HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-03-2008-5b1bAttachment One B (1-B): 1
Planning Staff Analysis and
Recommendations -Special Use '
Permits
i
BUCKHORN VILLAGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
II. SPECIAL USE PERMIT:
APPLICANT REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting that the County issue a Class A Special Use Permit (hereafter `SUP')
allowing for the development of a Planned Development project on the subject property(s) consistent
with the requirements of Article Seven (7) Planned Development and Article Eight (8) Special Use
Permits of the Ordinance.
SUP SECTION -OUTLINE: This Section is broken down as follows:
1. Staff background and comment: Pages two (2) through three (3)
2. Staff Recommendation -SUP Application: Page three (3) through five (5)
3. Staff justification for recommendation: Beginning on page six (6)
a. Design Solution One:
b. Design Solution Two:
c. Design Solution Three:
d. Design Solution Four:
e. Design Solution Five:
f. Design Solution Six:
g. Design Solution Seven:
h. Design Solution Eight:
i. Design Solution Nine:
j. Design Solution Ten:
ic. Design Solution Eleven:
1. Design Solution Twelve:
m. Design Solution Thirteen:
n. Design Solution Fourteen:
Pages six (6) through seven (7)
Pages eight (8) through fourteen (14)
Pages fifteen (15) through sixteen (16)
Pages seventeen (17) through eighteen (18)
Pages nineteen (19) through twenty-one (21)
Page twenty-two (22)
Page twenty-three (23)
Pages twenty-four (24) through twenty-five (25)
Pages twenty-six (26) through twenty-seven (27)
Page twenty-eight (28)
Pages twenty-nine (29) through thirty-one (31)
Pages thirty-two (32) through thirty-four (34)
Pages thirty-five (35) through thirty-seven (37)
Pages thirty-eight (38) through thirty-nine (39)
4. Explanation of Plamii7lg Board action:
5. Appendix A
Page Forty (40)
Pages forty-one (41) through forty-eight
(48)
2
STAFF BACKGROUN~I AND COMMENT: C
As you are already aware from previous correspondence, Buckliorn Road Associates LLC (hereafter
`applicant') has submitted an application proposing the development of a phased, unified
commercial center on several parcels of property along Buckhorn Road.
The project is classified as a Planned Development due to the following conditions specific to the
proposal:
1. The project is proposed to be under unified control and to be planned and developed as a
whole;:
Staff Comment: This requirement is outlined within Section 7.2 (a) of the Ordinance
2. The development is proposed to be developed as a single development, including the
installation of all necessary infrastructure, for all of the property referenced for the project;
Staff Comment: This requirement is outlined within Section 7.2 (b) of the Ordinance
3. The application indicates that the provision, operation and maintenance of landscaped and
open space areas, parking facilities, individual buildings, and street/sidewalk improvements
will be for common use by the occupants of the district and will not be maintained at general
public expense;
Staff Comment: This requirement is outlined within Section 7.2 (e) of the Ordinance
4. The proposed use of property is required to be reviewed and approved as a Planned
Development in accordance with Section 2.2 Table of Permitted Uses of the Orange County
Economic Development District Design Manual; and
5. The applicant has requested to deviate from specific provisions of the Orange County
Economic Development District Design Manual, specifically proposing fourteen (14) design
solutions that replace existing regulatory standards.
Staff Comment: This requirement is detailed within Section 7.21.1 PD-ED District:
Definition and Intent. of the Ordinance.
Ultimately, this project is a Planned Development due to:
1. The applicant's desire to deviate from fourteen (14) of the individual design standards
established within the Economic Development Design Manual
As a result a Planned Development application is required per ;Section 7.21.1 of the
Ordinance,
2. The Table of Permitted Uses of the Economic Development Design Manual defines the
proposed use as a Planned Development project, specifically: `Retail trade, sales and Mental
of durable and convenience goods, merchandise, and equipment, including mail ordeY
houses, in a separate, free-standing building'.
3
As we have multiple, independent, principal land uses in multiple structures, rather than all
( uses located within an enclosed single building (i.e. a mall) this request has to be processed
as a SUP, and
3. The proposed development would be under unified control with common use and
maintenance responsibility for all parking areas, internal streets and pedestrian paths, and
buffer/open space.
STAFF RECONIlVLENDATION -SUP APPLICATION:
Per Section 7.5.4 and Article Eight (S) of the Ordinance, staff recommends APPROVAL of the SUP
request upon the following findings:
SECTION 7.5.4 (a), (b), (c):
(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;
For purposes of the SUP application, staff makes the following findings with regard to the
request:
i. That the property(s) subject to the rezoning request are suitable for development
as a Planned Development,
ii. That the physical characteristics of the subject property(s) allow for the
development of such a proj ect,
iii. That the project is similar to surrounding developments, and
iv. That the project is consistent with the overall intent and piupose 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 a~ad otlzer facilities and
services;
For purposes of the SUP application, staff makes the following findings with regard to the
request:
i. That the approval of the SUP request would allow for the development of
property(s) that are properly situated and located to be served by existing major
roads and mass transit facilities,
ii. That approval of the SUP request is for property(s) that is located in an area
where the necessary utility infrastructure is available to support the proposed
development.
4
(c) As to the adequacy of evidence on unifzed 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;
For purposes of the SUP application, staff makes the following findings with regard to the
request:
i. 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.
On making an affirmative finding, with respect to these three (3) requirements, staff relied on
the following information:
a. The Bucl~liorn Village Economic Development Planned Development application,
prepared by Summit Consulting and Scott T. Murray Incorporated, outlining the
nature of the project,
b. The sworn testimony, as outlined within the minutes of the QUARTERLY
PUBLIC HEARINGS, dated February 25, 2008 and April 1, 2008 of:
i. The applicants, namely: Rosemary Waldorf, Roger Perry, and George Horton
ii. The consultants, namely:
1. Swnmit Consulting Firm (Jim Parker, Tracy Parrott)
2. Scott T. Murray Incorporated (Scott Murray)
3. Gel Group -Environmental Consultants (Bob Miller)
4. Arcadis -Traffic Engineering Firm (Tyson Graves)
iii. Planning staff,
iv. The Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board, and
v. Members of the general public,
c. The applicant's response to questions asked during the PUBLIC HEAIEZINGS
dated March 19, 2008 and April 30, 2008,
d. The Orange County Zoning Ordinance,
e. The Orange County Economic Development Design Manual, and
f. The Orange County Comprehensive Plan.
Please refer to the information outlined under Section I Rezoning for a detailed breakdown of
the various Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan sections utilized in making the our
recommendation.
SECTION 7.5.4 (d) and (e):
The remaining required findings contained within Section 7.5.4 are as follows:
(d) As to the suitability of plans proposed or the desirability of amendments;
5
(e) As to the adherence to PD or general regulations or as to desirable specifzc 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
In making a recommendation of these items, please accept the following analysis of the fourteen (14)
proposed design solutions as contained within the application:
6
DESIGN SOLUTION ONE (1) as outlined on page fifteen (15) of the 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 multi-family residential
condominiums/apartments within Districts II and III of the project. Currently, multi-family
residential land uses are not listed within the Economic Development Primary (ED-P) zoning.
district, which the subject property is currently zoned.
STAFF BACKGROUND .AND COMMENT:
As argued by the applicant during the various public hearings, and referenced within the submitted
application, successful main street style developments are vibrant mixes of commercial businesses,
professional offices, and residential lofts with second. or third floor residential as key component.
Not only do the resident units supply' abuilt-in market for the.commerGial and office businesses
located within a particular development, they offer informal after hours security and stability.
This concept is complimentary to the "Main Street" design approach that the applicant is proposing.
District II reflects the national Main Street approach, which advocates a return to community self-
reliance and local empowerment of traditional commercial districts based on their unique assets,
namely:
a. Distinctive architecture,
b. Apedestrian-friendly environment, and
c. A sense of community.
In reviewing the appropriateness of this Design Solution, staff researched and discovered the
following:
The Pilot Version of the United States Green Building Council ([JSGBC) Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development rating system confers points to
mixed use projects containing residential floor area representing at least twenty-five percent
(25%) of the total building square footage.
