HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-03-2008-5b5br
iii
I
05/02/2008
(\.
,C
(~
1 DRAFT
2 MINUTES
3 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
4 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
5 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
6 APRIL 1, 2008 RECONVENED FROM FEBRUARY 25, 2008
7 7:30 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
10 met far a Quarterly Public Hearing continuation meeting on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 at 7:30 p.m.
11 in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, N.C.
12
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Moses
14 Carey, Jr., Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, and Mike Nelson
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
16 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geof Gledhill and Brian Ferrell
17 - COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon and Clerk to the Board
18 Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
19 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Jay Bryan and Members' Craufurd
20 Goodwin, Sarn Lasris, Renee Price, Judith Wegner, Michelle Kempinski, Bernadette Pelissier,
Z1 Jeffrey Schmitt,
22 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Joel Knight, Sandra Johnson-Quinn,and
23 Brian Crawford
24
25 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
26 Chair Jacobs encouraged everyone that is going to speak to not repeat what has already
27 been said at the previous public hearing.
zs
29
30 . B. PUBLIC CHARGE
31 The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
32
33 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
34 The Clerk to the Board swore in the public citizens scheduled to speak.
35
36 1. Buckhorn Village Planned Development: Request by Buckhorn Road
37 Associates to rezone approximately 130 acres along Buckhorn Road from I-85/Buckhorn
38 Road Economic Development District (EDD) to Buckhorn Village Planned Development
39 EDD.
40
41 Craig Benedict: I have been sworn. This item, as has been stated, is the reconvening of the
42 February 25; 2008 public hearing, which was reconvened to tonight, a date certain, and it
43 involves the Buckhorn Village Planned Development, which is a rezoning from the I-
44 85/Buckhorn EDD to the Buckhorn Village Planned Development. This involves both a rezoning
45 and a special use permit. At the previous meeting, the applicant provided information
46 concerning their. application and staff went through the criteria for both the rezoning and the
47 special use permit and stated which parts of the application met the criteria. Also, at the last
48 meeting, there were questions and comments from the public, and the majority of that public
49 hearing took that information and staff made notes of it as well as the applicant. The applicant
50 will be •responding in writing tonight concerning same of those comments. Tonight's meeting,
51 the intent primarily is to be able to have time to hear from both the Planning Board and the
~~
~~ Dl~AFT M~'TES 2
1 Commission about the application and to ask additional questions. There is also the opportunity
2 tonight for the applicant to submit additional evidence based on questions they had at the
3 previous meeting. At the conclusion of whatever we get through tonight, there are some options
4 within the abstract about convening into another public hearing or directing things to the
5 ~'lanning Board for their deliberation, as shown in Options A, B, C, or D. There's not additional
6 staff presentation necessary tonight. The main intent is to hear additional questions so that the
7 applicant can respond with additional testimony or direct it to where the information is. The
$ applicant does have additional evidence they would like to provide. I'll turn it over to the
9 applicant representative.
10
11 Bill Hutchins: I'm the attorney for the applicant, and at this time, I would like to call Vic Knight
12 as a witness who is going to provide testimony as to how the project will affect the value of the
13 contiguous property. Mr. Knight, if you'll come up and state your name and your qualifications
14 and confirm that you have been sworn.
15
16 Vic Knight:. I am a certified residential appraiser here in Orange County and have been
17 operating Chapel Hill Appraisals for close to 25 years, and have done a number of impact
18 analyses here in the County, including some of the previous cell tower locations, more
19 . specifically, the Martin-Marietta quarry operation down on 54, we've made presentations to you
20 before. 1 do have an analysis here, I'll pass out some copies, and one original. 1 have been
21 sworn. Briefly, I was requested by the applicant to do an impact analysis on the surrounding
22 area of the Buckhorn Village development. These pages will summarize my findings in that.
23 Looking at the project and making the assumption that it was 100% complete, as proposed, I've
24 been given copies of a variety of their plans -transportation plans, land use plans, etc. -there
25 are select copies in your report as well. In looking at that, what we basically did was~tour the
26 location with kind of a bird's eye view of the area and the surrounding communities and started
27 looking at various plans to make sure we kind of understood what was going to be proposed in
28 the area. Immediately, we began to look at competing or similar locations. I chose one that
29 we've used and.done considerable amount of analysis with. The Wildwood subdivision, which
30 is located off of NC 86, just south of Hillsborough, which most folks would recognize being down
31 across from Piedmont Electric and more or less behind the Wal-Mart shopping center and
32 Home Depot. That subdivision has been in existence for quite some time, and the reason we're
33 choosing that as the beginning point was to get a general understanding of what's been
34 happening in there in terms of its appreciation levels, the market reacting to that location for a
35 couple of different reasons -one, it is close to the interstate, it is also on a major north/south
36 arterial here in the County. After looking at the analysis, which is contained on the back side of
37 the report, the analysis, over approximately the last 15 years, that particular development has in
38 fact been on average looking at about a 5.5% appreciation level. There have been a number of
39 sales and re-sales in that particular location that shows that continuation of appreciation in that
40 location. It also includes sales and re-sales in the Wildwood subdivision after the construction
41 and occupancy. of Wal-Mart as well as Home Depot. In effect, what has happened with the
42 major commercial operation coming to that area, there hasn't been any negative effect on the
43 Wildwood subdivision over an extended period of time, including the creation of that particular
44 Hampton Pointe location.
45 The next step is to basically look at other locations and see whether or not it might be--
46 unique in its own fashion, what would that do to Hillsborough, or Orange County, or some other
47 particular dynamic that might be going on, So, the next best location that begins to reach
48 similarity to this particular project is frankly, Southpoint mall in southern Durham. There are a
49 number of pages in the` report. We looked at~three different residential subdivisions in that area,
50 all of which are immediately south of the Southpoint mall location. If you can visualize a ,
51 triangulation between 751 and the east side of Southpoint, in essence come to a "V"south of
(~
(~
(~
I)I~:~~T l~I~®~J~'~S 3
1 that location about a mile and a half or so. There's a series of residential subdivisions in there
2 and these all cluster together around each other. Buckhorn Crossing is one of them,
3 Chancellor's Ridge, and Eagle's Point. Looking at all three of those, they are newer in terms of
4 age of creation. They are roughly about eight years of age or less, but there are a number of
5 sales and re-sales in the development so you can begin to gauge the effect of that location and
6 what potential appreciation levels might exist, if any. In the Buckhorn Crossing, over that period
7 of time, there was about 4.6%; at Eagle's Point there's about 4%; and Chancellor's Ridge is
8 5.3%. Coupling that with the proposed improvements as if 100% complete, I can't find any
9 evidence that would indicate that this particular location and the surrounding properties would
10 be negatively influenced by the Buckhorn Village developmenfiat all: I'd be glad to take any
11 questions.
12
13 Bill Hutchins: At this time I'd like to call Jim Parker of Southern Engineering, who is going to
14 provide some testimony as to how the developer has addressed some of the concerns raised in
15 our last hearing.
16
17 Jim Parker: I have been sworn. Just .briefly, we received from the Planning staff after the
18 public hearing in February a list of questions from the public that was brought up here and some
19 questions that were generated from some committee meetings -the EDC and a few other
20 committee meetings within the County and within this area -and we have responded to those,
21 and I'd like to submit these as evidence. The staff already has copies of this, but this is just an
22 official submittal.
23
24 Chair Jacobs: To the staff, could we get a copy of the same list of questions and concerns?
25
26 PUBLIC COMMENT:
27 Charles Bowman: I have been sworn. I have lived in the Buckhorn community all of my life. I
28 own 33 acres right beside Petro, I've lived there for 38 years, and I've wondered when this was
29 going to happen. l'm looking forward to it happening, and 1 hope the Commissioners take it into
30 consideration to pass it because we have nothing on that end of the County; everything is in
31 Hillsborough towards the other end of the County, and we need something down on our end. It
32 may not be the best thing in the world to happen, but at least it's a start.
33
34 Adam Klein: I have been sworn. I am the Director of Government Relations and Economic
35 Development for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, and I wanted to talk a little bit
36 about Buckhorn Village and sort of the process that the Chamber is going through to review this
37 project. In February and March, the Chamber's Board of.Directors and Government .Relations
38 Committee reviewed the plan for the proposed Buckhorn Village and both voted unanimously to
39 support the project. There are three key, I would say, aspects of this project that both the board
40 and the committee particularly would like to bring up tonight. First, is that this project is locating
41 in along-identified economic development district. This is land that has been set aside
42 specifically for this purpose. There is now a project that's been brought forward that's exactly
43 what this zoning is designed for. Second, is the amount of tax revenue that would be generated
44 by Buckhorn Village. In the winter, the Chamber contracted with a UNC graduate student to
45 basically analyze the economic impact of Buckhorn Village and found pretty strong results. If
46 you look at the sales tax revenue from the construction phase to the first year of operation, we
47 estimate that this project will'generate somewhere around $6.5 million of taxes for Orange
48 County. That number factors out the amount of tax that would go to the State and to other
49 counties. In addition to that, we estimate that 1,700 jobs would be created for Orange County
50 residents, 2,500 jobs in all. When you consider those numbers in light of the budget situation
51 right now, that is much needed revenue with the long-term liability of this County. The third
p~
b
1 point that I want to bring up is that this was a project that was initiated by you as
2 Commissioners, along with your Economic Development staff. You've handpicked three
3 excellent developers from Orange County, all are intimately familiar with the culture and values
4 in this County,. and we're confident that they're going to deiiver a good project. The last point I
5 want to make is that the Chamber would encourage the developers to include as many local
6 businesses as possible in this project. We're confident that they're going to do that in
7 conversations that we've had with them, both publicly and privately, they've expressed a similar
8 sentiment. That's really all I have tonight, 1 want to thank you all for your time and .
