises for any breach or default of this agreement,any damage to the facility by the TENANT(S),OR ASSOCIATES OF THE TENANT(S)shall pay Management attorney fees,expense,and cost! 6. AFFORDABLE ROUGEMONT STORAGE CENTER RULES ARE AS FOLLOWS: TENANT(S)MAY NOT STORE AT THIS FACILITY, OR USE THIS FACILITY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES THE FOLLOWING=Contraband,Weapons,Explosives Fireworks, Flammable Chemicals,Illegal or Legal drugs,Ammunition,Toxic or Hazardous Materials or Waste,Petroleum products of any kind,Oil,Gas,Tires etc.,Batteries,Paint,Items with a foul smell at Management discretion, Stolen Property,Gasoline or Diesel Fuel Containers or anything that would hold Combustible liquid,Propane,Oxygen,or Acetylene Tanks,Any Tanks that • y 89 contain Explosive Contents, No Agriculture Chemicals of any kind, Gas Powered Equipment or any items that would,or could be Illegal under State or Federal Law,or could Damage the Storage Unit,or Facility in any way whatsoever! No animals of any kind shall be kept in the rental unit.TENANT(S)shall not conduct any business,commercial sales,purchase transactions, or perform work of any kind in any unit whatsoever. TENANT(S)shall not reside, sleep,cook,or consume alcohol beverage on said leased unit or units. TENANT(S) acknowledges that this Storage Center shall not be used as a site for hobbies,garage sales,ongoing labor, band practices, parties,social gathering,staging area for an event,etc. TENANT(S)acknowledges that the use is exclusively for residential,incidental,self-storage of merchandise related to off-site business or commercial enterprise. MANAGEMENT holds full discretion on all the above issues and will enforce them accordingly! 7.PRIMESES RULES=Must not litter. Dumpster shall not be used for off-site refuse of any kind whatsoever. Dumpster shall not be used for unwanted stored goods. TENANT(S)shall remove from the facility all items that are not stored in the TENANT'S unit. No vehicles,boats, trucks,cars,trailers,campers,etc.shall be stored overnight,without a fee and MANANGEMENT'S consent and discretion. Items mentioned in the previous sentence can be towed at TENANT(S)expense. No working on vehicles, changing oil or fluids, etc. 8. ALTERATIONS AND DAMAGES= TENANT(S) shall not install shelves,install hangers from walls,put holes in walls,ceilings,floors,alter,paint, deface units or doors. No alarm systems can be installed. Any damage to this facility, doors,springs,walls, fence,gate,or any damage to the facility from contents stored or any damage whatsoever to Affordable Rougemont Self Storage Center shall be reported to the MANAGEMENT IMMEDL4TELY. TENANT(S)is liable for any damage to any and all parts of this facility whether,negligence, accidental, reckless, or intentional from the TENANT(S)and or the TENANT'S Associates. Failure to report any damages by the TENANT(S)could resort in CRIMINAL CHARGES, and loss of storage privileges! 9. POLICES=TENANT(S)acknowledges that MANANGEMENT has the right to force entry any unit if there is a reasonable belief that there is a health hazard or imminent danger to the facility or other units because of forbidden storage or activities. If forbidden storage or activities are discovered,MANANGEMENT has the discretion to terminate the lease and any cost that may occur from the forbidden activities will be the responsibility of the TENANT(S). Forced entry will also apply when Law Enforcement or Government Officials have search warrant to enter the leased space. TENANT(S) acknowledge that MANANGEMENT will not be held liable for any of the above. 10.UNIT SIZE=TENANT understands that unit sizes are approximate,and may me smaller or larger than listed. The space is not rented by square foot, but by unit! 11. OUTSIDE STORAGE=Outside storage TENANT(S) shall not be permitted to store more than one RV,Camper,Trailer,Vehicle of any type,Boat,etc.per assigned space! Temporary awnings/covers or prohibited in the open position! The storage premises shall not be used as a site for mechanical repair,ongoing labor,etc. RV's,Campers,Trailers,shall not be used to stay in, hang out,sleep in,or any other use but storing! 90 r r 12. ENFORCEMENT OF LIEN UNDER NC GENERAL STATUE 44A-43 states=If the rent and other charges for which the lien is claimed under this Article remain unpaid or unsatisfied for 15 days following the maturity of the obligation to pay rent,MANANGEMENT may enforce the lien by a public sale or other disposition of the property as provided in this section. The MANAGEMENT may bring an action to collect rent and other charges in any court of competent jurisdiction at any time following the maturity of the obligation to pay the rent! 13. LOCKS=TENANT(S) is to provide their own lock for each unit leased. TENANT(S)should use heavy-duty locks. MANANGEMENT has heavy duty locks that can be bought at the office but does guarantee it against theft. There are two holes in each unit for a pad locks. TENANT(S) is only allowed to use one hole and one pad lock to secure the unit. The other hole will be used for MANAGEMENT to lock out Tenant(S)for nonpayment. If TENANT(S)decides to put pad lock on second hole,TENANT(S)will be in violation of Storage Center rules and one lock will be cut off immediately,and TENANT(S) could have their lease terminated at the discretion of MANANGEMENT! 