This emphasis on mixed uses with a residential component will also encourage wallLable,
pedestrian-oriented street environments, reduced automobile dependence, and better security
after business hours (or "eyes on the street").
Staff believes that Buckhorn Village is an example of Smart Growth planning principles
because it supports or provides for:
a. Integration of mixed land uses into communities as a critical component of achieving
better places to live,
b. Provision of quality housing for people of all income levels, and
c. Walkable environments, which create desirable places to live, work, and play.
Because the proposed location is in a economic development node, is compatible with proven
"Main street" design concepts, advocates for LEED mixed use design, espouses several Smart (\
Growth principles, and is compatible with at least seven (7) planning objectives listed in the
public hearing draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Staff supports, the waiver request and believes
that allowances ought to be made to allow for multi-family, condominium style, residential
development to occur on the property in keeping with the "Main Street"/town center theme of
District II. Staff is also supportive of the proposed multi-family development. within District III
for the same reasons.
CIiART, TABLE OR DEMONSTRATION: NONE
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Design Solution One (1) and believes that allowances ought to be
made to allow for a small portion (accommodating 200 dwelling units) of multi-family,
condominium style, residential development to occur on the property in keeping with the
downtown/town center theme of District II. Staff is also supportive of the proposed multi-family
development within District III.
8
DESIGN ALTERNATIVE TWO (2) as outlined on page fifteen (15) 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.
The applicant is proposing a maximum floor area ratio of point thirty (.30) and a maximum building
height of six (6) stories.
In supporting this request, the applicant has submitted the following rationale:
The Orange County Economic Development Manual currently employs a composite ratio
system to regulate the overall development of a parcel of property within an Economic
Development district. This ratio is comprised of the following individual elements:
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): A calculation identifying the proportion of a site
covered by any surface or material that impedes or prevents the natural infiltration
of water into the soil. Buildings, sidewalks, driveways, parl~ing/loading areas,
and exterior storage areas (paved and/or unpaved) are all examples of impervious
surfaces.
2. Building Volume Ratio (BVR): A calculation identifying the portion of a site
devoted to support a building, parking, loading, and exterior storage area intended ,
to support a proposed land use. The formula for calculating the BVR is as C,
follows:
BVR = (VB +VP + VL + VE) / 10
A
Where:
BVR =Building volume ratio
VB =Volume of building(s).
VP =Volume of parking areas
VL =Volume or loading areas
VE =Volume of exterior storage
A =Site or lot area
10 =According to the Manual, this is the constant
built into the formula taking into account
a standard building, covering an entire
site, that is ten (10) feet in height.
3. Landscape Volume Ratio (LVR): A calculation identifying the total volume of
trees, shrubs, buffers, and berms (either existing or installed) compared to the
total size of the lot being developed. The formula for calculating the LVR is as
follows: C
9
A
Where:
VT =Volume of trees
VB =Volume of berms
A =Site or lot area
10 =According to the Manual, this is the constant
built into the formula taking into account
an existing property with vegetation,
covering an entixe site, that is ten (10) feet
in height.
4. Site Volume Ratio (SVR): A calculation designed to compare the total
anticipated development of a parcel of property with the amount of natural or
open space that shall remain or that is proposed for development on a parcel of
property. From a practical standpoint, this ratio is equal to the difference between
the LVR and the BVR. The formula for calculating the SVR is as follows:
SVR = LVR - SVR
Section 2.3 Land Use Intensity establishes the following minimum Site Volume
Ratios for developments within the. various Economic Development Districts:
Minimum Required Site Volume Ratios**
Primary, Primary I,
Primary Overlay, and
Land Use Secondary Areas Primary II Areas
Residential 2.0 3.0
Office/Institutional ~ 2.0 3.0
Service/Retail 1.0 2.0
.Flex Space 1.0 2.0
Distribution/Wholesale 3.0 4.0
Industrial 1.0 2.0
In order to develop a parcel of property, compliance with the minimum SVR has
to be demonstrated.
10
ISSUE:
In reviewin the develo meat of this site, the a licant identified the following `'
g p pp
practical limitations in adhering to this system:
1. Buckhorn Village is proposing to be a mixed use development proposing a
myriad of different land uses in an effort to provide a broad spectrum. of
services to local residents, including: residential, office/institutional,
service/retail, and wholesale trade,
2. Development will occur within three (3) individual districts all approximately
forty (40) acres in area,
3. Each district has been designed to have a mixture of the uses outline above,
with residential development being proposed for location within Districts.Il
and Ill, .
4. Each of the proposed -land uses has a different Site Volume Ratio (SVR)
requirement from the other.
For example, wholesale trade land uses (i.e. sale of automotive parts, sporting
goods, hardware, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, apparel, groceries, etc)
require a SVR of Three (3) while service and retail land uses (i.e.
hotels/motels, beauty and barber shops, theaters, dry cleaning, professional
offices, and the sale of durable goods) require a SVR of One (1).
As we are proposing a mixed use development that will see the clustering of
these types of uses within a single district, and maybe even in a single
building, it becomes impossible for the applicant to demonstrate compliance
with the SVR component of the EDD Manual.
While we may meet one (1) ratio for a given land use, we may not be able to
meet the other.
5. It is not practical to break-up and define the physical ,parking, loading, and
storage areas for each individual use as we are proposing shared parking,
loading, and storage areas for tenants in an effort to minimize the need for
expansive parking and paved areas. This is being done to preserve as much of
the existing landscaping on the property as well as reduce the overall amount
of impervious surface area we need to install for parking, roadways, etc.
There is no method within the EDD Design Manual to take into account the
provision of shared facilities (i.e. parking, loading, etc) to reduce the need for
individual parking areas or loading areas when calculating the SVR,
6. The existing methodology for calculating the Building Volume Ratio (BVR)
is outdated with respect to several assumptions made within the formula.
According to the EDD Design Manual, when calculating the BVR there is a
an assumption built into the formula in calculating the traditional floor area
ratio of 1.0, which has been deemed to be the equivalent to a building
covering an entire parcel of property. A constant, ten (10) feet, is included in
C
11
the formula for the calculation of BVR to provide a similar basis for
comparison with the classic floor area ratio:
Example: A BVR Of 1.0 is equivalent to a building
covering the entire site at a height of ten (10) feet.
Our concern over the existing methodology is tf~at the current constant of ten
(10) feet is not reflective of the typical building height for non-residential
development.
Building heights can vary from fifteen (15) feet to twenty-four (24) feet
depending on the proposed use of the structure and the various architectural
elements proposed for the inclusion within the structure.
The average retail structure has a building height of fifteen (15) feet with
larger retail outlets (i.e. Target, Wal-Mart; etc) being larger still.
The existing formula for calculating BVR has not been updated in almost
fifteen (15) years to reflect changes in architectural style or the need to have
buildings over ten (10) feet in height,
7. As we are already required to preserve thirty percent (30%) of the site as open
space, we believe that our proposed Maximum Floor Area Ratio of .30 and
Maximum Building Height of Six (6) stories is consistent with the purpose
and intent of the Land Use Intensity requirements given the following:
a. We are proposing a Floor Area Ratio that is less than the existing
. constant built into the various formulas (i.e. we are going to have
less building footprint as we are going to have multiple floor
buildings with multiple land uses),
b. By using the proposed Floox Area Ratio methodology we are taking
into consideration the use of shared parking facilities and
infrastructure as well as the clustering of these various proposed land
uses to avoid the need for large amounts of impervious surface area,
c. Utilizing Floor Area Ratios as the methodology for calculating
acceptable building area actually reduces the total building footprint
by allowing the developer to go vertical with a multiple floor
building housing individual land uses. The existing process does not
recognize the benefit of having a reduced building footprint by
having land uses on multiple floor of a building.
