Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-14-2017 - D.1 - Zoning Atlas Amendment: Conditional Zoning —Master Plan Development 5 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 14, 2017 Action Agenda Item No. D.1 SUBJECT: Zoning Atlas Amendment: Conditional Zoning —Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Application Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597 2. Vicinity Map Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2575 3. Future Land Use and Growth Management Systems Maps 4. Applicant Correspondence Concerning Elimination of District 3 from Application 5. Applicant Correspondence Concerning Imposition of Conditions 6. Staff Comments 7. Notes from Neighborhood Information Meeting 8. Excerpt of Draft Minutes from October 4, 2017 Planning Board Meeting 9. Planning Board Approved Statement of Consistency 10. Statement of Consistency 11. Ordinance Amending Zoning Atlas and Conditions of Approval 12. Public Hearing Notification Materials and Certification Under Separate Cover— Project Narrative, Maps, and Supporting Documentation PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing on a request to rezone approximately 195 acres of property to Master Plan Development— Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) district in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.9.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance (hereafter`UDO'). 6 STAFF COMMENT — MODIFICATION OF APPLICATION: As originally submitted the request sought to rezone a total of 272 acres of property. Prior to the Planning Board meeting the applicant requested action on the rezoning of 10 parcels of property (PINs 9873- 10-4230, 9873-10-8103, 9872-19-6844, 9872-19-3549, 9872-19-8336, 9872-29-2222, 9872- 29-8289, 9872-28-6779, 9872-18-7626, and 9872-09-8324) totaling 76 acres in area be deferred at this time. These parcels encompassed what was/is delineated within the application as District 3 proposing the development of residential land uses. The applicant requested action be taken on the rezoning of 10 parcels, as identified herein, consistent with the submitted application allowing for the development of District(s) 1 and 2. For more information please refer to Attachment 4. The entire application, including narrative, maps, and the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), can be accessed on the Planning department website at: http://www.orandecountync.dovidepartments/plannind and inspections/current interest proiects.ph BACKGROUND: The modified request seeks to rezone approximately 195 acres of property: From: Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) ; Economic Development Hillsborough Office/Retail (EDH-4) ; Economic Development Hillsborough Research and Manufacturing (EDH-5) ; Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Overlay District ; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. To: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point ; Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Overlay District ; Major Transportation Corridor(MTC) Overlay District. for the purpose of developing Settlers Point, a mixed use development proposing two development areas further identified as follows: • District 1: industrial/manufacturing/research land uses, and • District 2: office/retail/commercial land uses. The basic facts concerning the current application are as follows: Applicant(s): Old NC 86 Partners LLC 504 Meadowlands Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 Agent(s): Summit Design and AECOM Engineering Services 701 Corporate Center Drive 504 Meadowlands Drive Suite 475 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Raleigh, NC 27607 Location: South of Interstate 40 and adjacent to Old NC Highway 86. Please refer to the project vicinity map contained within Attachment 2 for additional detail. 7 Parcel Information: a. PIN: The application involves the rezoning of 10 parcels of property, totaling approximately 195 acres in area, further identified as follows: 1. A 90.37 acre tract of land PIN# 9863-71-8857 2. A 58.56 acre tract of land PIN# 9863-91-6573 3. A 1.36 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-11-4636 4. A 1.65 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-11-5415 5. A 0.50 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-11-7506 6. A 1.75 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-11-9450 7. A 1.46 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-11-7247 8. A 4.50 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-10-7937 9. A 34.58 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-20-2388 10. A 2.45 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-10-4310 b. Size of parcel: As indicated total acreage involved with this request is approximately 195 acres. c. Current Zoning of parcels: Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) ; Economic Development Hillsborough Office/Retail (EDH-4) ; Economic Development Hillsborough Research and Manufacturing (EDH-5) ; Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Overlay District ; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. The properties associated with this application are not located within a Watershed Protection Overlay District. As a result there is no impervious surface limit enforced via the land use permitting process. STAFF COMMENT: There is an item being reviewed at the November 14, 2017 public hearing proposing the elimination of the SFHA Overlay District. If this item is approved, there will be no SFHA Overlay District designation on the subject parcels. This action will not impact or eliminate the applicant's responsibility from complying with applicable floodplain management standards as detailed within the UDO. d. Township: Hillsborough. e. Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Designation: Economic Development Transition. For more information please refer to the FLUM map contained in Attachment 3. f. Growth Management System Designation: Urban. For more information please refer to the Growth Management Systems map contained in Attachment 3. g. Existing Conditions/Physical Features: Varying topography with significant wooded areas and water features (i.e. ponds, 8 streams, and floodplain). Several of the subject parcels are developed for use in support of residential dwelling units. If the rezoning petition is approved, these existing structures/uses would be eliminated. For more information on existing land uses please refer to the application narrative contained in Attachment 1. h. Roads: Vehicular access to subject parcels would be off of Old NC Highway 86. i. Water and Sewer: The applicant is proposing to extend water and/or wastewater service lines, maintained by the Town of Hillsborough, to serve District(s) 1 and 2. Surrounding Land Uses: a. NORTH: Interstate 40 ; agricultural operation and single-family residential property zoned Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) and Rural Residential (R-1) approximately 110 acres in area. b. SOUTH: Undeveloped property ; Single-family residential property zoned Rural Residential (R-1) ranging in size from 2 to 12 acres. c. EAST: Single-family residential and undeveloped property zoned Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) ranging in size from 1 to 12 acres ; Interstate 40. d. WEST: Single-family residential and undeveloped property zoned Rural Residential ranging in size from 1 1/2 to 50 acres. Conditional Zoning (CZ) Process: The process involves the approval of a rezoning petition and a master development plan allowing for the development of a specific land use(s) on approximately 20 parcels of property. Applications are processed in a legislative manner (i.e. does not require sworn testimony or evidence) and decisions are based on the BOCC's determination that the project is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Development Process, Schedule, and Action: The typical cadence for the review of a CZ application is: • First Action — Planning staff schedules a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM). Staff Comment — DONE. This meeting was held on September 14, 2017. A synopsis of comments from this meeting is contained within Attachment 7. • Second Action — The Planning Board reviews the application at a regular meeting and makes a recommendation to the BOCC. Staff Comment — DONE. The Planning Board reviewed the application at its October 4, 2017 regular meeting and voted to recommend approval with the imposition of conditions as detailed in Attachment 8. • Third Action — The BOCC receives the Planning Board recommendation and makes a decision at a previously advertised public hearing. Staff Comment — The public hearing is scheduled for November 14, 2017. 9 Per Section 2.9.2 (F) (3) of the UDO, mutually agreed upon conditions can be imposed as part this process only if they address: 1 . The compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding property, 2. Proposed support facilities (i.e. roadways and access points, parking, pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems, screening and buffer areas, etc.) and/or 3. All other matters the County may find appropriate or the petitioner may propose. If approved, the Zoning Atlas will be amended and the zoning designation of the property shall be changed to MPD-CZ Settlers Point. Development of the 195 acres of property would have to be consistent with the approved development proposal and all conditions imposed as part of the zoning atlas amendment process. Development of the property, specifically allowable land uses, will be in accordance with the newly created zoning district in accordance with the approved master plan and any imposed conditions. Development of the various parcel(s) shall only be permitted through the review and approval of site plan application(s) in accordance within Section 2.5 of the UDO. This is so staff can verify all imposed conditions are adhered to and allow for final peer review by members of the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) as detailed within Section 1 .9 of the UDO. Proposal: The project involves the creation of two development districts, specifically: 1 . District 1 Light Industrial/Manufacturing and Research —Located west of Old NC 86 accessed via Service Road and south of Interstate 40 intended to provide for light industrial/manufacturing and research operations. The District is approximately 148 acres in area involving 2 parcels of property (PINs 9863-71-8857 and 9863-91-6573) and is depicted within the submitted application narrative as follows: .,` `,, ,4'4-c gri ••;;sy;s: Apr- ?f. ,,1 ❑ ..' .:�$al ySz � h • 2. District 2 Commercial —Located east of Old NC Highway 86 and south of Interstate 