HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-25-2008-c1ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND
PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 25, 2008
Action Agenda
Item No. ~" ~
SUBJECT: Buckhorn Road Associates LLC Rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit
application(s)
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Request and Review Process
Summary '
2. Discussion of Legislative versus
Quasi judicial actions
3. Buckhorn Village -Planned
Development Guidelines
4. Staff comments
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Name, Phone Number
Craig Benedict 245-2592
Michael Harvey 245-2607
PURPOSE: To receive public comments concerning a Rezoning and Class A Special Use
Permit application(s) proposing the development of a Planned Development on property located
within the I-85/Buckhorn Road Economic Development District.
BACKGROUND: In December of 2007 the applicant, Buckhorn Road Associates LLC,
submitted applications requesting the development of a large-scale commercial site .along
Buckhorn Road. The applicant proposed developing this project as a Planned Development
(hereafter `PD/SUP') in accordance with the provisions of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
Please refer to Attachment Three (3) Planned Development Gtaidelinea - Appendix A of the
abstract
APPLICABLE ZONING REGULATIONS: With respect to the ,review of this project, the
following sections of the Zoning Ordinance apply:
• Section 6.29 Development Standards far Economic Development (ED) Districts (i.e. the
Economic Development District Design Manual),
® Article Seven (7) Planned Developments
® Article Eight (8) Special Use Permits, and
® Article Twenty (20) Amendments
Per Section 7.21.1 of the Ordinance, the overall purpose and intent of PD/SUP projects is to:
`provide for properly located and planned non-residential development consistent with Orange
County's Strategic Plan for Economic Development'. This process is intended to provide an
opportunity for development proposals to be considered for approval when such plans do not:
1. Meet the criteria for site plan approval listed in Article 14.3;
2. Address agency comments solicited during the site plan review process; and/or
3. Adhere to the design standards applicable withiri Economic Development Districts
as set forth in Article 6.29 of this ordinance.
In cases where number three (3) applies, the applicant is required to propose a design solution
that is equal to, or better than, what could be obtained through the application of the criteria and
standards contained in the Design Manual.
In this case, Buckhorn Road Associates LLC has requested the waiving of fourteen (14)
standards of the Design Manual. Ultimately, the applicant is required to demonstrate to the
County that any and all deviations from the standards outlined within the Economic Development
District Design Manual are necessary and that the proposed solution(s) are consistent with the
intent of the manual. Please refer to Attachment Four (4) for staff's assessment of the project.
REVIElnI PROCESS: A PD/SUP project is processed in the exact same manner as all Class A
SUP applications. With these types of projects, however, the BOCC will.be required to:
1. Take action on the rezoning request to rezone the identified. properties from: I-
85/Buckhorn Road Economic Development (ED) District and/or Rural Residential One
(I~-1) to Buckhorn Village Planned Development Economic Development District (BVPD-
ED). Action on approving or denying the rezoning application is considered to be a
Legislative decision made in accordance with the provisions of Article Twenty (20) of
the Zoning Ordinance.
2. If the application to rezone the properties is approved, the BOCC will then take action on
the PD/SUP application proposing the development of the property as a master planned
.mixed-use commercial site. Action on approving or denying the PD/SUP application is
considered to be a Quasi judicial decision made in accordance with the provisions of
Article Eight (8) of the Zoning Ordinance.
For more information on the review process associated with this project, please refer to
Attachment One (11 Request and Review Process Summary and Attachment Two (2~
Discussion of Legislative versus Quasi-judicial actions.
In accordance with the provisions of Article(s) Eight (8) and Twenty (20) of the. Ordinance, staff
sent out approximately seventy (70) notices to adjacent property owners within five hundred
(500) feet of the subject properties, and posted notices on each property informing the general
public of, the date, time, and location of the proposed Public Hearing. Staff also caused a legal
advertisement to appear within the News of Orange and the Chapel Hill Herald on February 13,
2008 end February 20, 2008 announcing the date, time, and location of the Public Hearing
wherethese applications would be reviewed.
PROPOSED DEVELOPIInEIVT: The Planned Development Guideline Manual (Attachment
Three 3) is intended to establish the various land use and regulatory standards that will
govern the development of this project. For this abstract, staff is supplying basic information
outlined within the Manual to supply the BOCC and Planning Board members with an overview
of the project.
LAND USE MANAGEMENT: The Buckhorn Village Planned Development is comprised of three
(3) individual development districts- broken down as follows:
® District One (1): This district is approximately forty-one (41) acres in area and intended
to serve no more than four (4) large retail tenants with a total anticipated combined floor
area of one hundred eighty-five thousand (185,000) square feet.
® District Two (2): This district is approximately forty (40) acres in area and intended to
support mixed-use development including retail, office, restaurants, indoor theaters,
hotels, residential, and other similar uses with an anticipated combined floor area of five
hundred twenty-two thousand (522,000) square feet.
• District Three (3): This district is approximately forty-eight (48) acres in area and is
intended to support large-scale retail development with the possibility of some mixed-use
projects. The developer has also proposed reserving an area of the District for future
use by a local government to address the provision of protective services (i.e. police, fire,
emergency, etc). The anticipated floor area within this district is approximately six
hundred six thousand (606,000) square feet.
The applicant is proposing a maximum of 1.114 million square feet of building footprint for
the entire property. For more detail on the proposed land uses within the project, please refer
to Attachment Three (3), pages twelve (12) through fourteen (14).