8. Our various calculations, using the Site Volume Ratio (SVR) methodology
indicate the following:
a. District I:
i. Landscape Volume Ratio: 20,000,000 square feet of landscape
area or a LVR of 1.093 (this includes existing vegetation that will
be preserved and proposed new landscaping as outlined within the
application)
ii. Building Volume Ratio: 185,000 square feet of building area,
12
475,000 square feet of parking, loading, and storage area
Total BVR of .028
iii. SVR =1.065
iv. This analysis is based on service/retail uses only. If you add
Office/Institutional uses it becomes impossible to properly
calculate the SVR ratio.
b. District III:
i. Landscape Volume Ratio: 23,242,000 square feet of landscape
area or a LVR of 1.11 (this includes existing vegetation that will be
preserved and proposed new landscaping as outlined within the
application)
ii. Building Volume Ratio: 440,000 square feet of building area,
550,000 square feet of parking, loading, and storage area
Total BVR of .052
iii. SVR =1.058
iv. This analysis is based on service/retail uses only. If you add
Office/Institutional uses, Wholesale uses, or residential uses it
becomes impossible to properly calculate the SVR ratio.
c. We cannot complete an analysis of the proposed development of
District II given the intended mixed use nature of the district. We \.
have no idea how many offices versus retail versus .residential we
will have. As this district is truly intended to be the `main street
promenade' are with multiple uses, the current composite ratios as
outlined within the Economic Development design manual will
prevent the development of this district as envisioned.
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 BACKGROUND AND CC~NIlVIENT:
In reviewing the appropriateness and viability of Design Solution Two (2), staff would like to offer
the following comments: •
1. It is virtually impossible to calculate the SVR for this project as this is application is
seeking approval of a Master Plan versus a site specific development plan,
2. If we attempt to calculate the overall SVR number for the entire development, the
individual Districts, and compare these calculations with. the applicants request to utilize a
13
Floor .Area Ratio of .30 and. a maximum building height of six (6) stories (i.e. sixty (60)
feet), we generate the following numbers:
Property District I District II District III
Applicant Not Available BVR = .028 Not Available BVR. _ .052
Analysis: LVR =1.093 LVR =1.11
SVR. =1.065 SVR =1.058
* Numbers based on * Numbers based on
service/retail uses service/retail uses
Staff BVR = 19,065,590 BVR = .111 BVR = .566 BVR = .342
Analysis: LVR = 21,876,560 LVR = 1.196 LVR = .347 LVR = 1.175
SVR = .60 SVR = 1.08 SVR = -.22 SVR = .83
Design Property Size: 5,662,800 District Size: 1,829,520 District Size: 1,742,400 District: ,,2,090,880
Solution Allowable Area: 1,698,840 Allowable Area: 548,856 Allowable Area: 522,720 Allowable Area: 627,264
Floor Area proposed Area: 1,305,000 Proposed Area: 185,000. Proposed Area: 522,000 Proposed Area: 606,000
Ratio
FAR):
(Staff
Generated)
Assuinptions•
SEE APPENDIX A
14
In reviewing these findings it is important to remember one (1) thing: the majority of this property
has already been timbered and cleared to allow for the operation of the existing flea market and the
applicant is proposing to preserve substantial amounts of existing foliage to create a buffer from
adjacent residential developments. This land use was created prior to the adoption of the EDD
Standards and, as such, there was never any attempt to adhere to existing design principles.
In generating this assessment, staff identified the following:
l . As this is a Planned Development, and we are not reviewing site-specific development plans
or landscape plans, we have no reasonable way to calculate interior landscaping for each
district. While District II will never be able to achieve the minimum SRV ratio, as outlined
within the EDD Design Manual, we believe that additional landscaping will be installed in
District III to overcome the identified deficit,
2. As the applicant intends to adhere to the minimum Open Space requirernents,_with additional
landscaping along the various proposed building perimeters and~~roadways, staff is satisfied
that the applicant will be engaging in a project that will adhere to the basic concepts of the
Design Manual with respect to the liberal use of landscaping to create a visual break from
large-scale commercial development,
3. Staff agrees with the applicant's contention that the Design Manual was not written with this
_ type of project in mind or with the thought of the myriad of different land uses being
developed as part of one (1) project. The case study contained within the manual makes the
assumption that cluster developments will contain similar land uses. Within a true mixed use
development, it is staff's opinion that we want to encourage diverse land uses that can
compliment one another and serve a broader range of the general population's needs through
grouping these uses together in a centralized development,
CIIAR'I', 7CAlB]LE OR DEMONS'I'ItA'I'ION: Included ~vvithim tJhe text aaad Appeaadfix A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Design Solution Two (2) and believes that allowances ought to be
made to allow for a the use of the requested Floor Area Ratio (FAR) method of .30 in determining
the amount of developable building area ought to be allowed on the property.
Staff believes the proposal would allow for a broad range of uses on the property that would serve
the needs of a diverse population and reduce the overall need for local residents to travel to several
different commercial developments to address their various needs.
15
DESIGN SOLUTION THREE (3) as outlined on page twenty (20) of the application reading as
follows:
`Tlie applicant c~equests a waiver from Section 2.4 Environmental Factors -Grading and
Erosion Cocatrol -Placating 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 increate the total footprint of disturbance' if the
maximum 3:1 slope ratio was adhered to. The applicant is requesting the ability to use a slope ratio
of 2:1 or flatter in an effort to avoid unnecessary disturbance on the property and make use of the
natural shape of the land with minimal grading.
STAFF BACKGROUND AND COMMENT:
The existing grade of the property would require `unnecessary grading and increate the total
footprint of disturbance' if the maximum 3:1 slope ratio was adhered to. The applicant is requesting
the ability to use a slope ratio of 2:1 or less in an effort to avoid unnecessary disturbance on the
property and make use of the natural shape of the land with milumal grading.
As the attached illustration shows, the steeper 2:1 back slopes will take up less land area and
therefore, less natural cover will have to be destroyed than a 3:1 back slope. The 2:1 back slopes
will take a more concerted effort to stabilize and maintain, but less land area will be disturbed.
Retaining walls may also help to minimize the extent of the 2:1 back slopes.
LEED for Neighborhood Development encourages the conservation management of existing natural
habitats and wetlands. Techniques to reduced site grading azid disturbance are compatible with
LEER neighborhood development standards.
CHART, TABLE OR DEMONSTRATION: SEE BELOW (supplied by applicant)
~U!..Ki~QRN V It_I~4C-~
Prange Gaunty
?.I
3:~
~ pE~IC-aN SOLl1T-IUN #3
~/c~9/oEs
UNN~G~z~ARY
~ TRH R.EMOVAL--`.,,1+
16
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff supports the Design Solution request from the standpoint that there may need to be some C
flexibility to address on-site topography issues or to guarantee the protection of existing foliage.
Staff is uncomfortable, however, with a total replacement of the existing standards with the one
proposed by the applicant.
Therefore, staff recommends that the proposed modification to the grading and erosion control
standards, as proposed by the applicant, be allowed only when the applicant can demonstrate on a
site-specific development plan the need, and benefits to on-site natural resources, of waiving the
requirement due to the following:
® Steeper back slopes will reduce overall site grading and disturbance; and
® Less site grading and disturbance will preserve more land area in it present natural
condition.
® By maintaining more natural land cover, off-site impacts can be minimized.
® Reduction of natural disturbances allows for an opportunity for functional, healthy
ecosystems to co-exist with human development.
Staff believes that it would be more appropriate to have to as a condition of the SUP approval and
allow for the modification only when it is demonstrated to be necessary rather than replacing the
existing standard outright.
17
DESIGN SOLUTION FOUR (4) as outlined on page twenty (20) of the application reading as
follows:
`Tlie applicant requests a waiver from Section 2.4 Environmental Factors -Grading and
E3•osion 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 '/a" 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 BACKGROUND AND COMMENT:
The applicant argues that with the existing slope standards of two percent (2%) minimum and five
percent (5%) maximum for access/driveways is common. However, 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.
As stated within the analysis of Design Solution number three (2), with steeper bacl{ slopes this
design alternative will avoid unnecessary disturbance and preserve more land area in it present
natural condition, as well as providing safe, pedestrian friendly internal circulation. Such a design
alternative will confer a unique natural design quality to the proposed development.