40 intended to provide for high intensity office uses, retail, and services. The District is approximately 47 acres in area involving 8 parcels of property (PINs 9873-11-4636, 9873-11-5415, 9873-11-7506, 9873-11-9450, 9873-11-7247, 9873-10-7937, 9873-20- 10 2388, and 9873-10-4310) and is depicted within the submitted application narrative as follows: . ti .; r$;. , .. - - ,C•. • • ilikk. s•. STAFF COMMENT Land comprising District(s) 1 and 2 are located within an Economic Development Transition Land Use Category allowing for the submittal of the MPD-CZ application. As previously indicated District 3, which would have been south of District 2, has been removed from consideration at this time at the applicant's request (Attachment 4). Access: Access to each district is intended to be as follows: • District 1: via an existing roadway off of Old NC Highway 86, specifically Service Road, and • District(s) 2: via new roadway accessing Old NC Highway 86. An internal road network system, constructed to NC Department of Transportation public road standards, will provide internal access within all Districts. The applicant is also proposing pedestrian paths/walkways allowing access between the aforementioned districts. The submitted Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) identifies internal and external roadway improvements that will be required as different Districts are developed. This includes the signalization of existing and proposed intersections. STAFF COMMENT Both Planning and NC Department of Transportation (NC DOT) staff have reviewed the proposal and are satisfied with the proposed road layouts. Staff is recommending the imposition of a condition requiring the extension of Service Road right-of-way through District 1 to serve as an access point for adjacent land area to the west. Extension of the right-of-way to serve adjacent properties in District 2 is not viable given property layouts, the adjacent Interstate highway, topography, and the presence of streams. 11 In consultation with the applicant and representatives of NC DOT, staff is recommending a condition be placed on the project requiring a full TIA be completed for all site plan application(s). This is to ensure required internal and/or external improvements to transportation systems are developed at the appropriate phase of development. Accommodation(s) for public transit stops will be made concurrent with the final site plan review process for each individual development proposal within the project. In discussing the project with Mr. Jason Shepard of the Orange County Emergency Services Department, he has requested a condition be placed on the project that final roadway layout, including widths and access points, be approved by the Fire Marshal's office as part of the final site plan review process. Planning staff concurs with the recommended condition. The applicant has agreed to the imposition of these recommended conditions. For more information please refer to Attachment 5. Utilities: The project is proposed to be served by public water and sewer systems provided by the Town of Hillsborough. Orange County is currently working with the Town to install a new sewer line under Interstate 40, which would serve District 1. This work is consistent with a recently approved inter-local utility agreement between Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough. Utility services for District 2 shall have to be reviewed and approved by the Town of Hillsborough prior to extension. STAFF COMMENT: Staff recommends the imposition of the following condition(s) associated with utility development: • Approval of the Setters Point MPD-CZ application does not constitute a guarantee utility services shall be provided and/or extended to serve the project. • Development(s) within the project shall be served only by public water and sewer services as provided and maintained by the Town of Hillsborough. • Utilities shall not be extended to serve District 2 until applicable inter-local utility agreement(s) are amended authorizing same. The applicant assumes responsibility for submitting a formal request to amend the aforementioned agreement(s) allowing for the extension of services. • Connection to public water and sewer shall comply with applicable Town of Hillsborough standards. The applicant assumes the responsibility for obtaining all authorizations allowing for same. • Extension of water/sewer lines within a District shall comply with applicable Town of Hillsborough standards. The applicant assumes the responsibility for obtaining all authorizations allowing for same. • Final location of fire hydrants shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Hillsborough and the County Fire Marshal prior to the issuance of any permit authorizing land disturbing activities. • All site plan submittals shall include documentation indicating the Town has approved connection/extension of utility services for the proposed development. 