ACCESS MANAGEMENT: Access to the property is proposed to be as follows:
® Three (3) driveway entrances along Buckhorn Road, and
® Two (2) driveway entrances along West Ten Road
The applicant is also proposing to develop several bicycle lanes and pedestrian sidewalks
throughout the development to make it more .pedestrian accessible and is proposing to have
four (4) bus stops with passenger pick-up and drop-off areas. For more detail on the access
management plan, please refer to Attachment Three (3), pages forty (40) through forty-two
(42), Exhibit Seven (7), and Appendix D.
OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT: The applicant
management plan that involves preservation of
parking lot buffer, and the planting of vegetation
detail on the access management plan, please rE
through thirty-nine (39), pages forty-five (45) tt
Appendix C.
is proposing a comprehensive open space
existing woodlands, the planting of interior
along all proposed streetscapes. For more
Fer to Attachment Three (3) pages eight (8)
rough forty-six (46), Exhibit Five (5), and
UTILITY MANAGEMENT: The applicant is proposing to make numerous modifications to
existing infrastructure to support this project that is outlined within Attachment Three (3) page
forty-three (43) and Exhibit Eight (8).
FINANCIAL IMPACT: In terms of the review of this project, there will be no financial impact on
the County as existing staffing levels are sufficient to process the application. With respect to
the overall financial impact of the project on the County please refer to Attachment Three (3)
Appendix B.
4
12ECOIVIIVIENDAI'ION(S); The Zoning Officer recommends that the Boards:.
1. Receive the applications of Planned Development rezoning and Class A Special Use
Permit,
2. Receive the Zoning Officer's assessment report/recommendation on the applications,
3. Conduct a Public Hearing on the applications,
4. Adjourn the Joint Public Hearing (both boards) to a specific date ,time ,and
place ,and
(See the Process Timeline Options below)
5. Refer to the Planning Board to allow additional written comments as appropriate prior to
the reconvening of the Joint Public Hearing as decided above.
PitOCESS TI(wELINE OPTIONS
OPTION A OPTIONS OPTION C
(Hearing remains open and is adjourned fo a date, time and place certain.)
1. JOINT QPH FES~2.UAFtV' 25 FE~I2UAR1f 25 FEBEtUA1tY 25
2. Planning Board & Staff March 5 March 5 March 5
Additional Comments (Regular Meeting) (Regular Meeting) (Regular Meeting)
3. Applicant Responds March 16 -March 30 April 13
-------------------------AGENDA P6tEPAISATION---------------____-____--
4.a. Reconvene Joint Public April 1 (GBC) April 15 (SHSC) May 1 (GBC)
Hearing ~ 8:30 p.m.. 8:30 p.m. 8:30 p.m.
(Regular BOCC) (Regular BOCC) (Regular BOCC)
(Special PB) (Special PB) (Special PB)
4.6. Referral to PB for
Recommendations due
no later than April 13 May 5 May 19
5.a. PB Review & April 2 April 16 May 7
Recommendation (Regular PB) (Special PB) (Regular PB)
5.b. PB Review & April 13 May 5 ~ May 19
Recommendation (Special PB) (Special PB) (Special PB)
-------------------------AGENDA PI~EPAECATION--------------------------
6' BOCC Review & Action May 1 May 20 June 3
(Regular BOCC) (Regular BOCC) (Regular BOCC)
ATTACHMENT ONE (1) REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCESS SUMMARY:
Specific Request: This application involves two (2) components:
1. The REVIEW a petition to rezone several parcels from I-85/Buckhorn
Road Economic Development and/or Rural Residential One (R-1) to
Buckhorn Village Planned Development -Economic Development
District (BVPD-ED) AND
2. The REVIEW of a Class A Special Use Permit proposing the development
of a Planned Development commercial center on the subject properties
The review of these applications will require the holding of a Public Hearing in
accordance with the provisions of Article Seven (7); Eight (8), and Twenty (20) of
the Ordinance.
Review and Action: These applications shall be forwarded to the Planning
Board upon the conclusion of the Public Hearing for review and to make a
recommendation. Upon receiving the recommendation of the Planning Board,
the BOCC will take separate action on the two (2) applications as follows:
® Take action on the rezoning request to rezone the identified properties
from: 1-85/Buckhorn Road Economic Development (ED) District and/or
Rural Residential One (R-1) to Buckhorn Village Planned Development
Economic Development District (BVPD-ED).
Action on approving or denying the rezoning application is considered
to be a Legislative decision that made in accordance with the
provisions of Article Twenty (20) of the Zoning Ordinance.
If the application to rezone the properties is approved, the BOCC will
then take action on the PD/SUP application proposing the
development of the property as a master planned mixed-use
commercial site.
Action on approving or denying the PD/SUP application is considered
to be a Quasi judicial decision that made in accordance with the
provisions of Article Eight (8) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff Comment: For more information on Legislative versus Quasi judicial
decisions please refer to Attachment Two (2) of the abstract.
ATTACHMENT TWO (2) LEGISLATNE VERSUS QUASI JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Le 'slative Quasi-Judicial
Can be: 1. Board of Adjustment,
Only governing board can make the 2. Planning Board, or
Decision maker decision -other board's may advise ' 3. Governing Board
Only notice to parties involved with the
petition is required unless local. Ordinance
Notice of Hearing Newspaper and mailed notice to adjoining mandates.
property owners is required Staff Note: Our Ordinance mandates
notification of adjacent property owners.