14. SEVERABILITY= If any of the provisions or portions of this storage agreement is held to be void, illegal,invalid, non-enforceable by a Court of Law,the legality,validity,and enforcement of the remaining portions of this storage agreement shall not be affected or impaired whatsoever! 15. TENANT acknowledges that TENANT has read and agrees with all 4 pages of this agreement and TENANT agrees to be bound by the Terms of this agreement! TENANT SIGNITURE DATE CO-TENANT SIGNITURE DATE MANAGEMENT OR REPRESENTIVE DATE Attachment 8 91 Ordinance#: ORD-2012-055 e AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS WHEREAS, Orange County has received and processed a petition seeking to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and WHEREAS, This petition seeks to rezone 12 acre portion of a 35.8 acre parcel of property (PIN 0910-34-5040)to NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ- 1) Conditional Zoning for the purpose of developing a self-storage facility. WHEREAS, This petition has been submitted in concert with a formal site plan in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.9.2 (C) of the UDO, and WHEREAS, the portions of property to be rezoned are identified further as follows: PIN 0910-34-5040. Darrell W. Chandler. Deed Book 5329, page 496, Lot A Plat Book 96, page 98, Orange County Registry. Description by William H. McCarthy, Jr., Professional Land Surveyor, License Number L-3248, Summit Design and Engineering Services , 504 Meadowland Drive, Hillsborough, NC 27278-8551. The following description is based on Plat Book 96, page 98 and does not represent an actual field survey. Summit project 12-0191. Physical descriptions of corners shown in parenthesis are for information only and are taken from Plat Book 96, page 98 and have not been recovered or verified. Location of right of way and centerline of Mile Branch Road taken from site plan "Affordable Rougemont Self-Storage-Site Plans" Sheet No. C-2, Summit Design and Engineering Services Project 12-0191, and does not represent an actual survey or location of Mile Branch Road. BEGINNING at a point ("Control Corner", "Pipe") at the southwest corner of Lot A Plat Book 96, page 98 referenced above in the southeast right of way of NC Highway 57; thence along and with the southeast right of way of NC Highway 57 N. 41° 00' 38" E. 711.84' to a mathematical point in the west right of way of Mile Branch Road; thence continuing along the southeast right of way of NC Highway with the north right of way line of Mile Branch Road along two (2) courses as follows: (1) N. 41° 00' 38" E. 69.34' to a point ("Pipe") and (2) N. 41° 00' 35" E. 4.72' to a mathematical point in the east right of way of Mile Branch Road; thence leaving the right of way of Mile Branch Road and continuing along and with the southeast right of way of NC Highway 57 N. 41° 00' 35" E. 526.17' to a mathematical point; thence leaving the right of way of NC Highway 57 along five (5) new zoning lines with Darrell W. Chandler as follows: (1) S. 14° 16' 38" E. 1025.32' to a mathematical point, (2) N. 86° 24' 18"W. 165.61' to a mathematical point, (3) N. 87° 21' 13" W. 252.13' to a mathematical point in the east right of way of Mile Branch Road, (4) N. 87° 21' 13" W. 35.68' to a mathematical point in the centerline of Mile Branch Road and (5) with the centerline of Mile Branch • 92 r Road along a curve to the left having a radius of 1022.33' an arc length of 60.55' (chord bearing S. 31* 17' 04" E., chord distance 60.54') to a mathematical point in the south line of Lot A Plat Book 96, page 98 referenced above; thence with the south line of Lot A Plat Book 96, page 98 along five (5) courses as follows: (1) N. 87° 29' 47" W. 3.59' to a point ("PK"), (2) N. 87° 11' 02" W. 33.13' to a mathematical point in the west right of way of Mile Branch Road, (3) leaving the right of way of Mile Branch Road N. 87° 11' 02" W. 9.13' to a point("Pipe"), (4) N. 87° 23' 21" W. 280.09' to a point ("Pipe") and (5) N. 87° 24' 05" W. 367.27 to a point ("Control Corner", "Pipe") at the southwest corner of Lot A Plat Book 96, page 98 referenced above in the southeast right of way of NC Highway 57, the place and POINT OF BEGINNING and being all of an area to be re-zoned from Orange County Zone AR to Orange County Zone REDA-CZ-1 containing 12.80 Acres. and, WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 and 2.9.2 of the LIDO have been deemed complete, and WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County Zoning Atlas is hereby amended to rezone the 12 acre portion of the aforementioned parcel to NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ-1) Conditional Zoning district. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT in accordance with Section 2.9.2 (F) of the UDO the approval of this Conditional Zoning applicant is subject to the following mutually agreed to conditions: 1. The property shall be utilized only as a self-storage facility developed consistent with the submitted site plan. 2. Staff shall prepare a 'Declaration of Development Restrictions and Requirements' outlining all conditions and development limitations associated with this project that the applicant shall record within the Orange County Registrar of Deeds office within 12 months of approval. This document shall include an explanation of the allotment of impervious surface limits supporting the development of the proposed self-storage facility as well as the applicant's remaining property. 3. The proposal calls for the development of the project is 2 phases. Prior to the commencement of earth disturbing activity for Phase 2 of the project, the applicant shall apply for and install a well in accordance with applicable Orange County Health Department requirements. 4. Retail sales from the proposed rental office shall be limited to packing supplies (i.e. boxes, table, packing materials, etc.) and shall not involve the sale of general retail items such as food, drinks, or other similar items not consistent with the use of the property as a self-storage facility. 93 ti 5. The applicant shall be required to obtain final approval for the proposed dumpster pad location from Orange County Solid Waste prior to the commencement of earth disturbing activity. 6. The applicant shall be required to obtain stormwater and erosion control permits from Orange County Erosion Control prior to the commencement of earth disturbing activity. 7. The applicant shall be required to obtain a driveway permit from the North Carolina Department of Transportation prior to the commencement of earth disturbing activity. The applicant shall provide the Orange County Planning Department with a copy of this permit. 8. The applicant shall be required to obtain building permits from the Orange County Inspections Department prior to the commencement of construction activity. 9. The applicant shall be required to obtain sign permits from the Planning Department in accordance with the provisions of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance. 10.The applicant shall be required to maintain all required land use buffers in perpetuity in accordance with the requirements of Section 6.8 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance. 11.No ancillary commercial or residential use of individual storage facilities shall be permitted. This includes the use of storage facilities for automotive repair or retail sales. The applicant shall include this prohibition within storage unit lease documents informing clients of the prohibition. 12.No hazardous materials shall be stored on the property. The applicant shall include this prohibition within storage unit lease documents informing clients of the prohibition. 13.All required landscaping, as denoted on the site plan, shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy allowing for the units to be rented/occupied. 14.The applicant shall contract with a private solid waste contractor to remove trash from the site consistent with the submitted site plan and in accordance with the Orange County Solid Waste Management Ordinance. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption. Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this day of , 2012. I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said c 94 r Board at a meeting held on , 2012 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , 2012. SEAL Clerk to the Board of Commissioners • Attachment 9 95 Ordinance#:ORD-2012-056 AN ORDINANCE DENYING AMENDMENT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS WHEREAS, Orange County has received and processed a petition seeking to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and WHEREAS, This petition seeks to rezone 12 acre portion of a 35.8 acre parcel of property (PIN 0910-34-5040) to NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ- 1) Conditional Zoning for the purpose of developing a self-storage facility. WHEREAS, This petition has been submitted in concert with a formal site plan in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.9.2 (C) of the UDO, and WHEREAS, the