9 consideration. On behalf of the Chamber, we ask that you would approve the rezoning of this
10 project.
11
12 Don Collins: l'm a direct property owner. I own property that directly adjoins this particular
13 property that is under discussion at two points. I own two properties. My thing is
14 congratulations, this thing has been years getting~off the ground. 1've had a sign on my property
15 for years for lease. If I've had one call, I've had a hundred from the Winston-Salem and
16 Greensboro area that says that this is probably one of the prime locations in the country for this
17 type of thing. Their comment was that it's near to the interstates, so I congratulate these people
18 for getting something rolling, like that. Just go up there on Sunday morning, I used to do it, and
19 you can't hardly get through the place. Now, maybe something will get going, and I'm for it
20 100%.
21
22 James Carnahan: I'm a resident of Carrboro and I have been sworn. t wanted to clarify the
23 purpose of the materials that I submitted at the previous public hearing. Those materials
24 consisted primarily of information about the phenomena known as global warming, or climate
25 change- a phenomenon that is a consequence of carbon dioxide emissions primarily resulting
26 from human activity. A number of those consequences are dire. The point of submitting them is
27 not so much that I or any of the others .who have been working on this could say specifically for
28 sure that this or that consequence is going to happen over the next ten years or in the next two
29 generations hence, but that the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is continually
30 accelerating, and a number of the indicators of the change in average temperature of the planet
31 are also speeding up. The point is that, for• many of us, a lot of the worse consequences that
32 are possible given this planetary activity may not happen in my lifetime or even in the lifetime of
33 the youngest person in this room, but that as long as we continue on the path that we're on, we
34 are accelerating the possibility that these things will happen sooner rather than later-and that we
35 are compromising the prospects for future human beings on this planet to enjoy the quality of
36 life that we now enjoy and would like our children to enjoy. And the fact of the matter is, at least
37 in my opinion, none flf our policy documents reflects climate change as something that gives us
38 guidance in the kind of land use, and transportation, and economic models that we want to see
39 in this County. And we have athree- orfour-decade history in this County of a very prudent
40 approach to development that is supported by a really strong environmental ethic. And now,
41 what we're looking at is one of the most significant phenomena taking place now on the planet.
42 And what that says to me is that until we've completed a carbon emissions inventory for the
43 County and until we have sef goals and until we know the kind of land use models, and
44 transportation models, and .economic models that we want, it's totally inappropriate and
45 imprudent to approve this project.
46
47 The Clerk then swore in some additional citizens that wished to speak.
4$
49 Joe Phelps: I just had a few comments and maybe a suggestion later. I'm not really for or
50 against the project. One of the things that concerns me, I agree with mast of the people that I ~ ~
51 think it could be a great thing for the County, but I'd want to make sure that we look at
~~~s~~ A l~/11~~d V ~~t~ 5
1 everything so it was a successful project and not a project that wasn't successful. I was Mayor
2 of Hillsborough when the Waterstone project was approved, and that project went through
3 several public hearings. One of my suggestions was that we had an informational meeting,
4 unlike a public hearing,' and it was held at the Big Barn, and it was kind of a floating time, the
5 developer was there. Some of this information that was presented like during the first public
6 hearing, the room was kind of full and nobody on the left-hand side got to see the presentation.
7 So, if the developer was open to that, I would suggest maybe coming in the afternoon, or a day,
8 or a Saturday, or sometime that they would be able to present so that everyone could see what
9 information was presented and what it was going to look like. I know you can probably get that
10 information by individually bothering the County staff and Planning department, but I think that
1.1 would be a much easier way in having the developer there to answer questions for the people
12 who do have concerns. I think it would be a good thing, but I certainly wouldn't want to speed
13 through it as Waterstone took quite a while and a lot of giving on the part of the developer to get
14 it approved. I would hope the County would at least consider that. There was one comment
1'S that a speaker made that I would like put in a different perspective. They stated something to
16 the effect that housing in the County costs the tax base. There is an economist at a state
17 college that disputes that fact. So I just wanted to bring that up, I'm~not saying that commercial
18 doesn't more than pay for its way, but also there are economists that disagree with the
19 statement that was made earlier. I can get that economist's name for the public record if we
20 need to.
21
22 Mike Cross Hardin: I'm a local homeowner and I .wanted to voice my concern for the project, 1
23 think it's a great thing. Just as an aside, 1 also happen to be an environmerifal engineer,-ana~l'm
24 not overly concerned that the project is going to contribute to the warming of the globe.
25
26 David Caring: I've lived in Alamance County, Orange County, and also Durham County. My
27 dad was founder of East Side Baptist Church in Mebane, Forth Carolina, so I'm very familiar
28 with the area here and what goes on here. I live within a mile of where that project's going to be
29 as the crow flies right off of Buckhorn Road there. I own 22 acres there. I knew when I bought
30 there that this was a .growing area, and. I think most people knew that this was a growing area. I
31 think it should not be denied, I think it would be good for our economy, good for our community,
32 and I think it would be a plus for Hillsborough and Orange County. I'd just like to make that
33 known tonight.
34
35 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
36 ~ ..
37 Commissioner Carey: Everything I've read is an indicator that the residential property does
38 not pay for itself, and I'd like for this former Mayor to get the name and if that economist has
39 ever written anything, get us a citation for that, because I'd like to see it. That would be the first
40 time in a long time that I've seen anything to the contrary about the contribution of residential
41 property to paying the bills and providing services. Also, the document that the engineer
42 presented indicated that he's responded to some questions that were raised last time. I know
43 we will get that, but I think we need to make sure the public gets that. Perhaps staff can figure
44 out a way to get it on the website or something so that many of the people who raised the
45 questions that may not be here would be able to know that the questions had been responded
46 to.
47
4$ Chair Jacobs: Well, if the developer decides to take up Mr. Phelps' suggestion for the public
49 information session, they could bring the questions and responses to that meeting.
50
~~
a
~11.~1~ 1 ~.A~~V V T~ ~ 6
Commissioner Nelson: First, I want to correct one statement that was made by Adam Klein
from the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of .Commerce. It's not correct to say that there was
unanimity; there was a split vote on whether or not. to proceed with this. l thought there were
some key questions that needed to be discussed in a public way before proceeding with this.
So, it's not really accurate. A couple of things were raised at the last time we discussed this and
I wanted to ask some questions about. Some are specific to the project, but some are bigger
picture things, because as you know, this is a legislative decision. The first question I had, there
were comments made, evidence presented that the I-85 bridge would have to be widened and
some other road developments would have to be made. Who is going to pay for these?
Jim Parker: At this time, it,would be on the back of the development. At this time.
Commissioner Nelson: At this time, do you think it's going to change?
Jirn Parker: Possibly somebody could bring some money into the situation. DOT has certain
areas that we could explore, but currently, improvements that are in the TIA in the proposal are
based on the development itself, so it's their responsibility.
Commissioner Nelson: There are also some tax revenue figures in the document that was
presented. Have we done any analysis of our awn to see what our estimates are?
Laura Blackmon: No, we currently do n'ot have any estimates.
Commissioner Nelson: Can we get that? Along those same lines, I'd be interested in
knowing what the net economic impact would be of this project. We have a Chamber of
Commerce that talked only about the benefits, but there are costs. One of the presenters last
time made a significant comment about the wages of these jobs -retail jobs, hotel jobs of $8-9
an hour, which means government. subsidizing. if you make $8 an hour, somebody's going to
have. to subsidize your childcare; somebody's going to have to subsidize your child's free lunch
or reduced lunch. So, what are the net costs of this development for the community?
And he also stated that there would be 1,500 jobs, which would be great, but we only have
about 2,300 unemployed people in Orange County right now. My question is where those 1,500
people are_ going to come from. Are they going to move into Orange County to work at this
shopping center, and if so, where are they going to live? If they get $8 an hour, they're going to
need affordable housing.
Are there. going to be other economic development incentives sought for this project besides the
potential 1-85 widening?
Jim. Parker:. At this time, I .can't answer that question, but I will respond to that in writing when I
find out for sure. There could be several
Commissioner Nelson: If there are, I think that needs to be brought u_ p and put on the table in
_. .
_ __ _
a public place for the public to discuss.
(`
~\
The last sort of comment I have is about land use development and the comments that James
Carnahan made about global warming. l think it's easy to sort of laugh that off, you know, one
project doesn't have a significant impact on global warming. But the real key point that is trying
to be made, when we all talk about running for office, we talk about it on every street when ~
we're brainstorming the values of the County we want to pursue, is that you have to change
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
lI
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2I
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
I~I~:..~~T 1!/IT~I~.TT~~ 7
l land use patterns if you're going to address global warming. So, my question, and 1 guess this
2 is to our Economic Development staff, is that we have three EDDs, and this is the one that's
3 furthest away from population centers. So, why put a shopping center in a place that's the
4 furthest away from the population center where people are going to have to drive? Why not use
5 one of the EDDs that are closer to the population center? I don't disagree that we need more
6 retail. liberals agree with that, conservatives agree with that, republicans agree with that,
7 democrats agree with that; Orange County needs more retail. But if you're serious, as we say
8 we are, about global warming, why put this shopping center, which is going to have thousands,
9 and thousands, and thousands of vehicle miles traveled furthest away from the population
10 center where you have other alternatives?