Can reasonable limit the number of Individuals are presenting testimony (i.e.
sworn statements and evidence). The Board
Speakers at Hearings speakers and limit the time they area can limit any presentation to relevant
allotted to speak. evidence that is not repetitious
Speakers must present and enter substantial,
None required. Members are free to competent, material evidence into the record.
Evidence discuss issue outside of hearing and Witnesses are under oath and subject to cross-
speakers at the hearing axe not under oath examination. No ex-parte communication is
or subject to cross-examination allowed.
Written fmdings of fact are required. The
Board making the decision must explicitly set
but the board making
None is required forth what it determines to be the essential
,
the decision is required to issue a facts that it is basing its decision on
statement addressing the proposals The Board making the decision must also .
Findings consistency .with local regulations and make specific fmdings of fact and provide
that. the public interests are served in specific detail to inform all parties and a
either approving or denying the request. reviewing court as to what induced the
decision. A conclusory statement that a
standard has, or has not, been met is
insufficient
A four-fifths (4/5) vote is required to approve
the application. In cases where a special or
Voting Simple majority is required conditional use permit is issued by a
governing board (i.e. BOCC) only a simple
majority is required.
Allowed subject to mutual agreement between
Conditions Not allowed the applicant and governing body agree.
Judicial Review Two (2) months to file claim Thirty (30) days to file claim
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTtVIENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
~a~ntP of ®'
Current Planning ~~° 4 ~ Q'g~ 306E Revere Road
(919) 245-2575 t= ~' ~ P O Box 8181
(919) 644-3002 (Fax) ~° Hillsborough,
www.co.orange.nc.us ~°''fs ~a~~~~°' North Carolina, 27278
t ~ ,:.
t ,.
TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners
Orange County Planning Board
Laura Blaclanon -County Manager
Willie Best -Assistant County Manager
FROM: Craig Benedict AICP -Zoning Officer
DATE: February 13, 2008
RE: REPORT and ANALYSIS of Buckhorn Village application
Per. Section 7.5.4 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (hereafter `the Ordinance'), please
accept the following document as report and analysis of the Planned Development application,
submitted by Buckhorn Road Associates LLC, proposing to develop a unified commercial center
on several paxcels of property within the Interstate 85/Buckhorn Road Economic Development
District.
This assessment shall be broken down intro the following sections:
® Background of the project,
® Application submittal and review,
~ Staff assessment and findings on the appropriateness of the project per Section 7.5.4 of
the Ordinance, and
® .Review/Assessment on requested waivers/modifications to existing. development
regulations as outlined within the application.
8
BACKGROUND:
Throughout the fall of 2007, plamling staff began having regular, weekly, meetings with
representatives of Buckhorn Road Associates LLC (hereafter `applicant'). The applicant was
proposing the development of a phased, unified commercial center on several parcels of property
along Buckhorn Road. Originally, the applicant was proposing to develop a commercial center
on the following properties (hereafter called `the property'):
A seventeen and a half (17.5) acre parcel of property (TMBL 3.28..20C /PIN
9834=47-5174) and a one hundred ten (110) acre parcel of property (TMBL
3.28..20 /PIN 9834-56-1587) with a current street address of 508 Buckhorn Road.
The Buckhorn Flea Market is a nonconforming is presently operating on parts of
both properties that together make up the property. The property is zoned
Economic Development (ED),
During our initial meetings, staff and the applicant reviewed the various requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance governing the review of a Planned Development project within the Economic
Development District.
Staff informed the applicant that the review of ~ Planned Development projects is regulated in
accordance with the provisions of Article Seven (7) of the Ordinance. With respect to the
developing such projects within the Economic Development District, Section 7.21.1 PD-ED
District: Definition and Intent indicates:
PD-ED districts may be established in accordance with the general procedures and
requirements set forth in Articles 7.1 through 7.9 and with the intensities and in
locations in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance
and Atlas.
The purpose of this district is to provide for properly located and planned
non-residential development consistent with Orange County's Strategic Plan for
Economic Development. Specifically, this district is intended to provide an
opportunity for development plans, submitted under the provisions of Article 6.29
[Development Standards for Economic Development (ED) Districts] of this
ordinance, to be considered for approval when such plans do not:
1. Meet the criteria for site plan approval listed in Article 14.3;
2. Address agency comments solicited during the site plan review process;
and/or
3. Adhere to the design standards applicable within Economic Development
Districts asset forth in Article 6.29 of this ordinance;
and which propose a design solution which is equal to or better than could be
obtained through the application of the criteria and standards contained in the
Design Manual. In such cases, application for and approval of a Planned
Development District shall be governed by the general and specific standards and
9
procedures for the issuance of a Planned Development Permit as set forth in this
Article.
Staff also informed the applicant that it would be required to obtain a Class A Special Use Permit
for the proposed project in accordance with Section 7.2.5 and Article Eight (8) Special Uses of
the Ordinance. In reviewing the various provisions of Article Eight (8), staff reviewed the
specific submittal and review requirements for all Special Use applications as well as the specific
standards governing the review of Planned Development projects outlined within Section 8.8.23
Planned Developments that reads as follows:
8.8.23.1 Additionallnformation
In addition to the information required in Subsections 8.2 and 8.8,
information shall be supplied as part of the dpplication as per
applicable requirements of Article 7.