12 The applicant has agreed to the imposition of these recommended conditions. For more information please refer to Attachment 5. Stormwater Drainage: The applicant has indicated the project will abide by existing stormwater regulations as detailed in Section 6.14 of the UDO. Erosion Control: The applicant has indicated the project will abide by existing erosion control regulations as detailed in Section 6.15 of the UDO. Land Use Buffers: The applicant is proposing the following: • A 100 ft. undisturbed buffer for District 1 separating the project from residentially zoned properties to the west and south. STAFF COMMENT: The proposed 100 ft. buffer is consistent with existing standards as contained in Section 6.8.12 of the UDO. • The applicant is requesting a reduction in the required land use buffer along Old NC Highway 86 from 100 ft., as required under Section 6.8.12 (C) (4) of the UDO, to 25 ft. for District 2. As part of this request, the applicant is proposing the following condition(s): o Structures erected in District 2 shall observe a 75 ft. setback from Old NC Highway 86. STAFF COMMENT: Staff is concerned about the requested reduction given additional requests, including the ability to thin existing vegetation up to 60% of required buffer area(s). If thinning of required buffers is approved, staff would recommend a minimum 50 ft. buffer be maintained along Old NC Highway 86. Further, staff recommends the adoption of the condition of a required 75 ft. setback from Old NC Highway 86 for the project. The applicant has indicated they accept staff's recommended modification based on their ability to thin existing vegetation in this area to promote visibility. • The applicant is requesting authorization to thin existing vegetation along Old NC Highway 86 and Interstate 40 within District 2 to create visual breaks in approximately 60% of the required buffer area. As part of this request, the applicant is proposing the following condition(s): o These areas shall be utilized only to develop stormwater retention ponds. o There shall be no permanent structure erected intended to provide a service consistent with the project (i.e. a commercial business). Structures acceptable for development within this cleared area shall be those intended to support stormwater retention operations (i.e. pump houses) or utility structures. o Disturbed vegetation will be replaced with indigenous, drought resistant vegetation that will achieve a height of six (6) feet within five (5) years. STAFF COMMENT: This is the minimum height that has to be achieved within the identified timeframe and does not constitute an overall height limitation on said vegetation. o Within the remaining area, the developer will `hand clear' or `selectively clear' any existing vegetation of nuisance, scrub, or dead foliage so long as a minimum of fifty- four(54) trees per acre is maintained at all times. 13 STAFF COMMENT: Section 6.6.5 (A) (5) of the UDO reads as follows: Non-residential uses within Transition Areas, as designated by the Comprehensive Plan, may provide one break in the required buffer (i.e. the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) buffer) per lot adjacent to the interstate right-of-way in order to provide an on-site commercial sign and/or building visibility. The break shall constitute no more than 50% of the interstate highway frontage. Staff recommends the 50% visual break limit be observed as detailed within the UDO for thinning activities along Old NC Highway 86 and Interstate 40. The applicant has agreed with the modification of the request to allow for 50% visual breaks consistent with the provisions of the UDO. • The applicant is requesting a modification of the Major Transportation Corridor(MTC) Overlay District for the project, specifically reducing the required 100 ft. buffer to 50 ft. in District 2. As part of this request, the applicant is proposing the following condition(s): o The applicant is required to submit a detailed buffer plan denoting the cross section of the buffer area and 1-40 area to be impacted. o Reduction of the MTC buffer shall be allowed only in those instances where the applicant can demonstrate sight lines from the interstate shall not be adversely impacted by the clearing of the MTC buffer. o Only 50 ft. of the required MTC buffer shall be disturbed, specifically the area 50 ft. from the Interstate. o Clearing of the MTC buffer shall be allowed only to facilitate development of access roads, parking lots, walkways, and stormwater facilities. o Where clearing occurs, the buffer shall be re-established to the specifications of a Type C Land Use Buffer as detailed in Section 6.8.7 of the UDO. o Buffer area shall be replanted to a minimum 50% of the disturbed buffer width except in those instances where utility services (i.e. power lines, stormwater facilities, water/sewer lines, etc.) prevent replanting. STAFF COMMENT: As a general reminder per Section 4.7.2 of the UDO, the MTC Overlay District extends along all Interstate Highways within the county. In those instances where there is an interchange, the District extends 2,500 ft. on each side of the intersecting roadway. In this specific instance the MTC Overlay District extends along Old NC Highway 86 from the Interstate 40 interchange for 2,500.ft (approximately half a mile). Staff is supportive the proposed condition(s), which will require re- establishment of cleared vegetation along identified roadways. Solid Waste: The applicant has indicated development within the project shall abide by the Orange County Solid Waste Management Ordinance. Analysis: As required under Section 2.9.2 (E) of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to: `cause an analysis to be made of the application' and pass that analysis on to the reviewing body. In analyzing this request, the Planning Director offers the following: 14 1. The application has been deemed complete in accordance with the submittal requirements of Section 2.9.2 (C) of the UDO. 2. The proposal appears consistent with the various goals outlined within the Comprehensive Plan concerning development, including: a. Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern, and designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County's population and economy consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives. b. Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and features and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community character. c. Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system. 3. The applicant has provided a basic environmental assessment as part of this submittal. Staff has reviewed and determined there ought to be no significant environmental impact from this project based on existing conditions. Staff is recommending the imposition of a condition as part of the approval of this project that a formal environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared for all site plan submittals as detailed in Section 6.16 of the UDO. The applicant has agreed to the imposition of this condition. 4. The proposed development appears consistent with existing and anticipated development within the area and the various land uses associated with the project are compatible. 5. Staff has determined the proposed land uses within District(s) 1 and 2 correspond to existing allowable land uses or are consistent with anticipated modifications of the Table of Permitted Uses to be reviewed at a future public hearing. STAFF COMMENT: Staff received direction from the Board of County Commissioners to expand allowable land uses within the EDH-5 general use zoning district to accommodate additional industrial and research land uses. The applicant based their proposal on these recommendation(s). 6. The applicant has proposed to allow for the development of a School elementary, secondary, and high school land use as a permitted use of property within the project. Section 5.2.2 Table of Permitted Uses Economic Development Districts would allow for a School elementary, secondary, and high school land use to be developed within: a. Economic Development Buckhorn Low and High Intensity (EDB-1 and EDB-2) with the review and approval of Class A Special Use Permit, and b. Economic Development Eno Low Intensity (EDE-1) as a permitted use (i.e. subject to staff review and approval of a site plan application only). Currently a School elementary, secondary, and high school land uses are not a permitted within the various Economic Development Hillsborough general use zoning districts (i.e. EDH-1, EDH-2, EDH-3, EDH-4, and EDH-5). 15 While there is concern about allowing the aforementioned land use within this area, staff recommends a condition be imposed indicating that such a development shall abide by the development standards detailed within Section 5.8.4 of the UDO and obtain approval of a Class A Special Use Permit application prior to the commencement of earth disturbing activity. Neighborhood Information Meeting: A neighborhood information meeting for the project was held on September 14, 2017 in accordance with Section 2.9.2 (D) of the UDO. Notes from the meeting can be found within Attachment 7. Notification Requirements: Per Sections 2.9.2 of the UDO, staff has caused a notice of this hearing to be published: `as least twice in a newspaper of public circulation in the County for two (2) successive weeks: ' no less than ten (10) days nor more than twenty-five (25) days' before the public hearing. The legal ad was published accordingly. On October 24, 2017 staff sent written notice(s) to all adjacent property owners located within 1,000 feet of the subject property as required by Section 2.8.7 of the UDO. On October 30, 2017 staff posted sign(s) on the properties subject to the application providing notice of the date, time, and location of the public hearing. Attachment 12 contains the Notification and Certification of Mailing. Planning Board Recommendation: At its October 4, 2017 regular meeting nine Board members, with one member abstaining, voted to recommended approval of the project to include the following additional conditions: a. All site plan applications shall include documentation from the Town of Hillsborough indicating there is sufficient water/sewer capacity to serve the proposed project. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant has agreed to this condition. b. All site plans shall be reviewed not only by County and Town Fire Marshals but also by representatives of the Orange Rural Volunteer Fire Department to approve location of roadways, fire lanes, fire hydrants, etc. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant objects to this condition as recommended. While they are not concerned with having Orange Rural Volunteer Fire Department reviewing and providing comments on development proposals, ultimate approval should remain with the appropriate County and Town officials. Staff recommends the imposition of a condition allowing for the Orange Rural Volunteer Fire Department to review and provide comments as part of the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) review process. c. Eliminate a provision that would allow the development of irrigation wells within the Project. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant recommended the elimination of this provision during the meeting to address a local resident's concern over potential impacts to wells in the area. Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the: 1. Statement of Consistency indicating the zoning atlas amendment(s) for the impacted property are reasonable and in the public interest as contained in Attachment 10, 16 2. Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas, as well as imposing development conditions, for the identified parcels as contained in Attachment 11. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments who have determined that the approval or denial of the request would not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. Costs associated with advertising, including the public hearing notice and mailings, were paid by the applicant in accordance with the adopted Orange County Fee Schedule. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Administration recommends the Board: 1. Receive the proposal as detailed in this abstract and attachments. 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept comments on the proposed amendments. 3. Close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional comments at a later date are permitted). 4. Decide on one of the following options: a. Adopt the Statement of Consistency for proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment(s) (Attachment 10), the Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas and imposing conditions (Attachment 11), as recommended by the Planning Board and staff and agreed to by the applicant; b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date; c. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose; or d. Deny the proposed amendments. (Note: Section 2.2.8 Effect of Denial on Subsequent Applications of the UDO states that no application for the same or similar amendment may be submitted for a period of one year. The one year period begins on the date of denial.) Attachment 1 tQage + fop e t �: 5� �f�° Orange Coun t/ Planning and inspections D epartment cjAP LIC, FQR I T s2 _.--xr 42i ZONING ATLAS I E DMENT Io r1° CONDITIONAL ZONING REQUEST. APPLICANT IN. ORMATION: Dat : 08/04/2017) AppliCant:-James Parker Phone: (919) 732-3883 Address: 504 Meadowlands Drive Cell Phone: Hillsborough,NC 27278 E-mail: james.parkerAsummitde.net PROPERTY SUBJECT TO REQUEST: Parcel Identification Number(PIN): See attached Listing Address of property: OLD NC 86 Owner ofproperty: Various—Under contract to James Parker Current Zoning Designation: See attached Listing Requested Zoning Designation: ** If Applicant/Owner are different people, include a signed, notarized, statement indicating that the owner has authorized the applicant to submit the request. In cases where there are multiple property owners,please attach an additional document containing their signatures authorizing the submission of the application or other legal documentation establishing the applicants right to file on their behalf. ** SUBMITTAL INFORMATION-Section 2.8.3 ofthe Unified Development Ordinance(UDO) 1) A Map, at a legible scale, showing the property(s) subject to the request. A map may be procured at the Planning Department for a fee in accordance with the adopted Orange County Fee Schedule 2) A legal description oftheproperty(s)proposed for rezoning 3). A list showing the names and addresses of all adjacent property owners within 500 feet ofthe subject property. 4) A detailed narrative denoting the following: a. The alleged error in the Zoning Atlas(ifany)that will be corrected by the proposed request. b. The changed, or changing, conditions(if any)that makes the proposed amendment reasonable necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. c. How the proposed amendment is consistent with,or carries out the intent and purpose of,the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, In addition to these general requirements, Section 2.9.2 of the UDO requires all Conditional Zoning to submit the following additional information: 1) A site plan prepared in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.5 of the UDO including the following information: a. A detailed description ofthe proposed use ofproperty including an outline ofthe proposed operational characteristics of the proposed development. b. A detailed traffic survey,regardless ofthe estimated number of trips per day,prepared in accordance with all applicable North Carolina Department ofTransportation requirements or standards as well as Section 6.17 ofthe UDO. c. The appropriate environmental document prepared in accordance with Section 6.16 of the UDO, 18 d. A landscape plan showing the location ofon-site significant trees;proposed screening,buffers,and landscaping; and any proposed treatment of any existing natural feature e. A summary of utility services f. A schedule for construction/development of the property. g. Otherrequired information identified by staffaspartofthe pre-application conference,and 2)The filing fee per the adopted Orange County fee schedule in affect as ofthe date ofthe application. **NOTE: Please see attached documentation for submittal and process information associated with a Conditional Zoning request ** I (we), the undersigned, have