portions of property to be rezoned are identified further as follows: PIN 0910-34-5040. Darrell W. Chandler. Deed Book 5329, page 496, Lot A Plat Book 96, page 98, Orange County Registry. Description by William H. McCarthy, Jr., Professional Land Surveyor, License Number L-3248, Summit Design and Engineering Services , 504 Meadowland Drive, Hillsborough, NC 27278-8551. The following description is based on Plat Book 96, page 98 and does not represent an actual field survey. Summit project 12-0191. Physical descriptions of corners shown in parenthesis are for information only and are taken from Plat Book 96, page 98 and have not been recovered or verified. Location of right of way and centerline of Mile Branch Road taken from site plan "Affordable Rougemont Self-Storage-Site Plans" Sheet No. C-2, Summit Design and Engineering Services Project 12-0191, and does not represent an actual survey or location of Mile Branch Road. BEGINNING at a point ("Control Corner", "Pipe") at the southwest corner of Lot A Plat Book 96, page 98 referenced above in the southeast right of way of NC Highway 57; thence along and with the southeast right of way of NC Highway 57 N. 41° 00' 38" E. 711.84' to a mathematical point in the west right of way of Mile Branch Road; thence continuing along the southeast right of way of NC Highway with the north right of way line of Mile Branch Road along two (2) courses as follows: (1) N. 41° 00' 38" E. 69.34' to a point ("Pipe") and (2) N. 41° 00' 35" E. 4.72' to a mathematical point in the east right of way of Mile Branch Road; thence leaving the right of way of Mile Branch Road and continuing along and with the southeast right of way of NC Highway 57 N. 41' 00' 35" E. 526.17' to a mathematical point; thence leaving the right of way of NC Highway 57 along five (5) new zoning lines with Darrell W. Chandler as follows: (1) S. 14° 16' 38" E. 1025.32' to a mathematical point, (2) N. 86° 24' 18" W. 165.61' to a mathematical point, (3) N. 87° 21' 13" W. 252.13' to a mathematical point in the east right of way of Mile Branch Road, (4) N. 87° 21' 13" W. 35.68' to a mathematical point in the centerline of Mile Branch Road and (5) with the centerline of Mile Branch i 96 Road along a curve to the left having a radius of 1022.33' an arc length of 60.55' (chord bearing S. 31* 17' 04" E., chord distance 60.54') to a mathematical point in the south line of Lot A Plat Book 96, page 98 referenced above; thence with the south line of Lot A Plat Book 96, page 98 along five (5) courses as follows: (1) N. 87- 29' 47" W. 3.59' to a point ("PK"), (2) N. 87* 11' 02" W. 33.13' to a mathematical point in the west right of way of Mile Branch Road, (3) leaving the right of way of Mile Branch Road N. 87* 11' 02"W. 9.13' to a point("Pipe"), (4) N. 87* 23' 21" W. 280.09' to a point ("Pipe") and (5) N. 87* 24' 05" W. 367.27 to a point ("Control Corner", "Pipe") at the southwest corner of Lot A Plat Book 96, page 98 referenced above in the southeast right of way of NC Highway 57, the place and POINT OF BEGINNING and being all of an area to be re-zoned from Orange County Zone AR to Orange County Zone REDA-CZ-1 containing 12.80 Acres. and, WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 and 2.9.2 of the UDO have been deemed to have not been complied with, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, 1.1.7, and 2.8 of the LIDO and to Section 153A- 341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds there is insufficient documentation within the record supporting the proposed atlas amendment or that the rezoning will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. and BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the proposed Orange County Zoning Atlas, as detailed herein, is denied. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption. Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this day of 2012. 1, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on , 2012 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this - day of 2012. SEAL Clerk to the Board of Commissioners 97 RES-2012-102 Attachment 10 RESOLUTION CONCERNING STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, Orange County has received and processed a petition seeking to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and WHEREAS, this petition seeks to rezone 12 acre portion of a 35.8 acre parcel of property (PIN 0910-34-5040) to NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ- 1) Conditional Zoning for the purpose of developing a self-storage facility, and WHEREAS, this petition has been submitted in concert with a formal site plan in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.9.2 (C) of the UDO, and WHEREAS, the portions of property to be rezoned are identified further as follows: PIN 0910-34-5040. Darrell W. Chandler. Deed