8.8.23.2 Standards of Evaluation
The standards of evaluation shall be as per applicable sections of
Article 7.
APPLICATI®N SUBMTTAL AND REVIEW:
On December 21, 2007 the applicant submitted the appropriate applications proposing the
development of a Planned Development (hereafter `PD/SUP') on the flea marlcet property. The
applicant submitted two (2) applications requesting the following:
1. The REVIEW a petition to rezone the property from I-85/Buckhorn Road Economic
Development to Suckhorn Village Planned Development -Economic Development
District (SVPD-ED) AND
2. The REVIEW of a Class A Special Use Permit proposing the development of a Planned
Development commercial .center on the property.
The application contained the following information:
1. A detailed proposal outlining the overall development of the property including a
description o£
a. The proposed land uses,
b. Open space management plan,
c. Utility plan,
d. Transportation plan, and
e. Development theme for each individual development district
10
2. A draft Environmental Assessment as required by the Orange County Environmental
Impact Ordinance, and
3. An executive summary of the Traffic Impact Analysis (hereafter `TIA') as required under
Article Thirteen (13) of the Ordinance.
Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the submittal requirements outlined within
Article Seven (7) and Eight (8) of the Ordinance.
The Zoning Officer made the formal determination on January 7, 2008 that the application was
complete in accordance with Section(s) 7.5.1 and 8.4.2 of the Ordinance. On January 11, 2008
staff distributed the application to various County departments, and local planning partners (i.e.
North Carolina Department of Transportation, City of Mebane), to begin the process of
reviewing the application.
On January 16, 2008 the applicant submitted a request to amend the application. Within this
request the applicant sought:
1. To add two (2) additional parcels to the application, specifically:
a. A one point nine (1.9) acre parcel of property (TMBL 3.28..57C /PIN 9834-54-
1735), that has frontage along West Ten Road and is. zoned Rural Residential One
(R.-1) and
b. A two and a half (2.5) acre parcel of property (TMBL 3.28..13 /PIN 9834-36-
4225) that is separated by Buckhorn Road, with approximately one (1) acre of the
property east of Buckhorn Road and adjacent to the property that is zoned
Economic Development (ED), and the remaining one and a half (1.5) acre portion
of the parcel to the west of Buckhorn Road that is zoned Rural Residential One
~-1)
2. Modifications to several exhibits and the project narrative to incorporate the new parcels
(hereafter the term `the property' includes all four (4) parcels).
Staff accepted the amendment to the application.
On January 23, 2008 the applicant submitted a second amendment request seeking to modify
the application. Within this request the applicant sought:
1. To submit a completed TIA labeled `draft' and
2. A final Phase I Environmental Assessment in accordance with the provisions of Orange
County Environmental Impact Ordinance.
Staff accepted this amendment to the application.
On January 30, 2008 the County's Development Advisory Committee (DAC) met to review the
project. This meeting was attended by:
11
a. County Planning Staff (Planning Director, Zoning Administrator, Subdivision
Administrator, Flood Plain Administrator, Comprehensive Planner, and the
Transportation Planner),
b. County Manager's office,
c. Economic Development,
d. County Engineer,
e. County Attorney's office,
f: Health Department,
g. Building Inspections,
h. Fire Marshall,
i. Sheriff's office,
j. Orange County Solid Waste,
lc. North Carolina Department of Transportation, and
1. Representatives of the City. of Mebane (City Manager, City Planning Director,
Public Works Director, City Engineer)
During this meeting, staff outlined several comments/concerns relating to the application. These
comments were forwarded to the applicant on February 6, 2008. On February 7, 2008 staff
received a final, completed, copy of the TIA.
On February 12, 2008 the applicant submitted a fmal amendment to the application seeking to
incorporate comments from the DAC into the project narrative.
The County is scheduled to hold a PUBLIC HEARING on this project at the February 25, 2008
Joint Quarterly Public Hearing.
At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the BOCC will forward the item to the Planning Board
for review and to make a formal recommendation. Upon receiving the recommendation of the
Planning Board, the BOCC will take separate action on the two (2) applications as follows:
1. Take action on the rezoning request to rezone the identified properties from: I-
85Buckhorn Road Economic Development (ED) District and/or Rural Residential One
(R-1) to Buckhorn Village Planned Development Economic Development District
(BVPD-ED).
Action on approving or denying the rezoning application is considered to be a
Legislative decision that made in accordance with the provisions of Article Twenty (20)
of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. If the application to rezone the properties is approved, the BOCC will then take action on
the PD/SUP application proposing the development of the property as a master planned
mixed-use commercial site.
12
Action on approving or denying the PD/SUP application is considered to be a Quasi-
judicial decision that made in accordance with the provisions of Article Eight (8) of the
Zoning Ordinance.
ZONING OFFICER REPORT:
In completing the review of the application, the Zoning Officer (hereafter `staff) is required to
make a written report, per Section 7.5.4 of the Ordinance, for the Planning Board and the BOCC
containing a recommendation on the approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the
application based on the following findings:
(a) As to the suitability of the proposals for the general type of PD category, the physical
characteristics of the land, and relation of the proposed development to surrounding
areas and existing and probable future development;
Staff Comment: The property is located within the Economic Development Node as
defined by the Orange County Comprehensive Plan and as detailed on the Land Use
Element Map. The Economic Development district was created in 1994 to spur such
activity within the Buckhorn Road area.
