HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-03-2008-5b2ATTACHMENT TWO -PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Board Resolution Relating to Buckhorn Village Proposal:
Whereas, the Orange County, North Carolina Planning Board has carefully considered the
application of Buckhorn Village; and
Whereas, the Orange County, North Carolina Planning Board has participated in public
hearings relating to this project held during March through May, 2008;
Whereas, the Orange County, North Carolina Planning Board has carefully reviewed
written materials submitted by the applicant and citizens regarding this project, as well as
pertinent provisions of county ordinances, the economic development design manual,
pertinent small area plans including the Efland-Mebane Small Area .Plan, the adopted
economic development strategic plan, and the County Comprehensive Plan, and
Whereas, the Orange County, North Carolina Planning Board has carefully considered
planning staff recommendations and legal counsel's advice regarding this project and review
requirements, and
Whereas, the Orange County, North Carolina Planning Board has conscientiously
evaluated all pertinent information, and. deliberated upon the Buckhorn Village proposal
during its regular and special meetings held from March through May, 2008;
[Whereas statements were unanimously adopted]
Now, therefore, the Orange County, North Carolina Planning Board resolves:
Rezoning request pursuant to Article Twenty (20) and Article Seven (7) of the Orange
County Zoning Ordinance:
Finding 1: Completeness of the application pursuant to Section .20.3.2 of the Ordinance.
The ,Orange County North Carolina Planning Board finds that the applicant has. complied
with the following requirements regarding completeness of the application:
A. Pursuant to Section 20.3.2 (a) of the Ordinance the applicant provided: "a fully
dimensioned map at a scale of not less than one hundred feet to the inch showing
the land which would be covered by the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment, and a
legal description of the land," as part of the application packet
B. Pursuant to Section 20.3.2 (e) of the Ordinance the application addressed "The
manner in which the proposed Zoning Atlas. amendment and/or Zoning Ordinance
text amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted
Comprehensive Plan or part thereof°;
C. Pursuant to Section 20.3.2 (f) of the Ordinance the applicant addressed "A Traffic
Impact Study as required by Article 13" in Appendix D of the application; and
1
D. Pursuant to Section 20.3.2 (g) of the Ordinance the application addressed: Other
circumstances, factors, and reasons which the applicant offers in support of the
proposed Zoning Atlas and/or Zoning Ordinance text amendment.
E. The Orange County North Carolina Planning Board finds that the following
requirements regarding completeness of the application do not apply to this
petition and are not applicable:
a. Section 20.3.2 (b) relating to zoning ordinance text amendments;
b. Section 20.3.2(c) relating to errors in the Zoning Atlas; and
c. Section 20.3.2(d) relating to changing conditions that would necessitate
changes in the Zoning Atlas or ordinance amendments reasonably necessary to
the promotion of the public health, safety, and general welfare.
[Finding 1 was unanimously adopted]
Finding 2: Relating to requirements for rezoning pursuant to Section 7.5.4 of the Orange
Gounty Code of Ordinances:
A. Requirements relating to suitability, physical characteristics, existing and future
development:
1. The following requirements are satisfied:
a. The property subject to the rezoning request is suitable for development as
a Planned Development, because: ~„
i. The physical characteristics of the subject property allow for the
development of such aproject;' -
[Finding 2 A-1 (a) was unanimously adopted]
b. The following requirements are not clearly currently satisfied:
i. The project is similar to some existing surrounding developments
(convenience store and gas station) and .potential future development,
but is not consistent with other nearby existing development (existing
residential areas) and goals and recommendations of the Efland-Mebane
Small Area Plan;
[Finding 2 A-1 (b) (i) was adopted by a Seven (7) to Two (2) vote]
u. The project does not involve the creation of a development with the
range of uses including manufacturing and industrial uses as anticipated
by the Economic Development District Design Manual for the specified
area, but involves primarily retail trades, hotels and servicesi
[Finding 2 A-1(b) (ii) was adopted by a Five (5) to Four (4) vote]
B. Requirements relating to infrastructure and transportation:
. 2I~
1. Requirements which are not currently clearly satisfied:
a. The rezoning request is for property that is located in an area where
necessary water .and sewer infrastructure may be available to support the
proposed development. Consistent with the Orange County-Mebane water
and sewer agreement, although it is not clear how the demands of the
development would affect other future development that requires water and
sewer capacity in the Efland area and other nearby locales;
[Finding 2 B-1 (a) was adopted by a Seven (7) to Two (2) vote]
b. The rezoning request relates to property that is properly situated and located
to be served by Interstate I-40 and mass transit facilities; however the
transportation analysis provided by the applicant fails adequately to address
issues related to weekend transportation patterns ,and issues related to
Orange County residents' travel from within the County to reach the project
property, and insufficiently addresses transportation issues that would arise
in the event the North Carolina Department of Transportation fails to fund
improvements in I-40 and Buckhorn Road.