11
12 The final thing, I'm a little troubled that we have so little vision for our economic development
13 districts and how we're going to develop them. When this first came up, I startled asking
14 questions, "What is our plan for these EDDs?" What I remember from reading the paper,
15 because I wasn't on the Commission then, was that the plan for these EDDs was for research,
16 and development, that kind of thing.. I don't remember ever reading, major shopping center. So
17 I asked staff what is our plan for these EDDs? What I got was this stack of paper, and I.had to
18 go through and read minutes from about 10-15 years of meetings, and sure enough, my
19 memory is correct, as far as I can tell, there really wasn't a vision articulated for the EDDs that
20 they would be shopping centers. The vision that was articulated was more substantive
21 economic development with a retail component in certain circumstances. The step that never
22 happened was coming back and making a plan for each one of these EDDs. I have some real
23 concerns about this shopping center in this particular place. Without any plan for what we want
24 to have done in those EDDs, a real plan, it makes it hard to argue that this is right and it makes
;25 it hard to argue that it's wrong.
~6
27 In, our economic development plan, we have stated that we are searching for 5,000 new jobs in
28 Orange County. Has there been any articulation of what kind of jobs? Not all jobs are equal.
29 When I talk to people, they're not wanting new jobs for their kids at $8 an hour. My question for
30 staff is have we articulated what kind of jobs we're seeking when we do economic development
31 recruitment? What kind of businesses are we going to bring into Orange County that would
32 raise the quality of life and that give people opportunities to grow and give families opportunities
33 to expand? Not all jobs are equal and it's really hard to argue that $8 an hour retail jobs are
34 what we want for this County.
35
36 Chair Jacobs: I have a whole list of questions. I'm going to start with the small and move to
37 the large. On page 14, it talks about independent retail and service establishments and
38 discussed a ban on drive-throughs. We do in fact have a very detailed plan for the Hillsborough
39 EDD, despite what Commissioner Nelson may think, and in that we ban any drive-through
40 windows. I would suggest that I would oppose any drive-through windows in any development
41 in any economic development district in Orange County. If you want to talk about pollution,
42 that's a great way to needlessly pollute with one's vehicle.
43
44 On page 15, and then the charts on 16 about condominiums, there's no mention in here about
45 having affordable units, and I know if we were in Chapel Hill, they require a certain percentage.
46 I would hope that the developers would dedicate a percentage of each of these clusters 'or units
47 to be affordable units as defined within Orange County.
48
49 I had a question about District II versus District III in this comprehensive use plan map between
50 16 and 17. I just wondered how much you took into account the impact of having District II{
51 closer to more of the lower density residential units and whether you thought that there was
~$
~~
I~1~:~~ T 1VITl~I-CTT~ ~
1 more traffic and other impact from District (II than District I1. I couldn't really tell, but my
2 inclination is that District fll actually might be more disruptive of the community than District II.
3 So, I would just be curious as to what the thinking was. And then something that Commissioner
4 Nelson said that I also wanted to point out, on page 17 at the bottom, it does say the EDD
5 Design Manual for the uses of light industrial and distribution uses. One of the questions that
6 was asked was about incentives and certainly the Department of Commerce is more
7 predisposed to support non-retail uses in considering whether or not to allocate and state
8 incentives. 1 was wondering why the developers decided not to include any light industrial or
9 even flex space in this development. I also think if you're going fio have housing units within
10 these districts, that you might want to consider if you want fio make it a viable community, that
11 there be some kind of recreation that people could access, whether it is a fitness area or
12 something. Because if you want them to actually stay there and live there, then you want to
13 make it somewhat livable.
14 .
15 On page 21, there's a whole discussion of transit. I would hope that the developers would
16 consider contributing to the public transit line that the County is discussing that would run
17 east/west on US 70 that might easily include this development so that people wouldn't have to
18 use automobiles to get there, so people who maybe couldn't afford an automobile could gefi
19 there, or were too young or too old to be driving to get there.
20
21 On page 22, it talks about designated smoking areas, and 1 would suggest that you might want
22 to reconsider whether or not we want to have designated smoking areas in a development in
23 Orange County.
24
25 On page 24, you talk about the stormwater impoundments and best management practices. I
26 think I saw it, and I'm assuming that you'll use those waters, especially now that the State has
27 become a little more flexible, to do your irrigation as opposed to having to use any potable
28 water.
29
30 I was also concerned what we're talking about on page 40 regarding the signage, the maximum
31 height being 50 feet. I'd just be interested in knowing more clearly what kind of lighting we're
32 talking about, what kind of sign we're talking about. There's some discussion later on, on pages
33 ~49 and 50 about relaxing some of the buffers in order, 1 assume, to make development and
34 signage more visible, but we also heard people speaking the other night who were concerned
35 about losing the green buffer along the interstate because it would make it louder. And as
36 somebody who lives about a third of a mile from I-40 and 1-85, I can tell you it makes a big
37 difference. When they widen from four Panes to eight lanes and took out a lot of trees, it made a
38 tremendous difference. So, I would be really cautious about how much I would be willing to
39 reduce the buffer along the interstate or reduce buffers near residential areas: And I know
40 there's some discussion in here about that.
41
42 There's also mention of a public building site, but it's pretty vague. Mayor Phelps mentioned
43 Waterstone, the developer of Waterstone actually gave the Town a site and I believe is. helping
44 them build the fire sfiation. This_ is just a proposal to set aside a parcel with no clear offer of
_. __ . _
._ ..
45 anything - a gift to the public, a reduced price, a function. l'd be interested in knoviiing what the
46 proposal is. I saw the most recent documents that the proposal is to have three access points
47 onto Buckhorn Road and two onto West Ten. Some of the visuals, I only saw one access point
48 onto West. Ten. I'm not sure why we need two onto what essentially is, of the two roads
49 involved, the secondary road, whether we want to be encouraging the trafr=tc in and out to the
50 extent that we have two entrances on it. Some places showed that and some places didn't. I
.~~
r~
I~~:.~~ T I~T~I [..TTY S 9
1 think we did get a little bit of a promise from DOT to give us some money for improvements, but
2 certainly not sufficient to do all of these improvements.
3 '
4 One of the things that was discussed, and I agree with Commissioner Nelson, I think in the
5 economic development plan that we have, that we do talk about the kind of jobs that we're
6 encouraging and they are all at least living wage jobs. I would think that it would be important
7 for the developers to talk about, within your control, whether that's the kind of jobs that we're
8 talking about. Any development that we've encouraged, I guess the only one was the window
9 sash company where we gave them a $50,000 water and sewer grant in order to hook into the
10 Orange-Alamance system for water.
11
12 Geof Gledhill: And also the Builder's First Ghoice project.
13
14 Chair Jacobs: In those circumstances, we require that they be living wage jobs, that they be
15 insurance provided for workers. I know those are the kinds of jobs that we envisioned when we
16 talked about getting 5,000 new jobs. We weren't envisioning McDonald's or Wal-Mart. Again,
17 within your capacity to assure those kinds of things, I think that would be important in Orange
18 County.
19
20 Finally, I agree to some extent with Commissioner Nelson, we do have a plan for the
21 Hillsborough EDD, we developed that over about 16 months with Hillsborough, and it's within
22 Hillsborough's jurisdiction. Commissioner Foushee has been working with the owners and staff
23 to do a very detailed plan for the Eno EDD, which is on the border of Durham and Orange
24 County. But, despite the requests aver a number of years from several of us, we never did
25 develop a plan for this economic development district. That's not to say .positively or negatively
26 whether retail or anything else should be in that economic district. But the fact is that, while we
27 could have done various things, we're kind of caught. This is the one economic development
28 district that really does not have a specific plan. That's not to say that it can't adapt to your plan,
29 yours is about a quarter of acreage that would be possible, if you take out the middle school and
30 the soccer complex.
31
32 Commissioner Foushee: I only have one other thing that 1 ask that we consider, and that
33 would be how we might recruit local businesses for this development.
34
35 Commissioner Gordon:.. I would just like to reinforce what's been said about the,transportation
36 plan, for one thing. I have brought up before, there were concerns about the inner-circulation
37 and the walkability and haw it would work out within the development; but there are of course
38 concerns about how the traffic would be handled after the development, what kind of road
39 widening would be included, and then also what provisions would be made for transit. Long-
40 range, not in Orange County, but regional, we are thinking about an east-west public transit.
41 But that could be given a big boost if this development were in a place where that would be one
42 of the parts, not only on the system, but if somehow the developer would contribute to the
43 system. This is all assuming that the development goes in this economic development district,
44 which has general guidelines, but it does not have specific guidelines. The Economic
45 Development Commission did start to talk about target industries, but I don't know if they've
46 ever adopted, and of course the whole economic development district has changed when we
47 approved the middle school and the soccer complex, it changed the scope of what could be
48 accommodated there. It's correct that we have a general economic development strategic plan,
49 but we don't have a specific plan. I guess the thing I would like to have explored, and my
50 comments now do have to do with transportation, including the points that have been made
51 about how much of the traffic and the patronage of the businesses do we expect that's going to
"1~
~~ ~~~.~1' 1 ~.1~. V V 1 ~ ~ 10
1 be corning off the interstate, and what do we expect is going to come from major population
2 centers. Because that will affect the carbon footprint. If we're expecting people to come from ( \
3 Mebane coming off the interstate and that sort of thing as opposed to expecting people to come
4 from places in Orange County, the Chapel HiIUCarrboro area, that would have a definite impact
5 on how this development would affect the carbon footprint. I guess my comments have to do
6 mainly with if we could spend a little bit more time trying to figure out not only the internal traffic
7 flow, but how public transit could figure into it, and what kind of carbon footprint do we expect to
8 be generated by this, where do we expect the customers to come from.