There is already major commercial development within the area, and the infrastructure
(i.e. water and sewer) necessary to support additional high-density commercial
development. The property is large enough to support the proposed development and is
suited for the development of amulti-tenant commercial operation.
In reviewing the application, the Zoning Officer can make the following finding:
i. That the project is suitable for development as a Planned Development,
ii. That the physical characteristics of the subject property allow for the
development of such a project,
iii. That the project is similar to surrounding developments, and
iv. That the project is consistent with the overall intent and purpose of the
Land Use Category, as defined within -the Comprehensive Plan, for the
area as well as the existing Economic District zoning designation
(b) As to relation to major-roads and mass .transit facilities, utilities and other facilities and
services;
Staff Comment: The project is proposing to have three (3) driveways along Buckhorn
Road and two (2) driveways along West Ten Road.
The Transportation Improvement Assessment (hereafter `TIA') has identified numerous
roadway improvements that will have to be completed by the applicant prior to any
13
commercial operation commencing on the property. The applicant is also proposing to
develop buss stop facilities on the property to make the project assessable to mass transit.
In consultation with the County Engineer and the City of Mebane, water and sewer
services can be provided to support this project. The applicant will be required to make
modifications to existing service lines in order to accommodate the proposed
development as well as. allow for additional development within the Interstate
85Buckhorn Road Economic Development District. This information is referenced
within the Utility Master Plan contained within the project narrative.
Staff is still awaiting comments from the North Carolina Department of Transportation,
and the City of Mebane, to determine if the proposed modifications to local roadways, or
infrastructure improvements, are adequate to support the project.
Staff is still waiting on comments from NC DOT and the City of~lVIebane. Staff
cannot make a finding on this item at this time.
(c) As to the adequacy of evidence on unified control and the suitability of any proposed
agreements, contracts, deed restrictions, sureties, dedications, contributions, guarantees,
or other instruments, or the need for such instruments, or for amendments in those
proposed;
Zn reviewing the application, the Zoning Officer can make the following finding:
i. That there is adequate evidence showing unified control and sustainability
of agreements for the project.
(d) As to the suitability of plans proposed or the desirability of amendments;
Staff Comment: Please refer to the next section for a discussion on this item.
(e) As to the adherence to PD or general regulations or as to desirable specific
modifications in PD or general regulations as applied to the particular case, based on
determination that such modifications are necessary or justified in the particular case by
demonstration that the public purposes of PD or other regulations would be met to at
least an equivalent degree by such modifications.
Staff Comment: Please refer to the next section for a discussion on this item.
ASSESSMENT/ANALYSIS OF DESIGN SOLUTIONS:
As outlined within Section 7.21.1 of the Ordinance, the overall purpose and intent of PD/SUP
projects is to: `provide for properly located and planned non-residential development consistent
with Orange County's Strategic Plan for Economic Development'. This process is intended to
provide an opportunity for development proposals to be considered for approval when such plans
do not:
1. Meet the criteria for site plan approval listed in Article 14.3;
2. Address agency comments solicited during the site plan review process; and/or
14
3. Adhere to the design standards applicable within Economic Development Districts as set
forth in Article 6.29 of this ordinance.
In cases where number three (3) applies, the applicant is required to propose a design solution
that is equal to, or better than, what could be obtained through the application of the criteria and
standards contained in the Design Manual.
In reviewing the application, staff has determined that the applicant rrieets the majority of the
standards outlined within the Design Manual. The applicant has requested the waiving of
fourteen (14) standards of the Design Manual 'and is proposing fourteen (14) `design solutions'
that are equal to, or greater, than what the Design Manual currently requires.
The applicant is required to demonstrate to the County that any .and all deviations from the
standards outlined within the Economic Development District Design Manual are necessary and
that the proposed solution(s) are consistent with the intent of the manual.
Staff is required, under Section 7.5.4 of the Ordinance, to comment on the appropriateness of the
request(s).
1. Waiver One (1) as outlined on page eighteen (18) of the Buckhorn Village Planned
Development Guidelines (hereafter `application') reading as follows:
`The applicant requests a waiver from Section 2.2 of the EDD Design Manual'
The applicant is . requesting the ability to allow for single-family residential
condominiums/apartments within the Town Center (i.e. District II) and possibly within
District III of the proposed project. Currently, single-family residential land uses are
not listed within the Economic Development Primary (ED-P) zoning district, which the
subject property is currently zoned.
Staff Comment: Staff supports the design solution and believes there is a benefit in
allowing for a small portion of multi-family, condominium style, residential
development to occur on the property in keeping with the downtown/town center theme
of District IL
Staff does not support individual single-family residential dwelling units being
developed as part of the project.
Staff believes, however, that more specificity is needed in the application concerning
the proposed residential development for District III:
2. Waiver Two (2) as outlined on page eighteen (18) of the application reading as follows:
`The applicant requests a waiver from Section 2.3 Land Use Intensity-Building,
Landscaping, and Site Volume Ratios'
The applicant is requesting that the existing composite ratio methods established within
the Design Manual be replaced with a `floor area ratio' and `maximum building height'
limitation to control land use intensity.