Book 5329, page 496, Lot A Plat Book 96, page 98, Orange County Registry. Description by William H. McCarthy, Jr., Professional Land Surveyor, License Number L-3248, Summit Design and Engineering Services , 504 Meadowland Drive, Hillsborough, NC 27278-8551. The following description is based on Plat Book 96, page 98 and does not represent an actual field survey. Summit project 12-0191. Physical descriptions of corners shown in parenthesis are for information only and are taken from Plat Book 96, page 98 and have not been recovered or verified. Location of right of way and centerline of Mile Branch Road taken from site plan "Affordable Rougemont Self-Storage-Site Plans" Sheet No. C-2, Summit Design and Engineering Services Project 12-0191, and does not represent an actual survey or location of Mile Branch Road. BEGINNING at a point ("Control Corner", "Pipe") at the southwest corner of Lot A Plat Book 96, page 98 referenced above in the southeast right of way of NC Highway 57; thence along and with the southeast right of way of NC Highway 57 N. 41' 00' 38" E. 711.84' to a mathematical point in the west right of way of Mile Branch Road; thence continuing along the southeast right of way of NC Highway with the north right of way line of Mile Branch Road along two (2) courses as follows: (1) N. 41° 00' 38" E. 69.34' to a point ("Pipe") and (2) N. 41' 00' 35" E. 4.72' to a mathematical point in the east right of way of Mile Branch Road; thence leaving the right of way of Mile Branch Road and continuing along and with the southeast right of way of NC Highway 57 N. 41* 00' 35" E. 526.17' to a mathematical point; thence leaving the right of way of NC Highway 57 along five (5) new zoning lines with Darrell W. Chandler as follows: (1) S. 14° 16' 38" E. 1 t 98 1025.32' to a mathematical point, (2) N. 86° 24' 18"W. 165.61' to a mathematical point, (3) N. 87° 21' 13" W. 252.13' to a mathematical point in the east right of way of Mile Branch Road, (4) N. 87° 21' 13" W. 35.68' to a mathematical point in the centerline of Mile Branch Road and (5) with the centerline of Mile Branch Road along a curve to the left having a radius of 1022.33' an arc length of 60.55' (chord bearing S. 31* 17' 04" E., chord distance 60.54') to a mathematical point in the south line of Lot A Plat Book 96, page 98 referenced above; thence with the south line of Lot A Plat Book 96, page 98 along five (5) courses as follows: (1) N. 87° 29' 47" W. 3.59' to a point ("PK"), (2) N. 87° 11' 02" W. 33.13' to a mathematical point in the west right of way of Mile Branch Road, (3) leaving the right of way of Mile Branch Road N. 87° 11' 02" W. 9.13' to a point ("Pipe"), (4) N. 87° 23' 21" W. 280.09' to a point ("Pipe") and (5) N. 87° 24' 05" W. 367.27 to a point ("Control Corner', "Pipe") at the southwest corner of Lot A Plat Book 96, page 98 referenced above in the southeast right of way of NC Highway 57, the place and POINT OF BEGINNING and being all of an area to be re-zoned from Orange County Zone AR to Orange County Zone REDA-CZ-1 containing 12.80 Acres. and, WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 and 2.9.2 of the UDO have been deemed complete, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 153A-341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within the record denoting that the rezoning will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, or part thereof including but not limited to, the following: a. The Land Use Element Map. b. Chapter 3 — Economic Development c. Chapter 5— Land Use Element, including: 1. Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern and designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County's population and economy consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives d. The NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on August 27, 2007. and, WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be reasonable and in the public interest as it promotes public health, safety, and general welfare by adopting the goals and purposes of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the proposed zoning atlas amendment, as described herein, has been deemed to be consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the BOCC hereby adopts this statement of consistency signifying same. 99 Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner the foregoing ordinance was adopted this day of , 2012. I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on , 2012 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , 2012. SEAL Clerk to the Board of Commissioners RES-2012-103 100 Attachment 11 RESOLUTION CONCERNING STATEMENT OF INCONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, Orange County has received and processed a petition seeking to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and