Furthermore, by allowing for such a deviation from the existing standard, the County would be
promoting the concept of clustering the various land uses within the development as demonstrated
within the attached sketch below. Staff believes that by allowing for this flexibility, we would be
promoting several provisions within both the Comprehensive Plan and the Economic Development
Design Manual that speak to the encouragement of clustering land uses to encourage pedestrian
friendly design and avoid the need for expansive parking facilities.
It should also be noted that given the permitting requirements that could be imposed as part of the
NC DOT driveway permit, some flexibility needs to be built into the standard to address NC DOT
requirements/concern.
18
C~IART, TABLE OR DEMONSTRATION: SEE BELOW (supplied by applicant)
~~.,1GK~1'l~.l`~I VILLAC~
Oranc~~ Gaunty
5%' SLGi•'E
C7RFJ+TER GOMPAGTNEx ALLOWS
FGR:
WALKADILIT'Y
. '~AALLER FOOIYRiNI-
12~ SLOPE
l
I~~IC~N S~.UTrlO'~i
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
As with Design Solution number three (3) staff supports this Design Solution request from the
standpoint that there may need to be some flexibility to address on-site topography issues, to
encourage cluster of proposed land uses, or to address potential roadway construction standards per
NC DOT guidelines. Staff is uncomfortable, however, with a total replacement of ,the existing
standards with the one proposed by the applicant.
® Therefore, staff recommends that the proposed modification be allowed only when the
applicant can demonstrate on asite-specific development plan the need, and benefits, of
allowing for the twelve percent (12%) slope.
Staff believes that it would be more appropriate to have to as a condition of the SUP approval and
allow for the modification only when it is demonstrated to be necessary rather than replacing the
existing standard outright.
19
DESIGN SOLUTION FIVE (5) as outlined on page twenty-seven (27) of the application reading as
follows:
`Tlie applicant requests a waivef• from Section 3.1 Architectural Design -Building
Setbacks and Height of the EDD Design Manual arzd the required ten (10) foot driveway
setback'
The applicant is requesting the ability modify the existing setback and building height limitations for
internal property lines for the Buclchorn Village project to allow for:
1. A front, side, and rear yard setback for freestanding buildings and structures of ten (10)
feet versus twenty-five (25) feet,
2. A setback for in-line shops and buildings of one (1) foot for front and rear setbacks and a
zero (0) side yard setback,
3. A zero (0) line setback for buildings adjacent to vehicular use areas, storage areas, and
signs.
4. The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing setbacks outlined within Section 3.1 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.
STAFF BACKGROUND AND COMMENT:
i Within their application, the applicant indicates that the twenty-five (25) foot setback requirement
would be observed for all external property lines and that the Design Solution is only intended to
address internal property lines. The request would result in the following:
Setback froaaa Freestanding In-line Shops and Vehicular Use Storage Areas Signs
Internal Buildings and Buildings Areas
Property Structures
Lines
Front Ten (10) feet One (1) foot * . Zero Zero Zero
Side Ten (10) feet Zero Zero Zero Zero
Rear Ten (10) feet One (1) foot * Zero Zero Zero
* When proposed use is adjacent to common ownership property such as a private street, alley, and
parking area. When this is not the case, then the setbacks for freestanding buildings shall be used*
Setback from Freestanding In-line Shops and Vehicular Use Storage Areas Signs
Perimeter Buildings and Buildings Areas
Property Structures
Lines
Front Twenty-five (25) Ten (10) feet Ten (10) feet Ten (10) feet Ten (10) feet
feet
Side Twenty-five (25) Ten (10) feet Ten (10) feet Ten (10) feet Ten (10) feet
20
feet i
Rear Twenty-five (25)
feet Ten (10) feet Ten (10) feet Ten (10) feet Ten (10) feet
'
As previously indicated this Design Solution will not impact the external or perimeter property lines.
This modification only seeks to facilitate the clustering of these buildings and creation of the
`walkable' development concept proposed the applicant.
CHART, TABLE OR DEMONSTRATION: SEE BELOW (supplied
~IJ~KHt~1~N VILI.,~~~
Grange ~uni~
12~~uced Front, ~Ide ~ Rear
~a~tbacks - In~Line tahaps ~
Main ~trrc-t t7crtitdes. <~ar:
1-~nhan^..ed
1.~'alkabllitylCcmpaMtnc-ss
~-pcsth~Hc ~c-neflts -
Massln~
,~.,Addresscs Ccrnman
t?r~nershlF cf 51d~~ai{: and
~;I~ys
~~
iii
Ccmrnan ,area
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
applicant)
'~-~'ro~~rty 1_in~
i
No
~rrmtcn
Aria -~
~xi~ing ` `Y`ard.
i~equirernent
>~' fide ~~rba~k
1fl' 1 7J
i~ra{aerty (~in~ I \
Staff supports the proposed Design Solution and recommends that the, modifications to the setback
standards be allowed only when the applicant can demonstrate on asite-specific development plan
that the proposed buildings will be able to be accessed by local emergency responders (i.e. Fire,
EMS, Police, etc) to address a public safety issue.
I~,ar~il~g gar ~rree-r
~'~;~~ ~I
21
These plans will have to demonstrate compliance with any and all applicable State Building and/or
Fire Codes and meet all applicable County and City of Mebane regulatory standards for emergency
vehicle and pedestrian access.
22
DESIGN SOLUTION SIX (6) as outlined on page thirty (30) of the application reading as follows:
`The applicant requests a waiver from Section 3.1 Architectural Design - Corrugdted
Metal; Highly Reflective Surfaces; and Illuminated Roofzng 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 BACKGROUND AND COMMENT:
Staff believes that the use of reflective material will compliment architectural features that are
designed to make use of radiant heat and natural light to reduce energy use and costs. The use of
renewable energy sources is basic to the design of all buildings in the Buckhorn Village
Development. Reflective roof materials minimize the heat island effect and reduce internal energy
use for each structure. Energy conservation and the use of renewable energy sources is a key
component of a LEER Neighborhood Development.
LEED standards for Solar Reflectance Indices (SRI) on roofs with a pitch of less than 2:12 are 78
and 29 for roofs with a pitch greater than 2:12.
This modification will also result in achieving several goals referenced within the Comprehensive
Plan, most notably:
1. Goal Three (3) The Conservation of Energy Resources in Orange County, and
2. Goal Four (4) Development of renewable sources of energy
CIEIART, TABLE OR DEMONSTRATION: NONE
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff supports the proposed Design Solution and recommends that a condition be considered or
placement on the project indicating that the modification can only be utilized in situations where it is
demonstrated that:
l . The .light reflecting from roofing materials and will not create a public safety, traffic
hazard, or annoyance to others,
2. 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)
23
DESIGN SOLUTION SEVEN (7) as outlined on page thirty (30) through thirty-one (31) of the
application reading as follows:
`Tlze 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 maybe situations where
solar ,panels caxmot 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 BACKGROUND AND COMMENT:
As with Design Solution number six (6), staff is always supportive of .any attempt to make'use of
alternative forms of energy. In focusing on this proposed Design Solution, there maybe 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. Some of these solar tracking technologies
may not have been in existence when the EDD Manual was developed in 1994. This design option
incorporates the latest technologies available to builders.
Solar efficiencies are enhanced where the longer building axis is at least one and a half (1%2) times
the shorter axis and the longer axis is within fifteen degrees (15°) of the geographic east/west axis.
CI~ART, TABLE OR DEMONSTRATION: NONE
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff supports the proposed Design Solution and recommends that a condition be considered for
placement on the project indicating that the Design Solution can only be implemented in situations
where it can be demonstrated that
1. The light reflecting from solar energy collection features will not create a public safety,
traffic hazard, or annoyance to others, and
2. Any buildings utilizing solar panels shall have its Langer building axis is at least one and a
half (1%) times the shorter axis and the longer axis is within fifteen degrees (15°) of the
geographic east/west axis (LEED Standard)
24
DESIGN SOLUTION EIGHT (8) as outlined on page thirty-two (32) through thirty-three (33) 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
(10) individual parking spaces provided that ninety percent (90%) of the spaces are within
fifty (SO) feet of the center of a shade tree'
The applicant argues that this provision will require the planting of the same number of tress that
would be required under the Design Manual, but would allow 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 BACKGROUND AND COMMENT:
This Design Solution will maintain the same number of canopy tress that would be required under
the current landscaping standards contained within the Economic Development Design Manual, but
would:
1. Allow for larger trees to be planted,
2. Allow for a more compact parking lot with less impervious surface area, and
3. Allow for shorter walking distances to storefronts for patrons. ~_
In researching this proposed Design Solution staff discovered that current LEED standards call for
non-roof heat island effect reduction include:
l.Fifty percent (50%) of the parking lot surface be shaded within five (5) years of initial
planting,
2.A11 paving materials have a SRI of at least 29, and/or
3.Parking lot paving be an open grid pavement or other pervious surfacing.