[Finding 2-B-1 (b) was adopted by a Seven (7) to Two (2) vote]
C. Requirements relating to unified control of the property and the suitability of any
~% ~ proposed agreements, contracts, deed restrictions, sureties, dedications,
contributions, guarantees, or other instruments, or the need for such instruments,
or for amendments in those proposed;
1. Requirements that are satisfied:
a. The rezoning application contains sufficient documentation indicating that
the development will be under unified control the development of the
property consistent with the proposed rezoning.
[Finding 2 C-1 (a) was unanimously approved]
D. Consistency with Economic Development Plans:
1. Requirements that are not currently clearly satisfied:
a. The applicant projects creation of retail and hotel jobs, but not higher-
income employment of the type anticipated by County plans calling for
higher-income full-time employment opportunities;
[Finding 2 D-1 (a) was adopted by a Five (5) to Four (4) vote]
b. The applicant and the county's consultant have submitted economic
analysis that assumes that significant sales tax and real property tax
revenues would be generated by the proposed development, but this
analysis is significantly flawed insofar as it fails adequately to assess costs
3
of public services, and relies on inadequately justified assumptions about
property tax values extrapolated from other locales.
[Finding 2 D-1 (b) was adopted by a Seven (7) to Two (2) vote]
Rezoning recommendation:
The Planning Board therefore recommends that the Board of Commissioners defer action on
the application until more comprehensive and credible information is provided regarding
implications for traffic, job-creation, and water and sewer services affecting nearby locales.
[Recommendation on Rezoning request was adopted by a Seven (7) to Two (2) vote]
C
4
Special Use Permit Request pursuant to Articles Seven (7) and Eight ($) of the Orange
County Zoning Ordinance:
Findings as to Section 7.5.4 (a), (b), (c) of the Orange County Code of Ordinances:
1. As to the suitability of the proposals for the general type of PD (Planned
Development) category, the physical characteristics of the land, and the relation of
the proposed development to surrounding areas and existing and probable future
development (Section 7.5.4 (a)):
a. The property is suitable for development as a Planned Development;
b. The physical characteristics of the property allows for the development of such
a project;
[Finding 1 (a) and (b) were unanimously adopted]
c. The project is similar to some, existing surrounding developments (convenience
store and gas station). and potential future development, but is not consistent
with other nearby existing development (existing residential areas) and goals
and recommendations of the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan;
[Finding 1(c) was adopted by a Seven (7) to Two (2) vote]
d. The project does not involve the creation of a development with the range of
uses including manufacturing and industrial uses as anticipated by the
Economic Development District Design Manual for the specified area, but
involves primarily retail trades, hotels and services.
[Finding 1(d) was adopted by a Five (5) to Four (4) vote]
2. As to relation to major roads and mass transit facilities, utilities and other facilities
and services (Section 7.5.4 (b)):
a. The rezoning and special use permit. requests concern property that is located
in an area where necessary water and sewer infrastructure may be available to
support the proposed development, consistent with the Orange County-Mebane
water and sewer agreement, although it is not clear how the demands of the
development would affect other future development that requires water and
sewer capacity in the Efland area and other nearby locales;
[Finding 2(a) was adopted by a Seven (7) to Two (2) vote]
5
b. The rezoning and special use permit requests relate to property that is properly
situated and located to be served by. Interstate 1-40 and mass transit facilities;,
however the transportation analysis provided by the applicant fails. adequately
to address issues related to weekend transportation patterns and issues related
to Orange County residents' travel from within the County to reach the project
property, and insufficiently addresses. transportation issues that would arise in
the event the North Carolina .Department of Transportation fails to fund
improvements in I-40 and Buckhorn Road.