been made aware of the process for the review and action associated with a Conditional Use application and understand only completed applications,containing all information required by the Orange County UDO shall be reviewed and acted upon by the County. Further I (we) understand that any assistance I (we) may receive from County staff in preparing this ap)1i cat ion in no way ,ranter. favorable recommendation by staff on the merits of this proposal nor does it g arantee an appro al ofthe prop sed atlas amendment by the County. Applicant Date: Applicant Date: PROPERTY DATA 19 S � � Ji' ' SETTLER'S POINT DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA PARCEL# PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER(PIN) ADDRESS OF PROPERTY OWNER OF PROPERTY CURRENT ZONING 1 9863-71-8857 - Suzanne Upton c/o Jack McDonnell EDH-5;R1 Clayton,et al c/o John Clayton/Bill 2 9863-91-6573 - Aucoin EDH-2;EDH-5;R1 3 9873-11-4636 3210 Old NC86,Hillsborough,27278 Michael Dodson EDH-2 4 9873-11-5415 3220 Old NC86,Hillsborough,27278 Paul Dodson EDH-2 5 9873-11-7506 - Michael Dodson EDH-2 6 9873-11-9450 3224 Old NC86,Hillsborough,27278 Michael Dodson EDH-2 Cathy W.Fuquay,Cynthia& 7 9873-11-7247 3300 Old NC86,Hillsborough,27278 William Bessoir EDH-2 8 9873-10-7937 3312 Old NC86,Hillsborough,27278 Steven&Jesse Kaufman EDH-2 Harold M.&Rebecca Harris/ 9 9873-20-2388 - Robert J.&Lucille Ayers EDH-4;R1 10 9873-10-4310 3410 Old NC86,Hillsborough,27278 Beatrice Brooks EDH-2;R1 11 9873-10-4230 110 Gladys Ln.,Hillsborough,27278 M.W.&George W.Sudyk EDH-2;R1 12 9873-10-8103 - Michael William Sudyk EDH-2;EDH-4;R1 13 9872-19-6844 119 Gladys Ln,,Hillsborough,27278 Ted and Beverly Bryant EDH-4;R1 14 9872-19-3459 - Ted and Beverly Bryant R1 15 9872-19-8336 - Ted and Beverly Bryant R1 16 9872-29-2222 - Ted and Beverly Bryant R1 17 9872-29-8289 - Ted and Beverly Bryant EDH-4;R1;RB 18 9872-28-6779 - Ted and Beverly Bryant R1;RB 19 9872-18-7626 - Ted and Beverly Bryant R1;RB 20 9872-09-8324 - Ted and Beverly Bryant R1;RB R1:Rural residential RB:Rural buffer EDH-2:Economic Development-Limited Office EDH-4:Economic Development-Office/Retail EDH-5:Economic Development-Research and manufacturing i 1 20 All Landowners Sagefield Business Park - Settler's Point All Properties Under Contract at 1/13/17 Name Acres PIN Contract Date Michael William Sudyk 3.27 9872.19.6844 3/2/2015 Michael William Sudyk 3.27 9873-10-8103 3/2/2015 M.W.&George W.Sudyk 4.21 9873-10-4230 3/2/2015 Beatrice Brooks 2.45 9873-10-4310 3/2/2015 Steven&Jesse Kaufman 4.50 9873-10-7937 11/4/2015 Cathy W. Fuquay, Cynthia&William Bessoir 1.46 9873-11-7247 4/18/2016 Michael Dodson 1.75 9873-11-9450 9/3/2016 Paul Dodson 1.65 9873-11-5415 9/3/2016 Michael Dodson 1.36 9873-11-4636 9/3/2016 Michael Dodson 0.50 9873-11-7506 9/3/2016 Harold M.& Rebecca Harris 34.58 9873-20-2388 3/2/2015 Robert J. & Lucille Ayers Ted and Beverly Bryant 10.09 9872-19-3459 10/7/2015 Ted and Beverly Bryant 10.06 9872-09-8324 10/7/2015 Ted and Beverly Bryant 10.01 9872-18-7626 10/7/2015 Ted and Beverly Bryant 4.00 9872-28-6779 10/7/2015 Ted and Beverly Bryant 10.01 9872-29-8289 10/7/2015 Ted and Beverly Bryant 10.01 9872-29-2222 10/7/2015 Ted and Beverly Bryant 10.01 9872-19-8336 10/7/2015 Suzanne Upton 90.37 9863-71-8857 9/14/2015 c/o Jack McDonnell Clayton,et al 58.56 9863-91-6573 12/22/2015 c/o John Clayton/Bill Aucoin Grand Total 272.12 _Property owners wihtin 21 1000 ft. PIN OWNERI LAST OWNERI FIRST J3315 DRESSI ADDRESS2 CITY STATE ZIPCODE SIZE LEGAL DESC DEEDREF 9873402548 WOODSEDGE PROPERTIES LLC 22 LITTLE RIVER CH RD HURDLE MILLS NC 27541 50 WOODSEDGE P56/11 1852/224 9873320287 UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA #319 HOOL CB7600 CHAPEL HILL NC 27514 57.7 22 REV UNC HOSPITALS P108/150-151 4832/301 9873116137 BARLOW RANT B 1R OLD NC 86 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 1 24 HOFLER 9873111777 SCARLETT LOUISE 1 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 1 TR 3 STATE OF N C W/S SR 1009 5089/206 9873110739 SCARLETT LOUISE 1 RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 0.29 TR 2 STATE OF N C W/O SR 1009 5089/206 9873110686 SCARLETT LOUISEJ RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 1.04 W/O SR 1009 5089/206 9873107608 FONTENELLE BARBARA 116 OLLIE DR BELLE CHASSE LA 700374134 5.2 18-20 T P HOFLER 226/164 9873100408 WALKER ROWDY 8 1877 FLYING W TRL Hillsborough NC 27278 3.33 1-2 T P HOFLER PROP W/S OLD HWY 86 5155/286 9873045166 OLD 86 COMMONS LLC PO BOX 1083 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 6.36 W/S OLD HWY 86 2047/58 9873038433 SLF II NC WATERSTONE LLC SUITE 1750 5949 SHERRY LANE DALLAS TX 75225 1.7 W/S OLD NC 86 3809/177 9873019000 BARLOW RANT B 1R 3315 OLD NC 86 HILLSBOROUGH NC 1 27278 2.08 2 RILEY&BARLOW P40/146 9873018382 BERRY VICKIE R 1810 ADAMS PLACE HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789513 7.16#1 RILEY&BARLOW P40/146 714/144 9873017820 SCARLETTE LOUISE 1 RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 0.46 TR 1 STATE OF N C W/O SR 1009 5089/206 9873017657 SCARLETT LOUISE 8 RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 1.63 W/O SR 1009 5089/206 9873014031 BARLOW RANT B 1R 3315 OLD NC 86 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 12.46 W/O SR 1009 AKA OLD 86 9873009867 DAVIS JUANITA C 3319 OLD NC HWY 86 Hillsborough NC 27278 3.26 MAJ P/O 5&6 HOFLER 