LEED standards also recorrunend the reduction of the parking area footprint such that no more than
twenty (20%) of the total development land area is used for parking facilities and no single surface
parking lot is larger then two (2) acres.
From staff's perspective this Design Solution. is actually more in-line with existing site development
trends and ought to be reviewed as a possible replacement design standard for the community.
25
CI3ART, TABLE OR DEMONSTRATION: SEE BELOW (supplied by applicant)
~U~KH~i~t,J ~11~1~~1=
~r~ng~ C~wn-ry
~;~i~~hing ~~rand~rd
DESIGN SOLUTION # 8
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff supports the implementation of the Design Solution because it sustains a LEER Neighborhood
Development standard so long as each parking area subject to the following:
i. Fifty percent (50%) of the parking lot surface in shade within five (5) years of initial
canopy tree planting, and
ii. Parking surface paving materials with a SRI of at least 29 (LEED Standard).
Open grid parking lot paving or other pervious paving systems are strongly encouraged because of
their high reflectance values and their compatibility with heat island effect reduction.
~rn~r~~~d ~olw~ien ~- I~'lcare ~ffi~i~n~r
' 4~ie Mcr~ ~~a~es In dame Faatprirrt
° Spaces Gla~~r ~ta Entranae~ ~nhanccs kValkalallltp~
' r-same ~had~. ~ar~apy at Maturl~
26
DESIGN SOLUTION NINE (9) as outlined on page thirty-four (34) 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 buildi~ag 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. The EDD Manual did not foresee a town centre concept
with pedestrian sidewallcs along access streets and alleys. Foundation plantings in the sidewalk
areas and along service alleys would not be appropriate. In the stead of proper foundation planting,
the applicant can provide enhanced streetscaping other landscape enhancements.
STAFF BACKGROUND .AND COMMENT:
While staff understands the need for buffering along the perimeter of the building, we believe that
the proposed Design Solution is more appropriate in ari effort to encourage a pedestrian friendly
development project.
CHART, TABLE OR DEMONSTRATION: SEE BELOW (supplied by applicant) C
i,.......,,,...,,,.,,1~~~,~Y:4xa•.~,rti rYtu xt:i4~4 cis zeaxr.
,'" ~iir~:i~xJ~c~.i1e ~ixistr+~cs.
c ciaiix'a3,~
.........-......-„~.., ~ ~ ..... .;SxtY'.ttS t.~c'.;c tit 5tit~l~:itt~;
t':tr~ci.}ixr.~::iur~.icc ! ,- ~~ ;~ ~YIiLCRrar'~rantctx:»
t;
i
~,~ i ~ .. Ssz~et I~.t~~txtxi +.
~r
li ~ ~y ~ ~'~ I[i ~
~,+',
~,},+,g,~,t- '
f ,~.w r: t ~-r ~v~3'&i } s ~".. ~, k 6 .u* 73 rcx~~~ .i..~.~, F y.}
'°(, ~ '~ ~1,~ t~ ~ 4i .. ~ ~+. °s ~ i ~,~i''+'w asx.. ;:~sc.3',+k ~i~t ., ~la ~N. 1 ~a 1 j+ClRC,r~i tC `Ui~~ ~. t
Yy~talr x C~~~Sr ~rex
~,..
~i~~ ~..:. --~ ~..._._..: E t, ,~ }[a SCr~~.t. w~}tIr pxY Sis~.at l}ttx~xrzx, c~ a s~ e-~ t c~
~ x.a ~ ~~..1~..~.,.. .. ~..it~ r-.. d '~5 - i ?~'' j„ % tom. f 4 i
~'' 1"- '
$ liar
,.
,_ ,~
~: , ,.
,:
•
,:
I
27
i:3UCKHGi~N ~11~1,.~,C~
t7rangc- County
)=rcvlde> For:
1 - +~reatar 51dax~alk finimaticn ~Vindc+~~ Dis~tays, Manu
Baards, Ctcj
2 - ~n:ssuragcs 5tdc-+a~alk A:flviiyf,5tcr~efrcnt Intar~acMcn
3 - C~equ(r~ 5et~ter ,y»r~hitectural 17ealgn cf C7c-tialis and
)wrrh-anca~ays
parWn~ ~ Scr+dr.~ ~~-~~
} ur
~_ ~_~
i 1{
vF a' ~-i~d ,. ....
private 5tr~~~t with G7n-5tr~~t parking "`""
~~
existing standard i~~quir~~
l~ntire Ba~~ rr Fnundtrrir~n Be 1*.cand~caped
~7~~I~N St~I~U~'IC~N
STAFF R]ECOMIVII+;NDATION:
Staff supports the use of Design Solution number nine (9) due to our determination that the proposal
is consistent with the spirit and intent of the EDD Design Manual with the understanding that the
applicant has proposed to install landscaping along the commercial streets and other areas at the
same density of shrub as would have been required in the EDD Manual for foundation plantings.
Staffs' recommendation is premised on a relocation of foundation plantings to more appropriate
areas in a town centre concept and not to dismiss the need for such plantings.
28
DESIGN SOLUTION TEN (10) as outlined on page thirty-five (35) 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 property lines and
street right-of--ways provided that adequate site triangles and utility accesses are preserved. The
applicant argues that this waiver will help to strengthen the architectural edge of the project and
provide a more `urban' character for the development.
CHART, TABLE OR DEMONSTRATION: SEE BELOW (supplied by applicant)
Dr4nge County
~/W
f2/W
STAFIE RECOMMENDATION:
„EDUCING lo' ~~gUR1=MENT To ('
ALLOWS FOR:
MORE COMPACT SITE DESIGN
CLOSER CONNECTIONS
GREATER CONTROL ~ SITE
LINES
Staff recommends that the Design Solution be considered only when the applicant can demonstrate
on asite-specific development plan that the design feature will not create a public safety risk and
that the encroachment is needed to foster acceptable architectural features or landscaping.
29
DESIGN SOLUTION ELEVEN (11) as outlined on page thirty-six (36) of the application reading
as follows:
`The applicant requests a waiver from Section 3.5 Signs arZd Lighting -Signs -General
Criteria of the EDD Design Manual'
The EDD Design Manual limits the use of signs within this district to:
® A maximum number of three (3) signs per use, .
® A maximum number of one (1) freestanding sign per use, .
® A total square footage limitation of two hundred (200) square feet for all signs
located within. the development,
® A maximum size limit of seventy-five (75) square feet, and
® A twelve (12) foot limit on sign height
The applicant argues that these sign limitations will not support a development project of this
magnitude.
STAFF BACKGROUND .AND COMMENT:
The EDD manual, originally adopted iri 1994, had more of a focus and conception that the major
portions of the various Economic Development districts would be developed as independent small to
mid-sized (5-15 acre) independent land uses or single building developments within. multiple tenants
of the same type of class.
This type of development program is shown throughout the EDD Design Manual. The EDD signage
program was accordingly matched with this scale of development. Two hundred (200) square foot
of total sign area translates into the following example:
1. One (1) one hundred (100) square foot monument sign and
2: One (1) one hundred (100) square foot building sign or eight (8) individual wall signs for
separate tenants, at fifteen (15) square feet each
The EDD sign program did not anticipate a large scale planned development whether a retail or
industrial park. Master plaxnung a larger area of property permits a better comprehensively
developed multi-phase and multi-building project. -One (1) aspect of this master planning principle
is a master sign program for a larger area of property (in this case -130+ acres) where consistency
adds to a better aesthetic and better understood directory of uses.