[Finding 2(b} was adopted by a Seven (7) to Two (2) vote]
3. As to the adequacy of evidence on unified control and the suitability of any
proposed agreements, .contracts, deed restrictions, sureties, dedications,
contributions, guarantees, or other. instruments, or the need for such instruments;
or for amendments in those proposed (Section 7.5.4 (c)):
a. Orange County Planning staff has concluded that that the rezoning and SUP
application contains sufficient documentation indicating that the development
will be under unified control guaranteeing the development of the property
consistent with .the proposed rezoning and SUP application, but the Planning
Board believes that there remains significant uncertainty regarding the phases
of developmenfi and how the phases and aspects of development in those
phases will be implemented
[Finding 3(a) was adopted by a Seven (7) to Two (2) vote]
C
6~
Findings as to Section 7.5.4 (d) and (e) of the Orange County Code of Ordinances relating
to the suitability of plans proposed, desirability of amendments, adherence to PD (planned
development) or general regulations, desirable specific modifications in PD (planned
development) or general regulations as applied to the particular case, based on
determination that such modifications are necessary or justified in the particular case by
demonstration that the public purposes of the PD or other regulations would be met to at
least an equivalent degree by such modifications
1_Design Solution 1: waiver of Section 2.2 of the Economic Development Design
Manual relating to residential development:
'a. The applicant proposes incorporation of up to 200. residential units in district 2
and 3 of the development in order to incorporate a "Main Street"/mixed use
theme in the development;
b. The Planning Board finds that the County has previously indicated that
residential uses are discouraged within the economic development district,
specifics of this proposal are unclear, and the incorporation of residential uses
is not consistent with the vision of the Buckhorn Economic Development District
as a site for glow-intensity industrial park and other non-residential uses;
[Motion rejecting Design Solution One was approved by a Five (5) to Four (4) vote].
2. Design Solution 2: Modification of provisions relating to methodology for assessing
land use intensity and standards for compliance with Economic Development
- Design Manual provisions relating to intensity of development:
a. The applicant. initially requested a waiver of the established methodology under
the Economic Development Design Manual for calculation of impervious
surface volume, building volume, and landscape volume, based on a contention
that the Ordinance's approach is antiquated and inappropriate when multiple
uses are envisioned within a development district;
b. The applicant further requested that the standards for compliance with the
Economic Development Design Manual be waived to allow a maximum floor
area ratio of point thirty (.30) and a maximum building height of six (6) stories;
c. The Planning Staff's analysis has demonstrated that, absent modification of the
underlying standards, the application does not comply with the current
requirements of the Ordinance as to District II and III;
d. The Planning Board. is uncertain whether it or the Board of Commissioners has
authority to waive requirements relating to floor area and similar ratios in light of
provisions in the Code of Ordinances that specify that "these PD regulations
shall apply in PD districts, unless the Board of County Commissioners find, in
the particular case, that provisions herein do not serve public purposes to a
degree at least equivalent to such .general zoning, subdivision or other regulations
or requirements. Where actions, designs or solutions proposed by the applicant
are not literally in accord with applicable PD or general regulations, but the
7
Board of County Commissioners make a finding, in the particular case, that
public purposes are satisfied, to an equivalent or greater degree, the Board. of
County Commissioners may make specific modification of the regulations in the
particular case, provided that where floor area. and similar ratios, as Board of
County Commissioners shall not act in a particular case to modify such ratios or
maximums. Except as indicated above, and notwithstanding procedure
requirements generally in effect, the procedures and requirements set forth
herein and in the guides and standards adopted as part of the regulations for
particular classes of PD districts shall apply in PD districts, and to issuance of
all required permits therein."
e. The Planning Board accordingly concludes that it is not authorized to
recommend waiver of requirements as proposed by the applicant.