9
10 PLANNING BOARD:
11
12 Renee Price: I have some of the same concerns the Commissioners do. One of the things 1
13 wanted to ask Craig was, at the first part of the public hearing, you mentioned that we've
14 changed this area from Economic Development to Urbanizing. I was wondering when did all of
15 that happen?
16
17 Craig Benedict: The economic development areas and our transition areas are both
18 considered urbanizing. They have always been designated as a public water and sewer area,
19 which is that overall transition urbanizing category. There have not been any changes since the
20 1981 plan; this has always been designated as urbanizing. Prior to the EDD Land Use being
21 affixed in 1994, prior to that, it was designated as Commercial Industrial Node. For 13 years
22 prior to the EDD manual coming out it was still anon-residential use.
23
24 Renee Price: I thought we were saying that it was 'now more commercial as opposed to
25 industrial. r
26 ~`
27 Craig Benedict: No, there's a mixture of uses that are suggested in the EDD.
28
29 Renee Price: I was unclear about the widening of Buckhorn Road. Is it to be widened to four
30 lanes, six lanes, both, depending on where you are?
31
32 Jim Parker: Basically, the actual configuration of where those numbers of lanes are at this time
33 is somewhat vague. The plans have not been prepared to a level of specificity to fell you that.
34 But certainly, at strategic points, like the main entrance to the development would be two turns,
35 ~ probably two lanes in each direction, north and south, and probably an acceleration lane in the
36 northbound direction that may serve as a bus stop also. Across the bridge, more than likely it .
37 would be a minimum of five lanes once you get passed the termini of the ramps, then your lanes
38 are going to start to drop off as you go north and as you go'south past the main entrance to the
39 development. At this point, they are not as specific until, certainly, approval and we proceed to
40 a construction plan stage to determine those lanes. The TIA kind of addresses the capacities
41 and the number of lanes that are needed.
42
43 Renee Price: Are there residents along there now that would have to give up part of their
44 yards.
46 Jim Parker: Certainly no one would be asked to give up their property. if there was a need,
47 certainly there would be compensation to that land. The intent of.the developer is to try to
48 maintain everything within the existing right-of--way.
49
50 Renee Price: The other question that I had was the residential units and how many are you ~
51 proposing?
~~~°~ V ~~ ~ 11
1
2 Jim Parker: Currently, there are 200 in the planned development.
3
4 Renee Price: At this point, it does not include single-family, because I noticed. the staff
5 commented that they do not want single-family.
6
7 Jim Parker: Correct, multi-family.
8
9 Renee Price: I was concerned about the sustainability as well of the type of jobs that we're
10 going to have there, .and also the viability of the retail business, particularly smaller ones in
11 competition with the big box stores. I think that's a problem we've had almost universally, or
12 throughout the country, is that the big box stores tend to push the small businesses out of
13 business. I have a concern about that, but you do indicate that you are going to be inviting
14 these kinds of businesses there.
15
16 Jim Parker: Correct. And we wilt try and respond to that in some written form for you.
17
18 Renee Price: And also, I'm concerned about the distance from other population centers. l'm
19 concerned about the amount of pollution. Has there been any work done about the amount of
20 pollution considering you've got 85 and 40 and all this parking area and the air pollution?
21
22 Jim Parker: We will respond to that also.
23
24 Sam Lasris asked if he could read aloud .the question and answer sheet provided by the
25 developers and Chair Jacobs said no, because of the Time factor.
,' 6
27 Sam Lasris: Why were the parking decks eliminated?
28
29 Jim Parker: They're not eliminated, they may not be as clearly shown as before. The land use
30 plan indicates surface parking. If there are potential hotels, there may be some structure
31 parking. You asked about the questions just a moment ago that we've responded te. I'm not
32 _ going to say every question that has been asked tonight has been addressed in those
33 comments, but a lot of those questions that have been asked tonight have been touched on or
34 addressed. What I've listed was about the structured parking. The intent is not to eliminate it,
35 it's kind of use-driven, and so I think it will be more of~a hotel use with the structure parking..
36
37 Sam Lasris: Can you explain the rationale for putting structures at three diverse places on the
38 property instead of having a more compact development? I mean, we used to be a very
39 walkable kind of shopping district where you pulled in, you parked and walked the whole thing,
40 and then when you were ready to leave, you got in your car. But, the way this is, there are three
41 distinct areas and you more of less have to drive from area to area. I know we talked about that
42 you could potentially walk, but most people are not going to walk, but they're going to drive.
43 What's the rationale for three separate districts and so far apart ?
44
45 Jim Parker: There was not a conscious effort to put them far apart. Looking at the walkability
46 plan that we submitted, anywhere from afive-minute walk to maybe aseven-minute walk
47 between those districts exists. The intent was to try and create~three different theme or three
48 different areas that puts you into a different mindset or a different type of shopping experience,
49 yet maintain them to the point that you could walk. The other thing that drove those three
50 different distinct areas is just trying to provide that internal circulation that Commissioner Gordon
"l~
`~~ ~~~..~~L~ T ~1~~'V V 1 ~ ~ 12
1 has asked about and to try to allow for a car to get in, park, and not be a tight, congested
2 development.
3 •
4 Sam Lasris: If you were to make itmore compact, you'd have more land available for this
5 recreation and you'd have less of a footprint. I'm sure you've seen hotels attached to shopping
6 centers. I'm just wondering why that concept was rejected. Is it that the land is so affordable?
7
8 Jim Parker: We will try to expand on that answer as well for you.
9
10 Sam Lasris: I'm also wondering if we actually will be physically blocking the residents who
11 currently live around this property. Will they consistently be blocked off from walking into or
12 cycling into this development?
13
14 Jim Parker: We've had a couple of meetings with the neighborhoods around the site. We've
15 had two meetings -one with Crestview subdivision to the southeast of the project and then the
16 community to the north across 85. Crestview indicated to us at.that meeting, there were same
17 concerns about not making that connection between the two, and we certainly encouraged them
18 to speak to that at the public hearing and we would try to support whatever we heard at that
19 point. There is currently not an intended connection point to that subdivision. It's not saying
20 that it's something we would not•do, it's just we have not included that.
21
22 Sam Lasris: I know you're not the traffic engineer, but 1 was looking at the dates that the traffic
23 counts were made, .and they were only made on weekdays. I'm wondering why no traffic counts
24 were made on weekends, and that's really where the traffic is coming heavily.
25
26 Jim Parker: Lynn Hill is our traffic consultant, but I will say that the major traffic concern now is
27 on the weekend because the road capacity is not designed for what's happening. In fact, there
28 are no improvements to the road system out there now to handle what is happening. Once the
29 • improvements are made based on the traffic for the development, you're going to see quite an
30 improvement on the weekend. •
31
32 The Clerk swore in Lynn Hill.
33
34 Lynn Hill: I think that what's happening out there now on the weekend would give it a distorted
35 view of existing traffic. That's why the decision was made to state the traffic counts on
36 weekdays~because of the flea market in that area. It would distort the existing traffic.
37
38 Craufurd Goodwin: I have a question and then a comment. I understand that the
39 circumstance that the County is out of compliance with the ozone quite substantially. If that's
40 the case; does it make sense to support a project that will bring thousands of cars and will
41 increase the problem of ozone? I wonder if anybody has explored that; and if so, how will we
42 deal with the issue?
43
44 My observation is that the document we received, which is called an Economic Impact
45 Statement, is -certainly not that: It's sort of a partial fiscal impact statements I think that-what-~we
46 really needed to do due diligence. of this project is a serious fiscal impact statement. For
47 example, taking. not just sales tax, but also real estate tax, and all of the costs; all of the
48 expenses for police, and schools, and fire, and all of the other things. An economic impact
49 statement, a genuine one, would also be very interesting, taut it is much harder to construct.
50 think until you have that, it's very hard to reach any kind of conclusion.
51
(~
r~
~~
~~_ ~l lJ ~~ ~ 13 ~~~
1 Bernadette Pelissier: Yes, I had questions about the water and sewer. I guess on page 5,
2 there's a reference to this being within the Water and Sewer Management Boundary
3 Agreement. I don't know what agreement there specifically exists. I guess the specific
4 questions I have are, 1 know there are other tracts of land that are a part of this EDD that are not
5 in question here, and I am wondering if there are long-range plans that the Town of Mebane has
6 about what's the capacity to actually serve the remaining area of the EDD, and how would it be
7 impacted by this type of development here that's not light industrial. What else could you do on
8 the adjacent property? I'd like to know a little bit more about that. Are there any discussions
9 about whether or not Mebane would intent on annexing any of the property since it's so close. I
10 think that's something we really need to look at. I'd like to see that there's some agreement
11 here with Mebane, and I don't know what's going on.
12
13 Chair Jacobs: We'll get to that.
14
15 Michelle Kempinski: The first one has to do with the types of uses that are being requested as
16 . part of the planned development. On pages 15-16, it talks about that there's a series of places
17 for District I, II, and III. For example, District I lists retail trade as the uses. And then ~ .
18 accommodation, retail, finance/insurance, services in District II. Retail, services, residential,
19 and government in District III. The concern that I have is, not in that they're listed, but in the
20 specificity and the intended use. Because on page 17 there is a conversion table that allows
21 you flexibility of converting one to another based on design factors that will convert retail to
22 condos, or theater to retail, and so on and so forth. I. would have a concern that the conversion
23 factor is a part of the application, because then it's not a specified use. If you could outline the
24 reason for the table on page 17, and what are some of the tentative scenarios that you would
25 expect to see that would lead you to request that there be a conversion factor as part of the
'?6 specified use.