Therefore a change in the sign criteria for amaster-planned PD project is reasonable. One (1) large
architectural feature and smaller sign area can identify the unified control master project. The
developer offers an alternative approach and staff agrees in part as noted below.
As outlined within the application, beginning on page thinly-seven (37) the applicant is proposing:
1. One (1) project identification sign that is fifty (50) feet in height and six hundred (600)
square feet in area,
2. 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,
30
3. For each `Major/Minor Tenant' three (3) signs (wall, window; etc) for each building,
4. One (1) projecting sign for each `Minor Tenant', \
5. Directional signs at a maximum height of twelve (12) feet with a maximum size of one
hundred (100) square feet for each sign.
CHART, TABLE OR DEMONSTRATION: SEE BELOW (supplied by applicant)
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~U ~ ' lallvvvabla Sign
~ ~ /area p~singed. for
small C~evel~prne~hs
~. __ uIYWOWLIi' ~ WtltlW1YiYWWiWWY'WtWI
S.Z~
.~ - .~~ .~ :~ _ ~~~ [rs ~ , ~~~ i f~~~ss~€s1 ~ (4 ar ~.ess E~uldings}
r-- i ~ ,,
existing ~aign fi~llcr~vance = ~CJt~ sf Mr.~c fcsr entire i:~evc-Icpmant
If ;applied to Village then iaah crf' SJ +/W
~3ullidngs V~auld be limited tca 4 ~t3uildfng lwacade
~I~IC3u ilding
~~
_ _ ` _
r !anchor Tenant {~ ~~` sign Area Shawn) ~ ~ullding ~acadG
,.
~; ~r„oiler ,--~- e=:~9r,' ~in~
I
~'- ~~~V' ~~ ~IQl1 I' ii ~.
ri ... ,~ __~. ___ _
f4nahar Tenant (limited to ~t~t~ ~~' fatal sign area)
l~~~fC~ ~c~'~..U'T"1C~~i #11
STAFF RECOIVIlVIENDATION:
Staff is supportive of the proposed Design Solution grating additional sign opportunities for this
project, subject to the following recommended revisions:
Primary project ID;
One (1) project architectural feature that serves as a structure for the PD identification sign
that is fifty (50) feet in height not more than 24' wide with a sign area of placed not higher
than 40' and not more than 200 SF per side for two sides .(200 SF does not include the
structure) and six hundred (600) square feet in area,
31
Entry Portal:
A Maximum of eight (8) Tenant/Directory Signs that are fifteen (15) feet in height and have
one hundred SF per side two hundred (200) square feet of total sign area each (each side
being counted as SF),
Major/Minor Tenant:
For each `Major/Minor Tenant' three (3) signs (wall, etc) for each building of, as shown in
the master sign plan based on 1SF per linear .foot of building frontage placed within a
designed sign facade area. 300 SF maximum
Tenant above walkways:
One (1) projecting sign (6 SF) for each `Major/Minor Tenant',
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.
32
DESIGN SOLUTION TWELVE (12) as outlined on page forty-two (42) of the application reading
as follows: C
`The applicant requests a waiver from Section 3.3 Circulation and Parl~ing -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 BACKGROUND AND COMMENT:
The ratianale for the request is that is will reduce the overall impervious surface area for the project
and create more open space. Within the EDD Manual, there are provisions to determine multiple-
useparking for each use separately.
With multiple destinations and uses, Section 10.6 Joint Parking Facilities section of the Zoning
Ordinance should be used to determine an acceptable number of total parking spaces for each
development district.
Section 10.6 states, "The required parking for any number of separate establishments maybe
combined in one lot, subject to the following requirements:
a) The spaces allotted to each use must be shown on the application for a Zoning
Compliance Permit;
b) The distance from the farthest allotted space to the main entrance of the structure housing
the use to which it is assigned shall not be more than four hundred feet (400');
c) Spaces assigned to one use may not be assigned to another use at the same time or any
other time, except that one-half of the parking spaces required for uses such as churches,
theatres, assembly halls, whose peak attendance will be at night or on Sundays, maybe
assigned to use which will experience peak usage at other times. The Zoning Officer
shall make the determination relative to peals usage.
d) Cross easements of record shall be executed to ensure the continued availability of the
parking to the use it serves.
33
CIIART, .TABLE OR DEMONSTRATION: SEE BELOW (supplied by applicant)
~~~ ~~~~
l~rrxnge Gaunty
PI~I~KINC~a
0
~i-I~~.~ I'f~l"KINC-~ ~',I_L(~'V~ ~fik:
~ I~ri~f~ G,%141F'A~~1" 51T'c ~c~IC,N
a ~IVIII~VG;r..~ ~~~Jr.LI~~~ILII"Y
~ hr1Ul~'!w GI'C~~ ~I'IiGi~'
~~~~ ~~~d~ ~~
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff supports the proposed Design Solution and further recommends that the following parking
standards be used for this project:
a. 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.
b. One (1) parking space for each Residential Dwelling, Multi-family unit,
c. One (1) parking space for every three (3) seats in a Indoor and/or Outdoor Theater,
d. 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,
~/moo ~r.
34
e. One (1) parking space for every three hundred (300) of floor area within a
Government facility.
f. One (1) space per every room in a hotel plus one (l) per shift employee \
g. .All parking lot spaces, unless other wise designated, shall be: Nine (9) feet by
Eighteen (18) feet. I
35
DESIGN SOLUTION THIRTEEN (13) as outlined on page forty-five (45) of the application
reading as follows:
`The applicant requests a waiver from Section 3.2 of t7ze EDD Design Manual requiring
that brealrs in the MTC buffers be limited to one (1) and no more that twenty-fzve percent
(25%) of the total buffer'
The applicant is requesting that more `buffer breaks' from 25% to 60% be allowed along the
Interstate to afford the development additional sight lines from the highway.
STAFF BACKGROUND AND COMMENT:
The original EDD. manual contemplated more industrial, warehouse and distribution along sections
of the interstate where it would be more appropriate to maintain screening from industrial buildings,
activities and storage. Retail has a different visibility aspect than industrial. Retail design is more
aesthetic and its visibility serves as an economic development enhancement that leads to
sustainability. Therein, the desire and high tax value that is associated with interstate visibility and
retail establishments.
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 accormnodate
proposed stormwater `water quality best management practices devices'. The areas will be re-
landscaped to `create a more visually interesting landscape incorporating the open~areas' that include
lower height growth bio-retention plant species that still allow visibility and absorption of CO2. 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 and/or tree with at least 12" in diameter at 4' high,
whichever is greater.
CHART, TABLE OR DEMONSTRATION: SEE BELOW (supplied by applicant)
~E..~KfiG~fi~I V'iLLr'~C
~'Jrrsngo County
~VI'i': flt~ =u
::Xfitl'1t37
lL'!_~iY
YYJ-I"G+ sV_LG~+L'V .^.4/'K IN I,tl"G ~T
II.tGpf~.~F-i:9 1V'A7'C"x' O,U~LYfY i~t^'f2.OV£":.tt2J'I"9
F~erprLV n.;rn~ s:unr>auv:
• k'IPGIri1T ~;~!'IPN.~.JJL'IJI"
36
1 w JIbNT1~ ~ r. ; , , ~ ., ~ iii ~ ~~
:.
'` ~ ~ ~ ~~~' ~~ I~'~ ~~~ ` ~ ~ '~" ~' ~' ' ~ I r ~ Penmpl ~ Park~r~PIA.~;ing ~ ~_
nr ~~~,do~~~ ~ ~Cr~rwe&LoadingaCas~abE~wreea~d~~f~h,, ~„ ,~i
~;r,~ ~ ~ tier rt:enhed ~su~iaftintta ror~ea8nfo
~ , ~~. ~ I~ .i i I ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ iy i ~ `i~ a.C'1s ~R,~QIl°r~1:.~G.'f~la! ' ~ I
~~
r, C'? 1 ~ uisual s~~~ as ufativ~~rrom ndlae-nt ~ ~ I
~ ,~ - -, ~ ' ~ ` ptoprrE;~ ~t~ihin a yearfi ~f ~pln~nt~t~. ~ ~
~~~~.