WHEREAS, this petition seeks to rezone 12 acre portion of a 35.8 acre parcel of property (PIN 0910-34-5040) to NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ-1) Conditional Zoning for the purpose of developing a self-storage facility, and WHEREAS, the portions of property to be rezoned are identified further as follows: PIN 0910-34-5040. Darrell W. Chandler. Deed Book 5329, page 496, Lot A Plat Book 96, page 98, Orange County Registry. Description by William H. McCarthy, Jr., Professional Land Surveyor, License Number L-3248, Summit Design and Engineering Services , 504 Meadowland Drive, Hillsborough, NC 27278-8551. The following description is based on Plat Book 96, page 98 and does not represent an actual field survey. Summit project 12-0191. Physical descriptions of corners shown in parenthesis are for information only and are taken from Plat Book 96, page 98 and have not been recovered or verified. Location of right of way and centerline of Mile Branch Road taken from site plan "Affordable Rougemont Self-Storage-Site Plans" Sheet No. C-2, Summit Design and Engineering Services Project 12-0191, and does not represent an actual survey or location of Mile Branch Road. BEGINNING at a point ("Control Comer", "Pipe") at the southwest corner of Lot A Plat Book 96, page 98 referenced above in the southeast right of way of NC Highway 57; thence along and with the southeast right of way of NC Highway 57 N. 41' 00' 38" E. 711.84' to a mathematical point in the west right of way of Mile Branch Road; thence continuing along the southeast right of way of NC Highway with the north right of way line of Mile Branch Road along two (2) courses as follows: (1) N. 41* 00' 38" E. 69.34' to a point ("Pipe") and (2) N. 41* 00' 35" E. 4.72' to a mathematical point in the east right of way of Mile Branch Road; thence leaving the right of way of Mile Branch Road and continuing along and with the southeast right of way of NC, Highway 57 N. 41* 00' 35" E. 526.17' to a mathematical point; thence leaving the right of way of NC Highway 57 along five (5) new zoning lines with Darrell W. Chandler as follows: (1) S. 14* 16' 38" E. 1025.32' to a mathematical point, (2) N. 86* 24' 18"W. 165.61' to a mathematical point, (3) N. 87* 21' 13" W. 252.13' to a mathematical point in the east right of 101 way of Mile Branch Road, (4) N. 87* 21' 13" W. 35.68' to a mathematical point in the centerline of Mile Branch Road and (5) with the centerline of Mile Branch Road along a curve to the left having a radius of 1022.33' an arc length of 60.55' (chord bearing S. 31* 17' 04" E., chord distance 60.54') to a mathematical point in the south line of Lot A Plat Book 96, page 98 referenced above; thence with the south line of Lot A Plat Book 96, page 98 along five (5) courses as follows: (1) N. 87- 29' 47" W. 3.59' to a point ("PK'), (2) N. 87* 11' 02" W. 33.13' to a mathematical point in the west right of way of Mile Branch Road, (3) leaving the right of way of Mile Branch Road N. 87' 11' 02" W. 9.13' to a point("Pipe"), (4) N. 87' 23' 21" W. 280.09' to a point ("Pipe") and (5) N. 87* 24' 05" W. 367.27 to a point ("Control Corner', "Pipe") at the southwest corner of Lot A Plat Book 96, page 98 referenced above in the southeast right of way of NC Highway 57, the place and POINT OF BEGINNING and being all of an area to be re-zoned from Orange County Zone AR to Orange County Zone REDA-CZ-1 containing 12.80 Acres. and, WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 AND 2.9.2 of the UDO have not been complied with, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, 1.1.7, and 2.9.1 (E) of the UDO and to Section 153A-341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds that the applicant has not submitted sufficient documentation denoting that the rezoning will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof including, and WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment is not reasonable and is not in the public interest as it will not promote public health, safety, and general welfare, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the proposed zoning atlas amendment, as described herein, has been deemed to be inconsistent with the goals and policies of the adopted Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, is not reasonable, and is not in the public interest as it will not promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and the BOCC hereby adopts this statement of inconsistency signifying same. Upon motion of Commissioner - I seconded by Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this day of 2012. 1, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on 2012 as relates in any way to the 102 adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of 2012. SEAL Clerk to the Board of Commissioners