f. On May 21, 2008 the applicant orally indicated that they would agree to a site-
volume ratio of 1 for the overall project but the Planning Board has not had
adequate opportunity to review the details of this proposal. (approved 6 to 3,
with Jay, Brian, Jeff opposed
[Motion rejecting Design Solution Two was approved by a Six (6) to Three (3) vote]
3. Design Solution 3: Grading and erosion control, planting area slopes (use of a 2:1
rather than 3:1 maximum slope):
a. The Planning Board recommends authorizing a waiver of these requirements
on a case-by-case basis according to planning staff findings, and recommends
that DENR best practices be applied. to grass slopes
[Motion accepting Design Solution Three was approved by a Six (6) to Three (3) vote]
4. Design Solution 4: Grading and erosion control, driveway and access drive slopes:
a. The Planning Board recommends approval only when. the. applicant can
demonstrate on asite-specific development plan the need and benefits for
allowing a 12% slope
[Motion accepting Design Solution Four was approved by a Eight (8) to One (1) vote]
5. Design Solution 5: Architectural design, building setbacks and height:
a. The Planning Board recommends approval of this design solution only when the
applicant can demonstrate on a site-specific development plan that the
proposed buildings will be able to be accessed by local emergency responders
including fire, EMS and police to address a public safety issue in keeping with
staff recommendations
[Motion accepting Design Solution Five was approved by a Seven (7) to Two (2) vote]
C
8i
6. Design Solution 6: Architectural Design, corrugated Metal, Highly Reflective
Surfaces, Illuminated Roofing:
a. The Planning Board recommends approval of this design solution only when it
can be demonstrated that the light reflecting from roofing materials will not
create a public safety, traffic hazard, or annoyance to others, and that all roof
materials shall have SRI for roof pitches less than 2:12 of 78 and an SRI of 29
for roofs with a pitch greater than 2:12 (Reference to LEED Standards)
[Motion accepting Design Solution Six was approved by a Eight (8) to One (1) vote]
7. Design Solution 7: Architectural Design Corrugated Metal; Highly Reflective
Surfaces; and Illuminated Roofing:
a. The Planning Board recommends that this solution be approved only in
situations where it can be demonstrated that the light reflecting from solar
energy collection features will not create a public safety, traffic hazard, or
annoyance to others, a;nd any buildings utilizing solar panels shall have its
longer building axis is at least one and a half (1'/Z) times the shorter axis and
the longer axis is within fifteen degrees (15°) of the geographic east/west axis
(LEED Standard)
[Motion accepting Design Solution Seven was approved unanimously]
8. Design Solution 8: Landscaping Parking Areas:
a. The Planning Board recommends thatthis solution be approved provided that
fifty percent (50%) of the parking lot surface be shaded within five (5) years of
initial planting, all paving materials have a SRI of at least 29, and parking lot
paving be an open grid pavement or other pervious surFacing, and the project's
landscaping plan include native canopy trees with a mature height and spread
equivalent to a Type 1 shade tree as defined by the ANSI 260.1-2004 American
Standard for Nursery Stock
[Motion accepting Design Solution Eight was approved by a Seven (7) to Two (2) vote]
9. Design Solution 9: Landscape Design, Buildings and Grounds:
a. The Planning Board recommends adoption of this design solution provided that
adequate streetscaping and other landscape enhancements are provided
[Motion accepting Design Solution Nine was approved by a Seven (7) to Two (2) vote]
10. Design Solution 10: Landscape Design, Buildings and Grounds, modification of
requirements relating to landscape and architectural walls within one foot of interior
property lines and interior street right-of-ways and excluding exterior street rights of
way, sight triangles, exterior property lines, and stream buffers:
9~
a. The Planning Board recommends that this solution be accepted only when the
applicant can demonstrate asite-specific development plan that shows that no C
public safety risk is created and encroachment is needed to foster acceptable
features or landscaping (6 in favor opposed ~ Grauford, Renee and Jay)
[IVlotion accepting Design Solution Ten was approved by a Six (6) to Three (3) vote]
11. Design Solution 11: Signs and Landscaping:
a. The Planning Board recommends that staff advice be followed, calling for:
i. One project architectural feature that serves as a structure for PD
identification (not more than 50 feet in height by 24 feet wide placed not
higher than 40 feet and not more than 200 square fee per side from two
sides and six hundred square feet in area);
ii. Entry Portal: of no more than eight tenantldirectory signs fifteen feet in
height and a maximum of 100 square feet per side and two hundred square
feet total area each;
iii. Major/Minor Tenants: for each major/minor tenant, three signs for each
building according to the master sign plan based on 1 square foot per linear
foot of building frontage placed within designed square foot fagade area for
a total of 300 square feet maximum;
iv. Tenant above walkways: One (1) projecting sign (6 SF) for each
`Major/Minor Tenant';
v. Directional signs: Directional signs at a maximum height of twelve (12) feet
with a maximum size of one hundred (100) square feet for each sign.