~~~=~ ~, : ~1~+i•,~C~pan~paae
~ ~ ~
~~~ ~~ ~1~
f enan ~ c~ '
M1, ~ l _,~.~:.....~ . +-'"" ~ ' tat Grrc- f ~ ~ ~~ , `
~ i i
. 7
~'...s~ ~. --, ,z ~ ~, `Aro~~ed1','a!<in~Trnil
~ ;.°,.!~.,, ~ ~ r, ~ f~~ f s ' ~ i f f ~ -, ~~'~::~~ ,~ ~~~,.: •- ~.,9tiV ~Obd y?~: ~ A ~ '`~. ~ ~ ~ ~'"`rrw~"
ti ,.
,~ '~"~~ ~...~,"~'-"-.,,,,,. °z~.'>~~ 3.,r ' '~" ---rt ~ -.. ~ ~-.`'1'f ,,,n~~ttt• L'a.:6
4.E. " f +`(', c~.07~"`^-~-,,,;~ `"..-, ~ `` ~;,,?~r~ 3jtr s~*e . , ti {; 1 r,'~''f '^,..~` ~~ ~~,p~2n"'1,
~k jJ ,.~.,.,,-~~ C i 1,~,~ s~~~ '' ~w~~~ j+ f~'F ~ti~ f~, ~ 1 f..: ~~ Jf( ~1 ~,`r "~.
i,,. `~~@~r ArBd ~Q~Uaa'S1-~~~~+1 ~ t' .""""`',,,~K""-,-.,. ~}~1 l~N I.~a 'P~f fi ¢ vr,~~„~-i~.,,. '' ~ % ;/~~i; ~j,Jf~~,.~ ti'
1 `'~ • ~`"` ~. ~~ "w'"""'ig „~~,-,W ~ / ~ ~~ ,~-""` -,.~'""~^ ~'•L
;~ .~~- ti~ .~, rrr ~ j ereK!oun~~~essdl~in'If~• ( ti. ~--.--- ~~ ~- ~ ~ .~ r
~~
~'"~. t t1( fi5r(C 6,E{ht~,'8f (~+nl!!IIn1V140« ~'-' ~ ~~' `-„ ~i ~ 'li sr3.f1 ~' ""`~ ~~"'_~ IrOE ~ErSc(fiiP ~ dl da°dy
4
`^^~+.-.+~ ~`h . ltE~£~J~ft YG Cal~ttOr~r Aiks+lf~J:~,;. F 1~4r ~~ ~ ~ `_` ~ J4a~ Saf u9pbY~f tl~l~~ > ;-~-••~•~~u~,
i4 ~ ~ Es'fy:~Elb~tidliKenara'a(R.d:~fdr?~4;~1~~,~" _ ~ ~~V ~t~~= "'"' .~,_~„~i0.r :f1a1~6(iP il'C) lI_ds dl '~
r ~ f0{o}tC~,'?r3"d ~ t ""° '~^w„~ 1~"'``""~ ~,-V f}iEefvrS Gn ...~'_.........~` ._..~,u.,.~
}~ ~ + i~ ~.~~t Fir ~d;lo~w`at,Za~t,~~t~~"I~ "` ' ~ -a ~ '----~._.:..,:
~~ ! ToAlavta{~,'tFunaa~~~Gt:CC31T.ranitl~at~(:', r ~ ~r;r,_ r ~-. ~-~---~.--,~ 30D1;,4U~{-$5~~u$8f
~ ~ ~ ~' ~ C(earA~aa 4~ ~6a sf Oro ~• .,, ~,
~ CI ~ ArE'~ 40~~0~ Sf (~0°,'a+f ~ ``'~~,1 ~ ~`4" ~,, 203,0~!a~f' 4f~fBu[fie~`Are~"' .,~ t
37
STAFF RECOMMIENDATION:
Staff finds that this Design Solution is acceptable.
38
DESIGN SOLUTION FOURTEEN (14) as outlined on page forty-six (46) of the application
reading as follows: C
`The applicant requests a waiver from Section 3.2 of the EDD Design Manual requiring
fifty (SO) to one hundred (100) foot buffers along adjacent residential properties along
Buckhorn Road'
The applicant is proposing to reduce this buffer to twenty-five (25) feet in width.
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 BACKGROUND AND COMMENT:
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.
Maintenance of a sufficient density of forest cover within the perimeter buffer is an important factor
to consider. Typically, Orange County land use buffer requirements for any retail trade require a
Type "E" (one hundred foot [ 100']) depth. Should the uses adjacent to the residences along
Buckhorn Road be office the buffer could be reduced to seventy-five (75'), or fifty feet (50') for
residential apartment uses. In any case, as per Section 12.6.1, the buffer shall be composed of
seventy-five (75%) percent evergreen vegetation distributed so as to create asemi-opaque screen to a
height of at least thirty feet (30').
CI3ART, TABLE OR DEMONSTRATION: SEE BELOW (supplied by applicant)
~`~c~~c~~ Gta~~rty
GGhiWd'.LI~~/ 1
~N7•,~T'wiFt_
MI;Cp 11x
exlarnsr.~ t~u~: ~r-sa~~e~yrr;n-
ViGA71GTl 'M11G11 15 Id!+T' GOhl51!~ f-rJ~i
14fiThl hiIXCD U°.~ GGSIC-~N Ut7.LGTl~
- t.GGd,1t.1~uIALf~
~ 0
~ --
IM~i1F1~ 1.
Iv1D~D lk •=
~tar~.nct~ cr- --~zr~gzr~rs u~~ra
T1hG STF~T 5L-~~ Gf" L-"GD i5
39
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is supportive of a reduction, as outlined within the Design Solution, but is unsure if a twenty-
five (25) foot buffer wi11 protect existing residential development along Buckhorn Road. Staff
would recommend the following for your consideration:
1. Along Buckhorn Road -twenty-five (25) feet as proposed,
2. Surrounding the existing six (6) properties that front along Buckhorn Road on the western
property line of this project -fifty (50) feet.
40
PLANNING BOARD ACTION -SUP APPLICATION:
As the Board is ahead aware this a lication has both a le 'dative rezonin re uest and aquasi- \
Y ~ pp ~ g q
judicial Special Use Permit component. The Special Use Permit portion of this.. project will be
discussed once there is a recommendation on the rezoning petition.
As the Board is already aware, within a quasi judicial process written findings of fact are required.
The Board malting the decision must explicitly set forth, what it determines to be .the essential facts
that it is basing its decision on and must also make specific findings of fact and provide specific
detail to inform all parties, and a reviewing court, as to what induced the decision. It needs to be
remembered that a conclusory statement that a standard has, or has not, been met is insufficient.
ARTICLE EIGI3T (8):
In reviewing this portion of the project, the Plalming Board will be asked to begin making
recommendations on the issuance of the Class A ,Special Use Permit in .accordance with the
provisions of Article Eight (8).
ARTICLE SEVEN ('7~ -SECTION 7.5.4:
In additional to the provisions of Article Eight (8), Section 7.5.4, specifically subsections (d) and (e),
will be part of the Special Use Permit review process as they relate to the proposed design solutions
and conditions of approval for the project. As a reminder, subsections (d) and (e) of Section 7.5.4
read as follows:
C_
(d) As to the suitability of plans proposed or the desirability of amendments; and
(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:
In accordance with Article Eight (8) and Section 7.5.4 of the Ordinance, staff will be supplying the
Board with the typical Class A SUP Findings of Fact document once there has been additional
review and discussion of staff's recommendation by the Plaauling Board.
C
d'
O O
M rt'
O ~
\O O d' O
v7 N ~ CP
00 [~ N 00
~ ~ ~
.
hA ~
~.