15
The rationale for the request is that these concepts are easier to understand and
represent, in both graphic and statistical form, and are recognized as a universal tool by
developers and planners to gauge development intensity.
The applicant is proposing a maximum floor area ratio of point thirty (.30) and a
maximum building height of six (6) stories.
Staff Comment: Staff had originally requested that the applicant supply a detailed
breakdown on the various composite ratios outlined within Section 2.3 of the Design
Manual to justify modifying the standard. As part of this analysis, staff has requested
that the applicant demonstrate how the proposed new standards will achieve a more
desirable result for this project.
This information has not yet been provided.
Staff recommends that the applicant be required to include in its Waiver Two (2)
request the necessary documentation showing the project's Impervious Surface Ration
(ISR); Building Volume Ratio (BVR), and Landscape Volume Ratio (LVR) and
showing how the proposed new standards will represent a more desirable solution.
While staff concedes that the proposed new standard is a more universally accepted
method for determining the intensity of a particular development, staff does not have
sufficient information to make the determination that the new standard will yield a
more desirable result as required under Section 7.5.4 and 7.21.1 of the Ordinance.
3. Waiver Three (3) as outlined on page twenty-three (23) of the application reading as
follows:
`The applicant requests a waiver from Section 2.4 Environmental Factors -
Grading and Erosion Control -Planting Area Slopes of the EDD Design Manual '
The applicant is requesting the ability to utilize a maximum slope factor of 2:1 rather
than the listed maximum slope of 3:1. Within the request the applicant indicates that
the existing grade of the property would require `unnecessary grading and increase the
total footprint of disturbance' if the maximum 3:l slope ratio was adhered to. The
applicant is requesting the ability to use a slope ratio of 2:1 or flatter in an effort to
avoid unnecessary disturbance on the property and make use of the natural shape of the
land with minimal grading.
Staff Comment: Staff supports the design solution in principle from the standpoint that
it will allow for the developer to utilize the existing natural slope of the property and .
require the minimal grading of the property.
Staff does not support granting ~ a blanket `waiver' and believes the proposed design
solution should be considered in the context of asite-specific development plan
showing grading limits and stormwater data.
Staff recommends that the Board(s) consider allowing for modifications to the grading
and erosion control standards outlined within Section 2.4 of the EDD Design Manual
only when the applicant can demonstrate on asite-specific development plan the need
to, and benefits of, the proposed design solution.
16
4. Waiver Four (4) as outlined on pages twenty-three (23) through twenty-four (24) of the
application reading as follows:
`The applicant requests a waiver from Section 2.4 Environmental Factors -
Grading and Erosion Control -Driveway and Access Drive Slopes of the EDD
Design Manual'
The applicant is requesting the ability to utilize NC DOT standards of two percent (2%)
or i/4" per foot minimum and a twelve percent (12%) maximum access/drive slope
where necessary. The applicant argues that with the existing slope standards of two
percent (2%) minimum and five percent (5%) maximum for access/driveways is
common, there will be need for additional flexibility .given the number of connections
proposed with this development. .The additional slope value may be necessary to
achieve the number of connections to facilitate safe, pedestrian friendly, circulation
within the development and between individual development districts.
Staff Comment: Staff supports the design solution in principle from the standpoint that
it is making use of existing NC DOT standards and that it is an attempt to address the
need to make the development more pedestrian accessible.
Staff does not support granting a blanket `waiver' and believes the proposed. design
solution should be considered in the context of asite-specific development plan
showing the location and actual slope of these locations.
Staff recommends that the Board(s) consider allowing for modifications to the grading
and erosion control standards outlined within Section 2.4 of the EDD Design Manual
only when the applicant can demonstrate on asite-specific development plan the need
to, and benefits of, the proposed design solution.
5. Waiver Five (5) as outlined on page thirty (30) of the application reading as follows:
`The applicant requests a waiver from Section 3.1 Architectural Design -
Building Setbacks and Height of the EDD Design Manual and the required ten
(10) foot driveway setback'
The applicant is requesting the ability to modify the existing setback and building
height limitations for internal property lines for the Buckhorn Village project to allow
for:
a. A front, side, and rear yard setback for freestanding buildings and structures of
ten (10) feet versus twenty-five (25) feet,
b. A setback for in-line shops and buildings of one (1) foot for front and rear
setbacks and a zero (0) side yard setback,
c. A zero (0) line setback for buildings adjacent to vehicular use areas, storage
areas, and signs.
d. The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing setbacks outlined within
Section 3.1 of the Design Manual for all perimeter property lines.
The rationale for the request is that it will allow the applicant to achieve the downtown
center theme as proposed within District II.
17
Staff Comment: Staff supports design solution from the standpoint that is will allow
for the developer to create the `downtown' theme as proposed subject to site plan
review and approval.
Staff does not support granting a blanket `waiver' and believes the proposed design
solution should be considered in the context of asite-specific development plan
showing the location of the proposed buildings in relation to fire lanes and emergency
vehicle access points.
Staff recommends that the County Manager, upon receiving the recommendation of
staff, ensure that the site plans that are administratively reviewed include relevant
comments from County Departments, and outside agencies, as part of the later site-
specific development plan.