L7
28 Jim Parker: That was one of the questions that we responded to, basically what does retail use
29 mean, what does that encompass. We gave some outline items in our response as well as the
30 services.. We responded to those and you'll see that. The conversion table is to convert theater
31 seats, hotel rooms, and condos from retail square footage.
32
33 Michelle Kempinski: In one direction only? .
34
35 Jim Parker: You could go either way. The intent of that table was so that it does not
36 contaminate or change the traffic generation numbers that had been provided in the TIP,. For
37 example, and these are just numbers that I'm pulling out of my head, so they mean absolutely
38 nothing. For example, we.have 20,000 trips that are coming to this development based on the
39 land use plan that you have now and the square footage that you have in front of you in the
40 three district tables. We could use that conversion factor, the way that it's spelled out, and
41 those 20,000 trips don't change. They're still 20,000 trips. That was the reason for that table.
42 There's some level of flexibility built into this plan in order for us to be able to determine an end.
43 Is there one theater, is there one hotel, or are there two hotels with 400 rooms, or one hotel with
44 200 rooms? You can't just add that, you need to be able to balance the background.
45
46 Michelle Kempinski: I understand the implications of the traffc analysis, my concern is that
47 uses need to be specified in the special use permit and not be provisional as part of the
48 ordinance. Also, my concern would be that, for example, 200 condos may be deemed as an
49 undesirable use in the district after the application is approved, and the conversion table would
50 be used because it was also approved to delete those 200 condos and swap them out for retail.
51 That's a concern that I have.
~~~~L-1.1.' 1. ~I~~m 4J .1. ~ ~ 14
1
2 Jim Parker: If the residential component was not approved, I think the developer is really open ~
3 that it is going to remain in; but if it was not approved, and everything else went forward,
4 certainly that conversion table would still need to be used for theaters or hotel use.
5
6 Michelle Kempinski: The plan listed in there is an optional tradeoff for retail space, so that's
7 just a concern. The other question that I had or request is if you could provide a larger, more
8 readable version of the development plan. What we have now is really difficult to read. It would
9 be nice to see how these transportation, pedestrian access, and uses are going to overlay on
10 each other. You know, to take those sheets and actually do those overlays so that we can see
11 a consolidated picture of the site plan in a larger, more readable version. The other thing that
12 kind of goes along with that is, after reading through the binder, I still don't really have a good
13 picture of what it will look like. /had trouble hearing her. Would it look like Southpoint, would it
14 look like New Hope Commons, would it look like Cary Towne Center, would it look like Crabtree
15 Valley Mall? There is a wide range of different types. It would be helpful to have an idea of
16 what your idea is for the town center.
17 .
18 Jim Parker: That's one of our responses also in that package, with some illustrations.
19
20 Michelle Kempinski: I want to ask a question about a report that was submitted by the Chapel
21 Hill Chamber on the economic impact of Buckhorn Village, and there's a couple of tables in
22 there that provide detail about how many restaurants, how many anchor retailers, how many
23 hotels, and I was just curious as to whether the student who generated the report got those
24 numbers from the developer or if those were guesses. It's more specific than what's contained
25 in the application.
26 ~
27 Jim Parker: We did give them those estimates.
28
29 Jeffrey Schnnidt: I'm not sure whether this is for Mr. Benedict or the County Manager; but my
30 colleague here referenced the economic study that was done. Could we have sort of a pro
31 forma look out to the end of this project if it were approved and the impact that it has on the tax
32 structure, principally the property tax structure in the County. It's my understanding right now
33 that it's about 85% supported from a residential perspective, 15% from business. That could
34 change substantially with what we see here from the increased sales tax and from the increased
35 business taxes. So if we could maybe figure out a way how that looks in 2014, is that the
36 buildout date?
37
38 Renee Price: I don't know if this is maybe for the staff or the Commissioners, but if this is built,
39 I think we should also look at the bigger picture, what it's going to do to surrounding property:
40 The developers have already referenced Southpoint. When Southpoint was built, then there
41 was a whole range of development that has increased since then, and it keeps going and going'.
42 I'rn wondering if we want the same thing for Orange Courity. Will Orange County support that?
43 Once this urban development is dropped out in the middle of this rural area, will they continue to
44 change the landscape. We're getting water already for the project from Mebane. But beyond
45 that, can you support it with fire, police, whatever? Will it need to change from one house per -
46 acre to townhouses?
47
48 Judith Wegner: Two things that I've been tussling over, one is the relationship between the
49
50 different segments here, and I know that with large developments there's always a risk if the
how much of the overall financial potential
economy takes a downturn or something like that
C
51 ,
here is leveraged against what the string of dominoes.......????? This is gaing to have such a ~
1 1~~~ V ~~ S I S
1 substantial impact on the County, I think we really need to be sure we are smart about what the
2 different phases are, components are, and the risks we run if it's going to stretch over a period
3 of time. The other thing is I think we're all challenged by this kind of overlapping situation with
4 the rezoning plus the permits and everything on top of it. I understand that if you're asking for
5 certain kinds of legislative determinations here, you can't get something that's incredibly so
6 specific that if the approval goes in and then somebody else acquires this ????? and really tie
7 their hands. l hope you appreciate where we sit that, to the degree that these are very open
8 categories and things like that, it's very difficult to figure out our appropriate balance of
9 responsibility with regard to specificity and things that need to be nailed down. I just would say
10 that I think we are all doing our best to take it very seriously and I know the developers here
11 have done sophisticated projects like Meadowmont and so forth, but the more you can work
12 with us with this, given that it's a new structure that we don't have a lot of benchmarks about
13 ways in which to deal with these overlapping considerations and the phasing, we're all better off.
14 I feel troubled by what feels like a somewhat blank check as to something that is really major,
15 especially in our economic times. I think that we all need to be very careful in thinking that
16 through. I know that you have a very talented team there that's doing a lot with this, but for -
T7 ~ example, if it's true that the State is going to be strapped for monayfor various reasons because
18 - of the downturn in the economy that we all know is coming, then assumptions about State
19 'money for transportation availability, economic incentives, one thing or another, I think those are
20 all pretty up in the air kinds of notions. I wish there were a way to deal with this, and l think we
21 can,' but I'm just raising the notion, if it were districts a piece at a time,. I would feel better so that
22 everything isn't hinged all the way out.
23
24 Jay Bryan: Two questions I think, possibly for the attorney about the process. In terms of the
25 two issues that are before the Commissioners, the and the SUP application, what materials are
26 to be considered by the boards?
Z7 .
28 Geof Gledhill: All of it. The rezoning is a legislative decision to consider everything that's been
29 presented to you in written form, of ali of the statements, just about everything that's
30 reasonable.
31
32 Jay Bryan: And then with regard to the application itself is there a distinction between what is
33 to be considered in terms of what the applicant submits to us. With regard to say, the
34 application materials that have been submitted, are those considered the total application that's
35 to be approved or not approved?
36
37 Geof Gledhill: For the special use permit aspect of this, the application I think is in front of you,
38 was introduced to you. Other additional written materials have been offered and put into the
39 record. Testimony of witnesses, most of the testimony that I've heard doesn't go the special
40 use permit issue, it goes more towards the rezoning issue. But to the degree that the testimony
41 is, for example, expert testimony from Mr. Knight concerning property value certainly goes to the
42 special use permit.
43
44 Jay Bryan: If there's an approval of the application, is that an approval of all of the statements
45 that are made in the application, that we approve everything that's in this document regarding alf
46 of the proposals.
47
48~ Geof Gledhill: I think at the end of the day, what you're going to have in front of you is the
49 special use permif that incorporates whatever it is that's in the application materials, whatever it
50 is that's been testified to that needs to be there for the special use permit.
51
1~.
a~
~~~~L~, ~ ~~~eV V ~~~ 16
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Craig Benedict: Just to reiterate, the rezoning, there's criteria within your zoning code that is
the basis of the criteria to decide on the rezoning. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan,
those type of global, and as the attorney said, prior to acceptance or review of any application,
there will be special use criteria that will further elaborate what's in this application, it will lock in
specifically any conditions -underground electric and the like would be wrapped into the special
use permit. As part of that special use permit, findings of fact that address the criteria that's
also part of our zoning application criteria, and chapter eight would be illustrated.
(~
Jay Bryan: So, the issue of their request for not having to abide by 14 of the criteria in the ED
Design Manual, the staff will make recommendations about their request that prior to either
board voting on the application.
Craig Benedict: That's correct. They're asking for design solutions different than what are in
the original manual, and staff will make recommendations concerning them and both boards will
be able to deliberate if those design solutions meet the intent of the planned development.
Geof Gledhill: .Let me add to that that the EDD Manual does not envision either a legislative
process or a special use permit process; it envisions a complex site development process, in
which the developer meets al( of the requirements of the EDD Manual. If the developer planned
to meet all of the requirements of the EDD Manual, you would never see it; it would be handled
at the staff level. (t could be a development as large as this. one, or even larger. But because
this development has in mind some different ideas, some different design approaches, and
different uses, then it's coming to you in both the legislative and the special use permit process.
So, presumably, the special. use permit itself will address the degree to which the design
solutions proposed by these applicants meet or exceed the requirements of the design manual.
Chair. Jacobs: So, in that. sense, there is a plan .for this economic development district.
Geof Gledhill: This will be a subset of that economic development. If this is approved, this will
be the plan of this portion of that economic development district.