®
H ~
~
O
V
.p
N QI
O
W
~ ~ ~
U n/ ~
.~i H
U
H
H
~
•j
'~ H
H A ~) Q Q H
O
m
O
O
W
fV
a ~
a ~
z
~°
~ ~
a ~~
~~
~ ~
i "~ F+~1 A
A Qi
J
W V
..~~v...... ~.~ GO
~
~ O
O O
O O
j
a
~
~ M \O ~D ~O
O o0 ~ O
H ~
.~ ,-fl
~ ~
U °
a o
~C
V ~'
`~
H
H
b
H •
~ ~
A A A A H
O O O O
O O O O
O O O O
n O O
~ o
o N
~ ~-+ ~ ~ M
c ~
~
b
O
O
0
d'
O
M
M
H H M--i
H
O
Q Q Q
.. ~ `
W ° ° °
w o o c
~
v~ ~p oo G~
~O ~!'~ 01 e--1
oo O ~ 'et
~ N ~
N
b
0
0
cY
M
O
E--i
~
ti
~ o
A •
A .
A H
E'°~
W
i
~N
W
W
e
a
M
O
a
N
C7
as
N
d'
O M O O C7
O O ~D ~ ~
~
~ ~ ~
.-~
N d' `~
00 ~ M
.-+
®
~ -ice
~-+
H ~
Q
® ~O
~i
~ o ~
~"
W O
® ~ a
w [~
U
p a W
® ~d ~ ~ p
¢~ "~ ,
° a
.~ a ,~ ~ ~ [ ~
a y'
S
~ a w ° ~
O O O o o ,~ ~; ~ ~ O O o
o 0 0
0 0 ~ o ~ ~
to O
' ~U O \D s~
^~ O
O N O
O
00
.-~ V
1
oo ~D
.--+ N M
O ~
a' v~ M
O O
,--i NI ~u'':. h d~ M
a
v O
t~ i
I '
.
,
b
w ~
>C
N
•-+ ~,;~
N i
~
O
~
~
N
mm
~'i
~ '~ ~ O
O
O '~
~ O v
c ~
~'' ~ ~ b O
~'
~ '~'
~
~
~
~ wo
~
~ ®
~ ~N a ~
~ O ~ O O bA^~,
~ O ~ O O ~
~ ,--~
~ ~ O O ~ bA
N ~ O ~ ~
~" ~+ ~ O 4~
O ~. ~, ~ ~ ~
~
~ N
~ N p ~
E -+-+
N ~ ~ ,
~
m ~ b ~
~
,~
O ~
~
U
O ~ ~ ~ O
a ~
~ ~ ?C
~~ 4-i
o
r~ ~ ~ ok
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
a
M
d'
O ~ N ~ ~ ~
O ~ d' ~ O ~ *-+
~ ~
O ~ N dN' N ~ ~ ~
~O O ~
N N
N O ~ N ~~
O N ~ ~ ~
~ a4 ^d
c~ ~ p
N ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ 'd sO+
~ N
E--~ p ~ p ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
N O ~ ~
~ ,
rp O
c~ ~ . ~ c
d '~ O
'~
~ ..
,s~ ~ y~ N
~ N ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~,`n-~
~ ~ ~ Oi-~~
i
~ ~
~ N ' ~ N
O 'b cCi .
.
O ~ ~ ~
O U
N t-,
~ ~ ~ cn
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ cd
N ~ N
~' U ~ ~
H ~~ ~ O
~
N ~ v~
O
~
~ ~
~ p
~1 C~ vi
N ~ ~
~ p N
'-' U GA
a
~ 1a
~
..
t~ vs ~, ;.~ O
~ ~y
~ ~ ~
E°{ O ctt O \ H ~
~ p„r
~ ~ O ~ ,
~
V1 ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~
.~
O
O
V1
d-
O O O O O ~
O M O
~ O O O O O
O
O
O
N O ~ ~ N O ~
'
d' ~ C
D t
-~
~' N N t'~1
r-i N
~ ~ ~
M~1 ~ 00 O ~-, Q'' O ~ ~ bAf'--~ ~ ~
H ~ ~ ~ M
~/ eC,~ ^ ~+ by O ~bA O ~ 4~ Op ~
Fit i W ~+ ~ ~~ a" O O ~' W ~
® O ~ ~ ~ a O ~ N O ~ F~,
M~ "CJ 'fl ~ ~ ~' bA ~ M ~ ~
A ~ A w H ~ ~ H
0 0 °o °o o° °o o
0 0 0 0 0 0 o a~;
N O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ O
~ O o0 ~O d' OG
d' r-i M ~
N ,+~-+ N '~-' '~-+
d'' ~ O~'' O O U ~ +'' O ~
M ~
O '~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ vi ~
~ ~
O bA ~ vi ~ ~) dj ~ Ra i.r
ai :~ a4 ~" O v
O p '~
Z .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y~
~ ,.~ ~ a ~
E'+ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ a ~ ~ aA
~ Q ~ .~ ~ o ~ 'G ~ ~
A ~~ ~ x~ ~~~~~ o ~ ~
~1 ~1 ~ r~ w ct ~, a ~ a H ~
H
r-~
a
v~
O O
01 d'
O c~d ~ ~ N
rn ~ ~ U
~~~ ~~
o ~ ,~
~ ~ o ~,
O '~' p ~
W ~ U
C p i ~ ~ •~
;~ ~ ~ ~ •~ N
e~S ^~S }-+ ~ cH
•yy
%~ ' a3 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ c~ ~ ~
b~
'~" ~ °o ~
~ '"'
.~
~ U ~
~ ~ ~
~l
0 0 0 0°0~ °o °o ~ o°o
~O f' ~ C ~ ~O M M ~ CT1
e--t M
,N b ~N b ~ ~ N N ~ ~ N ~ ~
.~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
cd" O vs ~ ~ N ~ ~ O bA O ~
~ ~ O ~
O ~~
t~Id ~ ~ N N • ~ 3.-i ~ -~ ~ ~
~ ~~ O .T~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "d N
~ `~ ~
b~oq O v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q
~ cu H o ~ ~, o H
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ a
~ ~ a ~
~r
0
O
Itr'j
ct'
O
r~ rt
ra' N
~: GO
~ ~
a
O
V "~
A H
t~
F~ C/1
~,
d-
0 0
00 M ~i-
~ o
O o. mot-
O ~U o
O ~r
~
00 O N O O N O tom[
~ N ~ OM N O N
O ~ V7 ~o ~
N '
~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~' ~ vii
~ bq bA ~
Qt ~ ®
O ~ ~ O
~ p• O o cc!
~ ,
~ ~ O ~ ~
f~ ~ W ~ `~ o '~ W o
~ ~ ~ ~ `~
H
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
~
`~ ~
~ ~
H ~
a
~
~
o
H
~
H ?
~
a
O O O O O O '~
O O O O O O ev'~
O
O O
O O
O O
d' O
N O
~C ~
~O [~ 01 V~ ~-i
~ ~
Q'' "' d'' O ~ ~ ~ 4w~ .
v1 ~-+ c/1 fr1 V ~ ~ ~F
O ' ~ O ~ !~ it ~ y
M ~ o ~ O a~ ~
4-a ~ . ~ O ~
~ o ~ O O ~ bA ~ .~-. ~
~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~
,~ e~ b
b4~ ~ ~ y~ ~~ O C
~ W bA bA .N ,~ ~ . ~ A C ~ ~ bA ea R.i
A w ~ ~ x`" ~N ~ a a ® a ~
d-
° 0
o
o
O ~_
O
.-+ '-i
N
~ ~
N ~
`3 ~~d0'
~ ~ ~
O
N'~ O
~ kd'
O
~ O ~
~ N
~ +-° ~ O
~ `~ ~ DC
•~ O N O
O
O
~yN O ~
~
~ ~ v ~
~ ~
a
a., ~
° ° ° ° ° ~' M
o o O ~ o o o
o
0 0 ~t o ~t oo ,_; c
,-~ oo ~
~
~ ~t
N o~
~ ~-+
O ~ V
'1
N
N ~ rP
N
bA ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~, ~ ~
cd ~
O ~
-+ ~ ~
~ .~ Q
.
~
a ~ N
~
O ~
~ N ~
~
O ~ ,~
v ~ ~ .~ ~
V cti ~ p ~ ~ ~
,~ ~ ~
H c ~ ~ o [-+ '~ W
~
i= ~ ~ b H
v~ ~ Q" `J ~ L7 a ~