6. Waiver Six (6) as outlined on page thirty-three (33) of the application reading as
follows:
`The applicant requests a waiver from Section 3.1 Architectural Design -
Corrugated Metal; Highly Reflective Surfaces; and Illuminated Roofing of the
EDD Design Manual'
The applicant is requesting the' ability to have flexibility in using highly reflective roof
materials when they are designed to achieve the various energy objectives outlined
within the application. The applicant indicates that the use of reflective material will
assist them in designed architectural features that are intended to make use of radiant
heat and natural light to reduce energy use and costs.
Staff Comment: Staff supports the design. solution from the standpoint that it will
allow for the developer to incorporate green building standards within the project.
Staff recommends that this design solution be approved in concert with a condition,
agreed upon by the applicant, that the design solution can only be utilized in situations
where it is demonstrated that the reflective roofing will not create a public safety or
traffic hazard (i.e. glare).
7. Waiver Seven (7) as outlined on pages thirty-three (33) through thirty-four (34) of the
application reading as follows:
`The applicant requests a waiver from Section 3.1 Architectural Design -
Corrugated Metal; Highly Reflective Surfaces; and Illuminated Roofing of the
EDD Design Manual ' .
The applicant is requesting the ability to have flexibility in using highly reflective roof
materials, specifically focusing on use of solar panels. The EDD Design Manual
requires that solar panels must be flush with the slope of the roof. The applicant
indicates that there may be situations where solar panels cannot be flush with the roof
and that flexibility is needed to allow for their use. The benefit here is that panels, that
are not flush with the roof, can utilize existing tracking technology to make more
efficient use of the suns rays.
Staff Comment: As with number six (6) above, staff supports the design solution from
the standpoint that it will allow for the developer to incorporate green building
standards within. the project.
18
Staff recommends that this design solution be approved in concert with a condition,
agreed upon by the applicant, that the design solution can only be utilized in .situations
where it is demonstrated that the reflective roofing will not create a public safety or
traffic hazard (i.e. glare).
8. Waiver Eight (8) as outlined on pages thirty-five (35) through thirty-six (36) of the
application reading as follows:
`The applicant requests a waiver from Section 3.2 Landscape Design -
Landscaping Parking Areas of the EDD Design Manual '
The EDD Design Manual requires that a landscape island be provided for every ten
(10) parking spaces. The applicant is proposing the following:
` ... shade trees are to be provided at a ratio of one (1) three inch (3 ") caliper
tree per ten (1 D) individual parking spaces provided that ninety percent (90%) of
the spaces are within fzfty (SO) feet of the center of a shade tree'
The applicant argues that this provision will require the planting of the same number of
txess that would be required under the Design Manual, but would allow for larger trees
to be planted, allow for a more compact parking lot with less impervious surface area,
and allow for shorter wallcing distances to storefronts for patrons.
Staff Comment: Staff supports the proposed design solution.
9. Waiver Nine (9) as outlined on page thirty-seven (37) of the application reading as
follows:
`The applicant requests a waiver from Section 3.2 Landscape Design -Building
and Grounds of the EDD Design Manual'
The EDD Design Manual requires that the entire base or foundation of a proposed
structure is to be landscaped. The applicant is proposing the following:
` ... to provide for building and grounds Landscaped Areas along thirty percent
(30%) of a buildings perimeter to soften building edges while maintaining
necessary sidewalk and outdoor display areas'
The applicant argues that this modification will allow for the use of sidewalks and
pedestrian plazas to promote the accessibility of the project.
Staff Comment: Staff supports the proposed design solution, although staff needs more
specificity on the proposed `outdoor display areas' referenced above.
10. Waiver Ten (10) as outlined on page thirty-eight (38) of the application reading as
follows:
`The applicant requests a waiver from Section 3.2 Landscape Design -Building
and Grounds of the EDD Design Manual'
The EDD Design Manual indicates that no fence or wall shall be allowed within ten
(10) feet of any front property line or street right-of--way. The applicant is proposing to
reduce this requirement and allow ,for the placement of landscape and architectural
walls within one (1) foot of properly lines and street right-of--ways provided that
adequate site triangles and utility accesses are preserved. The applicant argues that this
19
waiver will help to strengthen the architectural edge of the project and provide a more
`urban' character for the development.
Staff Comment: Staff is concerned about granting a blanket waiver without the benefit
of reviewing site-specific development plans showing the location of the proposed
landscape and/or architectural walls. Buffers along Buckhorn and west Ten Roads
should remain intact.
Staff recommends that the County Manager, upon receiving the recommendation of
staff, ensure that the site plans that are administratively reviewed include relevant
comments from County Departments, and outside agencies, as part of the later site-
specific development plan.
11. Waiver Eleven (11) as outlined on page thirty-nine (39) of the application reading as
follows:
`The applicant requests a waiver from Section 3.5 Signs and Lighting -Signs -
General Criteria of the EDD Design Manual'
The EDD Design Manual limits the use of signs within this district to:
a. A maximum number of three (3) signs per use,
b. A maximum number of one (1) freestanding sign per use,
c. A total square footage limitation of two hundred (200) square feet for all signs
located within the development;
d. A maximum size limit of seventy-five (75) square feet, and
e. A twelve (12) foot limit on sign height
As outlined within the application, beginning on page thirty-seven (37) the applicant is
proposing:
a. One (1) project identification sign that is fifty (50) feet in height and six
hundred (600) square feet in area,
b. A Maximum of eight (8) Tenant/Directory Signs that are fifteen (15) feet in
height and have three hundred (300) square feet of sign area each,
c. For each `Major/Minor Tenant' three (3) signs (wall, window, etc) for each
building,
d. 'One (1) projecting sign for each `Minor Tenant',
e. Directional signs at a maximum height of twelve (12) feet with a maximum size
of one hundred (100) square feet for each sign
Staff Comment: Staff requires additional information in order to make a
recommendation on this proposed design solution. Staff recommends that the applicant
be required to provide more detail justifying the design solution prior to any
recommendation being made by staff.