Chair Jacobs: You might want to make copies of the design manual available to Planning
Board members and Commissioners that don't have it, or at least put it on disk.. You might want
to have maps. It might be easier to overlay things on a CD than it would be to have a whole
bunch of transparencies. I think it would be good to have some maps, but it might also be good
if you could make some CDs so that people could see how things overlay and have enough so
that we could share them with the public. And also, 1 think we need a land use map for the
area. One of our conversations with Mebane was. very specific about where it will and will not
extend water and sewer, because we had the same concern about the kind of sprawl around '
Southpoint that we don't want in Orange County, and .neither did them. But you need to see
that on a map, and I think we need to see what we've agreed to with Mebane so that people can
understand what the parameters are in the conversation about water and sewer.
Michelle Kempinski: Is there still an opportunity, if a question comes up from any Planning
Board members to submit it to the developer after this meeting.
( ~.
Craig Benedict: The. process we have is depending on when the Commissioners close the
public hearing. Written questions can come forward; they are part of the public record, shared
with everyone -both the Commissioners and the general public. So, .written questions can
come forward and the answers can be prepared by the applicant or others to address those ~ C
questions prior to the deliberations so that everybody has equal access to those. We would
1 suggest that they be asked within the following couple of weeks so that they can do the
2 research that's necessary, and we can distribute that before the next meeting is held. We have
3 to work on those special conditions.
4
S Geof Gledhill: Whatever is going to be considered needs to be considered as part of the public
6 hearing. Nothing will be considered after the public hearing is closed.
.~
8 Chair Jacobs: When the Planning Board asks a question during ifs deliberation, or if it asks for
9 additional materials, should we leave the public hearing open to include that?
10
11 Geof Gledhill: Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. You can leave the public hearing open for
12 the Planning Board recommendation, for any additional written ri-materials that are submitted
13 between .now and when the Planning Board makes its recommendation, or you can continue
14 this form of the public hearing to another day if you want'to, to receive additional material. So
1S you have several options about it, but importantly, we need to leave the public hearing open to
16 receive everything that you're going to consider before you make a decision.
17
18 Chair Jacobs: I think we'll go in the former direction rather than the latter. Are you making
19 recommendations about a date at which the Planning Board would begin to consider this?
20
21 Craig Benedict: Options B and C, we've kind of moved past Option A, it would be a very fast
22 turnaround for the Planning Board to deliberate tomorrow night. Option B would ask the
23 Planning Board to deliberate on April 16~', about two weeks from now. Option C would ask the
24 Planning Board to deliberate by May 7~' or May 19`". And then it would return back to the
2S Commissioners no later than May 19'". That's Option C; that may be a more. realistic timeframe
'?6 based on the questions that came forward from both groups tonight.- Even with asking the
27 Planning Board to come back with a recommendation by May 19t", probably two or three weeks
28 prior to that, all of the questions would have to be asked and answered by the applicant so that
29 full packets of information could be prepared and the special use conditions could be prepared
30 also.. So, Option B, a quicker timeframe, Option C seems to give a little more latitude into the
31 process. .
32
33 Chair Jacobs: So, is May 5t" a compromise in terms of speed? It would seem that there's not
34 much difference between the 5`" and the 7t" as far as meetings. Are those regularly scheduled?
3S
36 Craig Benedict: May 7`" is a regular Planning Board meeting. May 5t" would have to be a
37 special Planning Board meeting.
38
39 Jay Bryan: When is the Comprehensive Plan Update public hearing.?
40
41 Craig Benedict: May 19t" does ring a bell. But that's just no later than.
42
43 Chair Jacobs: It is the 19~' of May.
44
4S Craig Benedict: Setting that date would just say, "no later than," it doesn't mean that it would
46 actually have to occur on that bight.
47
48 Chair Jacobs: It would seem to me that it might take more than one Planning Board meeting,
49 so I think you have to give the Planning Board time for two meetings prior to the public hearing.
SO .
~~
'\~
~~~~~ ~ ~1~. V V ~~ ~ 18
1 Judith Wegner: What's the rush. I mean, this is an important set of deliberations for meeting
2 multiple times a week on the Comprehensive Plan. I would think we'd want to bring it closure (~.
3 before you take your break, if that's appropriate. You've seen us die off one at a time here from
4 sickness or exhaustion or whatever, and we really want to do justice by the Comp Plan material
5 for you too, so if you want us to proceed, you've got to cut us a little bit of slack, please.
6
7 Sam Lasris: I want to give the. public the opportunity to receive the material if there is an open
8 house, but is there going to be some time allowed for that?
9
10 Chair Jacobs: We need to work back from the fact that in June, we're going to be pretty
11 involved in the budget, and we're going to adjourn at the end of June. So, somewhere in
12 between there, we're going to need a recommendation`from you, and we may need a fair
13 amount of time to discuss this as well, especially considering how difficult it's going to be for us
14 to even schedule an extra meeting, so we'll have to do this as part of one of our regularly
15 scheduled meetings and we probably won't get much else done: I'm still looking for something
16 that's a compromise, preferably before the public hearing on the 19t" of May, but if not, certainly
17 before the end of June, I mean before the start of June.
18
19 Jay Bryan: What about after the public hearing on May 19`".
20
21 Jeffrey Schmidt: One option to throw on the table in addition to this is that if we wanted to
22 defer the completion of the Comprehensive Plan three months.
23
24 -Jay Bryan: Craig, do you have the Planning Board's meeting schedule regarding the updated
25 Comprehensive Plan?
26 (~_
27 Craig Benedict: Actually, there is roughly aten-day, it s called a hiatus, after we prepare the
28 agenda for May 19~', roughly May 9t" to the 19~', there is nothing. The documents would have
29 been prepared by that time. No special joint meetings occur from roughly May 9~' to the 19~'.
30 So, there is some time prior to that quarterly public hearing. Maybe May 7t" and May 14~', like
31 two Wednesdays in a row.
32
33 Chair Jacobs: Why don't we refer to the Planning Board for May 7t", and then you can decide
34 when you want to meet a second time to get it to us by the beginning of June. Maybe that will
35 work.
36,
37 Geof Gledhill: Let me suggest that another way of saying that would be to refer it to the
38 Planning Board for a recommendation back to you no later than, pick some date and let them
39 decide on the meeting.
40
41 Chair Jacobs: No later than June 3`d, which is our regularly scheduled meeting.
42
43 Geaf Gledhill: And then you would continue this public hearing until June 3`~.
44
45 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee; seconded by Commissioner Carey to -
46 refer the Buckhorn Road Associates LLC Rezoning and Ciass A Special Use Permit
47 application to the .Planning Board for a recommendation back to the County
48 Commissioners no later than June 3`d. The public hearing will be left. open until that time.
49 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
50
51 2. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments:
1~~°~ lJ ~~ ~ 19
1 a. Telecommunications Towers: Amendments to.promote consistency with
December 1, 2007 revisions to NC General Statutes concerning Wireless
3 Telecommunications Facilities.
4
5 Craig Benedict said that the County has now amended its ordinances to be consistent
6 with the State, and certain processes that promote co-location have been streamlined. Also, the
7 fees. that are collected allow the County to have experts on behalf of the County to research the
8 issues for public safety purposes. The balloon requirements have been amended for better .
9 visibility. Also, there are more detailed requirements for approval. This is a major change to the
10 Telecommunications ordinance. These amendments will continue to be able to have a Master
11 Telecommunications Plan to promote the limited amount of towers and more co-location. This
12 is to be consistent with State law. The ordinance was reformatted, but the good ideas from the
13 previous ordinance were not lost. He thanked the Attorney's Office for helping with this
14 amendment.
15 Chair Jacobs asked, after all is said and done, if this would wind up about the same
16 place that it was or significantly under where it was. He cannot imagine that the legislation will
17 let the County actually have more control.
18 Mr. Speaker said that the short answer is you did not lose any regulatory authority, you
19 just have to do several things differently.
20 Jay Bryan said that the general sense is that towers can be placed anywhere in the
21 County if they fit a set of criteria, and the public really has no ability to prevent individual towers
22 from being located if they meet the various criteria in the ordinance.
23 Craig Benedict said that the criteria are there to protect against the proliferation of
24 towers. For example, the need for the tower has to be proven and that there are not alternate
25 locations that could also serve the need. The federal government has certain interests to allow
'~?6 the information highway to proceed. It is not an easy denial in those cases.
Z7
28 PUBLIC COMIV(ENT:
29 NONE.
30
31 A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
32 forward the matter to the Planning Board for review and comment with a request that a
33 recommendation be submitted back to the BOGC no later than May 20, 2008.
34 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
35
36
37 b. Planned Development: Amendments to address inconsistencies between existing
38 ordinance requirements and NC General Statutes, specifically the requirement that
39 imposed conditions be mutually agreed upon by the County and petitioner.
40
41 Zoning Administrator Michael Harvey introduced this item. He said that he has been
42 working on this with the Attorney's Office. As the Attorney's Office and staff began earnest work
43 on developing the conditional use process as well as beginning to finalize work on the
44 Agricultural Services Enterprise project, it was discovered that there were several provisions in
45 the existing ordinance that were not consistent with some recent changes of the general statute
46 regular standards, specifically focusing on how conditions are proposed in certain projects. At
47 the time it was suggested that it was essential to bring the~existing regulatory standards in line
48 with general statute requirements. The proposal is to amend Article 7 and modify how
49 conditions are proposed for planned development projects. Essentially the change would
50 require that any condition proposed be initially agreed to by the Board of County Commissioners
l~
1 and the applicant through the public hearing process. The staff is asking the Board to allow the
2 Planning Board to review this and make a recommendation no later than May 7, 2008. ( "
3 Commissioner Gordon asked what happens if conditions are proposed and the applicant
4 does not agree, then could the project be denied. Michael Harvey said that if the Board of
5 County Commissioners wishes to impose a condition for set reasons based on the information
6 provided during the quasi judicial process and the applicant refuses, and the Board of County
7 Cornrnissioners believes that the condition is vital to addressing a component of complying with
8 local regulatory or policy requirements, then that would be a basis for recommending denial.