[No IVlotion was made concerning this Design Solution]
12.Design Solution 12: Parking: reducing parking space requirements from. one
space per every 200 square feet to one space per 300 square feet of retail:
a. The Planning Board recommends that the Planning Staff recommendation be
adopted as follows:
i. One (1) space for every three hundred (300) square feet of floor space
within a Retail Trade (excluding Restaurants), Service (excluding
Indoor/Outdoor Theaters), Manufacturing, Assembly, and Processing, and
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate land use. The maximum amount of
parking permitted for these .uses shall be one (1) space for every two
hundred fifty (250) square feet of floor space.
ii. One (1) parking space for each Residential Dwelling, Multi-family unit,
iii. One (1) parking space for every three (3) seats in a Indoor and/or Outdoor
Theater,
10
iv. One (1) parking space for every fifty (50) square feet of floor area within a
Retail Trade, Restaurant facility, excluding dining or bar areas, as well as
one (1) parking space for every four (4) seats within the facility,
v. One (1) parking space for every three hundred (300) of floor area, within a
Government facility.
vi. One (1) space per every room in a hotel plus one (1) per shift employee
vii. All parking lot spaces, unless otherwise designated, shall be: Nine (9) feet
by Eighteen (18) feet.
[Motion accepting Design Solution Ten was approved by a Six (6) to Three (3) vote]
13. Design Solution 13: Breaks in MTC Buffers (to be limited to one (1) and no more
that twenty-five percent (25%) of the total buffer):
a. The Planning Board recommends that the Planning Staff's recommendation be
adopted to permit buffer breaks from 25% to 60% along the sight lines from the
Interstate highway.
[Motion rejecting Design Solution Thirteen was approved by a Six (6) to Three (3) vote]
14. Design Solution 14: Reducing buffers along adjacent residential properties from
100 feet to 50 feet along Buckhorn Road:
a. The Planning Board recommends that existing buffer requirements be retained,
and opposes the staff recommendation to approve this design solution
[Motion rejecting Design Solution Fourteen was approved by a Seven (7) to Two (2)
vote]
11
Additional Conditions:
In the event that the Board of Count Commissioners engages in further .review of the '`
Y
application, the Planning Boards recommends that the following conditions be considered:
1. The Planning Board recommends that the applicant be required to comply with
state, federal and Orange County regulations and ordinances to keep the east-west
road out of the stream buffer.
[Motion to approve Additional Condition One was unanimously approved]
2. The Planning Board recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
evaluate the adequacy of fire protection and funding in the Efland area given the
demands of the proposal. [approved unanimously]
[Motion to approve Additional Gondition Two was unanimously approved]
3. The Planning Board recommends that a neutral, balanced and thorough fiscal and
economic analysis of the project be prepared for the benefit of the Planning Board,
Commissioners, and citizens.
[Motion to approve Additional Condition Three was approved by a Seven (7) to One (1)
vote with One (1) abstention]
4. The Planning Board recommends that the Board of Commissioners explore
additional inter-local agreements relating to zoning and planning in this area
involving Mebane, Efland, and the County.
[Motion to approve Additional Condition Four was unanimously approved]
The Planning Board received but did not have adequate time to review conditions
recommended by staff at its May 7 meeting, nor to review proposed design solution number
11.
Special Use Permit recommendation:
The Planning Board recommends that the Board of Commissioners postpone action on the
application until revised plans and additional information are submitted by the applicant in
accordance with these recommendations, and further recommends that the planning staff
and Planning Board be given adequate time and opportunity to complete necessary analysis
and develop additional recommendations.
[Recommendation on Special Use Permit request was adopted by a Seven (7) to Two
(2) vote]
12