12. Waiver Twelve (12) as outlined on page forty-five (45) of the application reading as
follows:
20
`The applicant requests a waiver from Section 3.3 Circulation and Parking -
Parking Standards of the EDD Design Manual'
The applicant is requesting that required parking for retail uses be modified from one
(1) space for every two hundred (200) square feet to one (1) space for every three
hundred (300) square feet. The rationale for the request is that is will reduce the overall
impervious surface area for the project and create more open space.
Staff Comment: There is insufficient information for staff to comment on the proposed
design solution.
Staff recommends that the applicant be required to provide more detail justifying the
proposed design solution prior to any recommendation being made by staff.
13. Waiver Thirteen (13) as outlined on page forty-nine (49) of the application reading as
follows:
`The applicant requests a waiver from Section 3.2 of the EDD Design Manual
requiring that breaks in the MTC buffers be limited to one (1) and no more that
twenty-five percent (25%) of the total buffer'
The applicant is requesting that more `buffer breaks' be allowed along the Interstate to
afford the development additional sight lines from the highway.
The applicant is requesting the ability to create breaks within the required buffer of up
to sixty percent (60%). The rationale for the request is that the breaks are necessary to
accommodate proposed stormwater `quality devices' and that the areas will be re-
landscaped to `create a more visually interesting landscape incorporating the open
areas'. The applicant further requests that within the remaining forty percent (40%)
protected buffer area that `hand clearing' of any existing vegetation be allowed
provided that a minimum of fifty-four (54) trees per acre be maintained at all times.
Staff Comment: There is insufficient information for staff to comment on the proposed
design solution.
Since this is a request to more than double the allowable `buffer breaks', more
elaborate detail is necessary for what will remain as well as what low plantings may be
part of the water quality retention areas.
Staff recommends that the applicant be required to provide more detail justifying the
proposed design solution prior to any recommendation being made by staff .
14: Waiver Fourteen (14) as outlined on page fifty (50) of the application reading as
follows:
`The applicant requests a waiver ,from Section 3.2 of the EDD Design Manual
requiring fifty (SO) to ane hundred (100) foot buffers along adjacent residential
properties along Buckhorn Road'
The applicant is proposing to reduce this buffer to twenty-five (25) feet in width.
21
The rationale for this request is that the existing buffer requirements are too restrictive
and that the project will `enhance' the property value of many of the adjacent
undeveloped and older residential properties.
Staff Comment: There is insufficient information for staff to comment on the proposed
design solution.
Staff is still evaluating the request to understand the placement, and intensity, of the
reduced buffers as they relate to a few specific properties along Buckhorn Road. All
other buffers would be suggested to remain at one hundred (100) feet.
Staff recommends that the applicant be required to provide more detail justifying the
proposed design solution prior to any recommendation being made by staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Zoning Officer recommends that the Boards:
1. Receive the applications of Planned Development rezoning and Class A Special Use
Permit,
2. Receive the Zoning Officer's assessment report/recommendation of the applications,
3. Conduct a Public Hearing on the applications,
4. Adjourn the Public Hearing (both boards) to a specific date, time, and place, allowing the
applicant to address staff's comments, and
5: Refer to the Planning Board to allow additional written comments as appropriate prior to
the reconvening of the Public Hearing as described above.
ZZ
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING ~ INSPECTIONS ®EPi4RTMENT'
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
~ountP or 0r
Current Planning ~~° 4 ~ '°s 306F Revere Road
(919) 245-2575 ~_ ~ ° ~ 5Z P O Box 8181
(919) 644-3002 (FAx) ~° Hillsborough,
www.co.orange.nc.us '~°~r~ ~a=o~~°' North Carolina, 27278
t,:~,oo ~ ,- ".. ~ t"y ~ ' .µ N ,,~~u fir, .. ~'} (/~j~--~ ~ ~ ,:N . y y , `
c~~ __._ ' ~ _-~ ~ I~Y u 11 Zvi
h: .. _ ~ ._>> _._
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTIi CAROLINA
I, Craig Benedict, Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY
that on February 8, 2008 I mailed, or had mailed, by certified mail, postage prepaid, a
Notice of the Public Hearing to be held to review a request for a Planned Development
rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit as required under Article Eight (8) and Article
Twenty (20) of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance requesting the development of a
Planned Development, unified commercial center, to each property owner as listed on the
Tax Records filed with the petition submitted by Buckhorn Road Associates LLC, as
required by the Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
The mailed notice specified the date, time, place and subject of the Public Hearing.
I also DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 8, 2008 I.have, or have had, the properties
subject to the rezoning application, as outlined within the petition submitted by Buckhorn
Road Associates LLC, posted with a Public Hearing Notice informing members of the
general public of the nature of the request and the date, time, and location of the Public
Hearing.
WITNESS my hand, this 19th day of February 2008
C~g Bene ict AICP
Zoning Officer