9 Geaf Gledhill agreed and said that he would recommend that it be handled at the
10 rezoning decision level and that the Board has in place all of the conditions necessary for this
11 project to work and that there be concurrence with the developer on these conditions. If there is
12 not concurrence, then the answer would be to delay the rezoning decision. This only applies to
13 conditional use zoning or special use zoning. It does not apply to the run of the mill special use
14 permits,. where you still have authority to impose reasonable conditions.
15 .Chair Jacobs said that one of the changes is removal of public, health, safety, and
16 welfare for approval or denial. Geof Gledhill said that except in specific ways in which its
17 addressed in the process.
18 Renee Price asked if this means that the applicant has no room to appeal.
19 Geof Gledhill said that, if we all do it right, the appeal will be to a legislative decision.
20 In answer to questions from the Planning Board members, Geof Gledhill said that the
21 issue in a planned development special use process, hopefully the appeal is not going to turn on
22 the denied condition or the condition that is not agreed on, but whether or not the decision to not
23 change the rezoning was wrong.
24 Jeffrey Schmitt said that the Planning Board is not limiting the opportunity for a plaintiff of
25 this case to appeal, it's just to whom the-case is appealed. Geof Gledhill said that it is not to
26 whom, it's the nature of the decision that is being appealed. ~" C"
27 Chair Jacobs said that what the attorney is saying is that he wants the County to work so
28 that if there's an appeal, Orange County wins.
29 Jay Bryan asked if Geof Gledhill could outline his suggestions concerning the overlay of
30 conditions regarding the application with regard to the rezoning. He also asked about the
31 language. The way the statute reads is that the conditions are designed to address
32 conformance of the use of the site to. County ordinance and an officially adopted comprehensive
33 or other plan and those that address the impacts, etc. He also asked about the word "policies."
34 He is wondering if it is nat correct to include under the proposed amendment part 4 7.5.5 that
35 the County Commissioners may grant the application in accordance with PD and other County
36 regulations; the Comprehensive Plan, any other plans, and County policies.
37 Michael Harvey said that under section 7.5.5, the conditions refer back to section 7.2.4,
38 which is where the language is about the Comprehensive Plan and County regulations. He said
39 that the Comprehensive Plan is the ultimate policy guide for the County. He said that he could
40 throw something in 7.5.5 if it would address the concern, but he believes it has been addressed
41 already.
42 Jay Bryan asked that the language match in 7.5.5 and 7.2.4.
43
44 PUBLIC COMMENT:
45 NONE.
46
47 A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
48 refer the amendment package to the Planning Board for review and comment with a request
49 that a recommendation be submitted no later than May 7, 2008.
50 VOTE: UNANIMOUS. ~
51
1
22
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
~~~~.~~ lYl~~.~1 LJ ~~ ~ 21
D. ADJOURNiViENT OF PUBLIC HEARING
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Donna S. Baker, CMC
Cieric to the Board
~~~
Barry Jacobs, Chair
~0~~-
~~~
(~
(~
[p"I
LT~I C~l~l\T
~~.~
RESPONSES FROM 4-1-2008.
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
.~~~~~ ~o, zoos
~~~
..
~~ ~ ~~
r ..........:.._
..................... . .
~~
a~
~~
Resp®nse t® C,~ucsti®ns fr®rn .Apra 1, 200 ~
~.
®range Coul~.ty Public l~ear~a~g - ~ucl~orn Village
~ran~e County Commissioners
Question #1 Commissioner Carey -Residential pays study?
County staff to respond
,S`taff Comment: Commissioner Carey indicated that he would like the name of the
individual who has made the claim that `residential land uses pay for themselves' 'at the
April 1, 2008 meeting. He further stated that this was the first time he had ever heard
such a statement and that he, and others, had always been told the exact opposite.
Commissioner Carey was responding to a statement made by Mr. Joe Phelps, former
Mayor of the Town of Hillsborough, who indicated during the 'meeting that there was an
economist at a `state university' that had indicated that housing/residential land uses do,
in effect, pay for themselves in terms of covering the costs associated with providing
them services with the revenue generated ~by their property taxes.
This person's name was not offered by Mr. Phelps as part of the PUBLIC RECORD. Mr.
Phelps has indicated that he was referring to Mr. Michael Walden, and economist with
NC State, but could not provide specific examples of his studies, writings, or any public
comments that supported the comment made at the meeting. Mr. Phelps indicated that he
was requesting information from the John Locke Foundation to bolster his comments
concernu~.g residential land uses covering the cost of their services through their tax
values.
Question #2 Commissioner Nelson -Who will pay for road improvements?
Required improvements for increase capacity in accordance with the approved TIA. are
the responsibility of the developer. The improvements proposed will provide additional
roadway capacity above that needed for Buckhorn Village, thus allowing future
development potential to the EDD area.
Question ##3 Commissioner Nelson -Are you going to ask for government
assistance/incentives for improvements or for the
project as a whole?
It is true that there are significant costs associated with the offsite improvements for
water, sewer, and transportation. These costs for these improvements will provide
infrastructure needs of Buckhorn Village, as well as, additional capacity for the
remainder of the EDD and the surrounding area. In other words, the offsite ~
improvements (Water, Sewer and Roads) will provide room for further EDD growth on
~a~
the back of the effort of Buckhorn Village. Further EDD growth. does not only paraphrase
"new development", fiirther growth means an increased ability to provide water and
sewer services to existing parcels within the EDD. Currently there are existing parcels
that could benefit from the increase accessibility to water and sewer service.
Buckhorn Road Associates will be looking for investment assistance from Orange
County and the State of North Carolina.- At this time it is not clear to the investment
value.
Question #4 Commissioner I~Telson -Where is the analysis on how much it will cost
the government to provide services to this project?
County staff to respond
~`taff ~C`c~narnent: This report has been completed and is attached for your review and
comment.
Question #S Commissioner laielson -~Iow will your projected employees pay for
housing, and where do you thinly. they are going to be able to live?
Industry standard indicates that a 20-30 minute drive radius from the site would
encompass 90% of the employees.. Currently Orange County staff is looking at adopting
"affordable housing" incentives into the county ordinances. The conditions of approval of
Buckhorn Village incorporate those anticipated required thresholds (30%), Section 2-2-4
(1,2), Within aten-mile radius there are proposed subdivisions under conception and or
construction that would support this development.
The Orange county ordinance, which this application is made under, does not require•a
housing study, and ane has not been provided
We believe that once the infrastructure of water, sewer, and transportation are built to the
Buckhorn EDD that additional residential infill will come to fi-uition. The infrastructure
improvements vvi.ll serve many areas beyond the limits of Buckhorn Village and thus •
foster future development, and existing residential utility services to the majority of the
Buckhorn EDD.
Staff C'amnaent: As a means of clarification, we akeady have `affordable hosing
incentives' within our local Ordinances. What we are recommending is that one (1) of
the conditions of approval be that the applicant provide a specific percentage of
affordable housing opportunities within. the Conditions of Approval for this project.
Question #6 Commissioner Jacobs -]Drive-thru windows - we do not want them?
Buckhorn Village understands the tendency to want to eliminate the common "drive-
thru". -BVPD requests that the drive-thru's be separated into two categories; Essential
and Non-essential, both being allowed under with the following conditions:
2
~j1
Essential personal use drive-thru's such as pharmacy's and fmancial institutions assist the
handicap and the sick by providing this convenience. Standard designs would be .allowed. ~ \.
Non-essential personal use drive-thru's would be allowed, provided-that innovative
designs be implemented that will mitigate noise and emissions from the queue of
vehicles. These designs shall utilize, as examples, landscape screens and vented canopies
as mitigation.
Question #7 Commissioner Jacobs -You talk about housing, will there be affordable
housing? You should have a percentage of affordable housing within the plan?
Currently Orange County staff is looking at adopting "affordable housing" incentives
into the county ordinances. The conditions of approval of Buckhorn Village incorporate
those anticipated required thresholds (30%), Section 2-2-4 (1,2). Within aten-mile radius
there are proposed subdivisions under conception and or construction that would support
this development.
Question #8 Commissioner Jacobs -How will you address the traffic impacts
created by District III on West Ten Road?
Traff c impacts on West Ten Road will be addressed in accordance with the NCDOT
approved Traffic Impact Analysis. The improvements to West Ten Road should result in
an improved traffic flow from that currently experienced on weekends at present.
~ ~..
Question #9 Commissioner Jacobs -Should you not include some recreational area
within the various districts where you are going to have residential uses?
In accordance with the draft conditions of approval prepared by the Orange County
Flanning Staff, recreational areas that are attributable to the residential component shall
be provided and reviewed at site plan submittal. The draft conditions provide design
criteria specifically to this: design element. Our intention is to provide these recreational
areas as well as other. small pocket parks within, the Districts. We requested that these
areas be included. in the 30% open space requirement.
Question #10 Commissioner Jacobs -Transit -you should consider mentioning
contributing to the public transit line that is intended to run along Highway 70?
Buckhorn Village will consider contributing to the public transit line as it is impacted by
or contributes to the transit demand and the development of Buckhorn Village.
Question #11 Commissioner Jacobs - Do you really want to allow smoking on this
property?
No, but we do not want to have a total ban that could infringe on the rights of the tenants.
A total ban is hard to administer and police therefore we are looking to include the
current language that Orange County is considering for future adoption. This language is
3
~~~
within. the draft conditions of approval. 50 feet from public entryways and operable
windows.
Question #12 Commissioner Jacobs -Concerned about proposal to reduce buffer
along I-85 as much as you are, rethink?
We are not requesting a buffer reduction along I-85 we are requesting the ability to
disturb the existing vegetation by thinning the existing trees and undergrowth, construct
storm water retention facilities, which conform to the current topography, and to replace
the existing vegetation removed by more draught resistant plantings. Buildings and
internal landscaping will be substitutes for any loss in substantial buffer vegetation.
This request is to provide an imperative visual break in the buffer to allow the needed
visibility to tenant branding and facades. The ability to provide this level of visibility is
substantial justif cation to eliminate the need for the 60' pylon signage. Without the
flexibility to improve visibility of the site through these "Vistas", monument signs with
visibility from I-40/I-85 would be a must for the success of this development. In working
with planning staff the consensus is to eliminate the pylon signage and accept only the
breaks in the buffer. To reiterate Buckhorn is only asking for breaks in the buffer, the
ability to thin the trees, construct storm water improvements. Not reduce the buffer width.
The draft conditions of approval are drafted to accomplish this design.
Question #13 Commissioner Jacobs -1)o you really need two (2} access points on
West Ten?
No, one entrance has been removed.
Question #14 Commissioner ~oushee -1$ecruit local business?
Buckhorn. Road Associates will work ,with the Chapel Hill-Carrboro and Hillsborough
Chambers of Commerce, the Orange County Economic Development Commission, local
municipalities and other resources to recruit existing Orange County businesses that wish to
expand and local residents who wish to start new businesses. Though we anticipate making
personal contact with several locally owned retail establishments, we will make it clear that the
door is open to all creditworthy local businesses. We hope that the Orange County Small
Business Loan Fund can be of assistance to locally owned start-up businesses that wish to locate
in Buckhorn Village
Buckhorn Road Associates will continue to work with the current and future EDC
Director to facilitate the use of local businesses. To specify this any further we look
toward the County to provide guidance and take the lead to establish goals.
4
~~
Question #15 Commissioner Gordon -Transportation planning /road
widening /Inner circulation? ~ ~,
The Buckhorn Village project will be guided by the traffic impact analysis for roadway
improvements, entrance and exit locations, and signalization. These infrastructure
improvements will increase the current capacity of Buckhorn Road and thus reduce the
current delays and traffic jams that exist on a under capacity road. Widening of Buckhorn
Road will predominantly occur within the existing right-of-way; Should additional right-
of-way be required the property will be purchased based on fair market value to the
owners. It is too early to determine if additional right of way will be needed.
The current projected timeline fore Buckhorn is a mid 2010 construction start. The overall
build-out would last 4-5 years, with traffic improvements occurring during that span of
time. Offsite road improvements will be coordinated in conjunction with each district
build-out.
Buckhorn Village will not create significant additional traffic volume. Instead, significant
existing travel from point A to point B on the' interstate would have the opportunity to
make a shorter trip to point C, Buckhorn Village. A major mixed-use center located half
way between Alamance Crossing and The Streets at Southpointe should reduce vehicle
miles traveled for many shoppers, thus reducing overall carbon emissions. Buckhorn
Village is designed to integrate with the future mass transit routes and be a destination
point along future transportation corridors.
~~
Question #16 Commissioner Gordon -Transit Regional east-west general
vs. specific?
The Buckhorn Development plan incorporates mass transit components into the land use
plan and the associated exhibits. Other mass transit opportunities are welcome for
discussion.
Question #17 Commissioner Gordon - Walkability?
The proposed plan for Buckhorn Village is not a mall facility. This development will
have three distinct areas, all accessed and interconnected by streets and sidewalks.
Buckhorn Village will provide a pedestrian friendly experiencewith three distinct design
approaches. Please refer to our application and note the design concepts for Promenade,
Commons, and Free Standing Anchor. The proposed plan provides 5-7 minute walks
between Districts and complete walkability internally within each District.
Question #18 Commissioner Gordon -Traffic volume off interstate to site?
The traffic impact analysis indicates that existing average daily traffic on the interstate is
86,000 vehicle trips a day. The analytical assumption is that approximately 80% of the ~
Ili
trips to Buckhorn Village would come from the interstate, 32,000 vehicles a day. Peak
hour captures are shown in the Future Year intersection breakouts for each District.
Question #19 Commissioner Gordon -Carboni footprint?
In. regards to questions about global warming and carbon footprints we offer the
following: Currently the Orange County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances do not
require the determination of carbon footprints. In addition, acceptable standards that
would accompany such a "design criteria" have not been determined or generally agreed
upon. Therefore we believe that the Buckhorn Village application is submitted and
complete in accordance with the Orange Caunty requirements.
6
~`
t
®ran~e County ~'lannin~ hoard.: r
Question #20 - ]Flow many lanes will be added to Buckhorn Road? Will residents be
required to `give up' property to allow for road widening?
Widening of Buckhorn Road will predominantly occur within the existing right-of--way.
Should additional right-of--way be required the property will be purchased based on fair
market value to the owners. It is too early to determine if additional right of way will be
needed.
The traffic impact analysis indicates that existing average daily traffic on the interstate is
86,000 vehicle trips a day. The analytical assumption is that approximately 80% of the
trips to Buckhorn Village would come from the interstate, 32,000 vehicles a day. Peak
hour captures are shown in the Future Year intersection breakouts for each District.
Question #21-This will not bring the type of jobs we want?
Buckhorn Village is proposing uses that are currently listed as permitted in the Orange
County ordinance and the Economic Development Districts Design Manual. The
application and submittal is consistent with the ordinance requirements. Currently, job
type is not criteria for consideration only land use. \
Question #22 -Why were the parking decks eliminated?
The current proposed land use plan for Buckhorn Village does not exclude the potential
for structured parking. Though structured parking is not required, the proposal retains the
right to use it. Parking decks could likely be incorporated within or around the Hotel,
Office or Residential uses. Retail uses historically do not favor structured parking.
Successful retail tends to prefer the open feeling of surface parking.
Question #23 You should cluster all of this `stuff' in the center to make it more
pedestrian friendly?
The proposed plan provides 5-7 minute walks between Districts and complete wallcability
internally within each District.
Question #24 -Why no traffic counts on the weekends?
Traffic engineering standard is to perform traffic counts during the peak hours of the
workday week. The TIA will be revised to include additional intersections and weekend
counts as requested.
~~
7
tl2
Question #25 - l)o you really want to block off neighborhood access?
The Buckhorn development team met with the Crestview community and came away
with a clear understanding that they object to connectivity. Therefore none has been
provided. The intent is to maintain the vegetative buffer and provide a maximum
screening effect between the two uses in accordance with the current ordinance.
Question #26 -What will this do to the ®zone problem that we already have?
See response to Question #32
Question #27 -Where is the cost analysis (i.e. the cost we will bear for serving this
site)?
County staff to respond
~S`tafj`' ~omrn~~et: This report has been completed and is attached for your review and
comment.
Question #28 - ~4nnexation? Xes,1Vo, lYlaybe, When, etc.?
Buckhorn Road Associates will continue to work with Orange County and the City of
Mebane in regards to annexation.
S'tcaff Cor~a~aent: As a point of clarification, the City of Mebane will be annexing the
project at an unspecified time once it can demonstrate that the annexation can legal occur
in accordance with the provisions of the North Carolina General Statutes.
Question #29 -Why can you not spell out the uses?
Specific uses are identified in the current "Draft Conditions of Approval"
Question #30 - We need site specific development plans?
The intent of the application is to provide site specific plans in accordance with the
"Conditions of Approval". This would occur after approval of this application and before
any site improvements are allowed. The review process at that time would be by planning
staff. The current County ordinance does not require the submittal of these site-specific
plans at this time.
Question #31 -Impacts on surrounding properties?
See the Application package and the April 1, 2008. testimony of Real Estate Appraiser -
Vic Knight.
'1
PLibI1C:
(\,
Question #32 James Carnahan - global warming/carbon footprint?
In regards to .questions about global warming and carbon footprints we offer the
following: Currently the Orange County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances do not
require the determination of carbon footprints. In addition, acceptable standards that
would accompany such a "design criteria" have not been determined or generally agreed
upon. Therefore we believe that the Buckhorn Village application is submitted and
complete in accordance with the Orange County requirements.
Question #33 Joe Phelps -How does Buckhorn Village affect Waterstone?
Buckhorn Village is slated to be a destination retaiUentertairunent development. The
proximity of Waterstone will not allow the medium to large anchor tenants to duplicate
themselves in both locations. Waterstone contains a large single-family component with
more urbanized development planned.
Question #34 Joe Phelps -Open House?
The Buckhorn Development Team has conducted several open public meetings with the
surrounding communities, local chambers of commerce, and the Orange County Public '~ \__
Hearing. The team. welcomes any invitation to present the plan at open forums. We will
also make available the submittal application information at their planners/engineers
office in Hillsborough, Summit Consulting 919=732-3883.
Question #35 Renee Price -Residential units 200 MF not SF?
The proposed land use plan includes a maximum of 200 multi-family units. These units
are proposed in District II or District III. The traffic generation conversion chart allows
the increase or decrease of these units with an equivalent factored decrease or increase of
retail square footage.
9