5850/389 9873008345 SHORE JOSEPH S 3501 OLD NC 86 HILLSBOROUGH NC 1 27278 2.84 1 LARRY CARROLL 1R P48/3 6165/29 9873007189 BOXTER JOHN 1R 3423 OLD NC 86 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 1.41 2 LARRY CARROLL 1R P48/3 6119/152 9873006678 BEST VIVIAN 4018 WRENN RD DURHAM NC 27705 1#1 VIVIEN DODSON&VIVIAN D BEST P52/192 793/479 9872491050 JORDAN KAREN S 1622 SCARLETT MOUNTAIN RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 7.87 P/O#1 CALVIN SCARLETT CH TP P28/64 359/169 9872483693 EADS DERRICK 8 1608 SCARLETT MOUNTAIN RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 7.18 P/O#2 CALVIN SCARLETT P28/64 4327/310 9872398582 WOODSEDGE PROPERTIES LLC 4522 LITTLE RIVER CH RD HURDLE MILLS NC 27541 48.77 THE WOODS P56/11 1852/224 9872389298 SCARLETT CALVIN R 1600 E SCARLETT MT RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 6.54 P/O#3 CALVIN SCARLETT PROP CH TP P28/64 283/1777 9872384311 REA LANDCOM INC null PO BOX 52328 DURHAM NC 27717 1.38 3S SCARLETT PROPERTY P114/164 6009/574 9872383673 EADS DERRICK 8 1608 SCARLETT MOUNTAIN RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 0.7412S SCARLETT PROPERTY P114/164 4327/310 9872372863 SCARLETT GERALD E RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 272788318 12.38#2 PETER METZNER P55/26 3561/462 9872286360 REA LANDCOM INC null PO BOX 52328 DURHAM NC 27717 28.2 A-REV REC SCARLETT PROP P116/85 6009/572 9872274693 SCARLETT GERALD E 416 WEST SCARLETT MTN RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 272788318 13.8 E/O SR 1009 P39/110 1287/398 9872191961 DUKE JEANINE L 4606 PACES FERRY DR DURHAM NC 27712 1.22#1 NANCY JUSTICE ETAL P58/16 2603/69 9872188329 JERNIGAN JOEL 3333 CHAPEL HILL BLVD DURHAM NC 27707 3.44 1S-REV REC SCARLETT PROP P116/85 6228/276 9872183072 JERNIGAN JOEL 3333 CHAPEL HILL BLVD STE C DURHAM NC 27707 15.65 JOE L&VICKIE R JERNIGAN P115/171 6128/63 9872095945 LEE LARRY 8 3503 OLD NC 86 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 2 NW/S SR 1009 1910/361 9872087570 HAMLETT CHARLENE W 3333 CHAPEL HILL BLVD STE C DURHAM NC 27707 19.110E L&VICKIE R JERNIGAN P115/171 6128/61 9872080892 CLARK CLETUS L 1412 ALBERT DR MITCHELLVILLE MD 20716 13 13 AC#4 HARVEY CLARK HRS CH TP P30/142 333/19 9872080373 CONNERY MARCANDREW 3820 OLD NC 86 HILLSBOROUGH NC 1 27278 4.72#1 MARC A&SHARON CONNERY P43/186 541/264 9872073445 MELCHIONE CHERI BLVD CHAPEL HILL NC 27514 38 E/S 1009 OLD 86 6143/393 9871766139 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PO BOX 15580 DURHAM NC 27704 563.83 I-40 R/W I-85 691/559 9863936843 ADDISON SALLY A PO BOX 727 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 112.8 N/S RIPPY LN 6024/200 9863900565 GWIN SUMMERS MYRA E 103 GRAPEVINE LN HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 3.87 3 REV GWIN-SUMMERS P103/172 2588/86 9863827960 ADDISON WALLEN PO BOX 727 HILLSBOROUGH NC 272780727 2.7 N/O I-40 6024/200 9863809523 GWIN SUMMERS MYRA E 103 GRAPEVINE LN HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 3.1112 REV GWIN-SUMMERS P103/172 2588/86 9863805324 DAVIS DIANNE H 319 DAVIS RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 8.01 N/O SR 1129 9863802371 BARNETT ANGELA DENISE DAVIS 549 DIXON RD i WILLOW SPRING NC 27592 10.01#C ISABETH W DAVIS P94/98 3548/480 9863709304 MUNOZ MIGUELG 425 DAVIS RD I HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789330 10.01 B ISABETH W DAVIS P94/98 4966/522 9863705049 DAVIS ISABETH W 319 DAVIS RD I HILLSBOROUGH NC 272788395 16.44#A ISABETH W DAVIS P94/98 9863700110 DAVIS ISABETH W 319 DAVIS RD I HILLSBOROUGH NC 272788395 10.673#1A DAVIS PROP P43/145 N/S SR 1129 22 9863632994 DUCLAY VERONICA 32 GREENHILLS RD STATION NY 11746 20 W/SI-40 R/W 5280/512 9863615525 LINEBERRY JOSEPH LLOYD JR 3106 WILSHIRE DR GREENSBORO NC 274083013 25 E/O SR 1130 9863607374 TAPP FREDERICK 4030 LEGATO LN EFLAND NC 27243 8.08 6 DAVIS FARM P92/113 5960/420 9863604417 GILLIS JOEL K 6321 ANGUS DR RALEIGH NC 27617 7.37 5 DAVIS FARM P92/113 5960/427 9863539059 GARLAND FRANKLIN E 3020 ODE TURNER RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789631 57.06#A 2&TR REC FRANKLIN GARLAND P76/90 1485/355 9863526072 GARLAND JAMES 2711 ODE TURNER RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 1 272787631 56.221#13 3&TR REC FRANKLIN GARLAND P76/90 1485/358 9863503862 HALL KAREN FAITH TURNER 1101 SAM TUCKER LANE HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 10.39#1 KAREN HALL P96/88 9862999596 CLARK MATTHEW ETAL 4503 BUMPHUS RD CHAPEL HILL NC 27514 0.25 CHRIST P55/74 318/263 9862998894 CLARK CLETUS 1412 ALBERT DR MITCHELLVILLE MD 20716 13.433#2 HARVEY CLARK HRS CLETUS CLARK SUBDIV 451/157 9862997320 HILLSBOROUGH UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST 200 DAVIS RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 15.65 CHRIST P55/74 4724/54 9862992837 BARLOW DAVID M 223 DAVIS RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 272787317 2#2A HARVEY CLARK HRS P49/149 N/S SR 1129 987/342 9862991849 GWIN SUMMERS MYRA E 103 GRAPEVINE LN HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 2.641A REV GWIN-SUMMERS P103/172 2588/86 9862990443 SCOTT ROY VERNON 302 DAVIS RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 2 DAVIS O C 1129 469/45 9862988192 CONNERY MARCANDREW 3820 OLD NC 86 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 3.87#2 MARC A&SHARON CONNERY P43/186 541/264 9862984823 CLARK MATTHEW ETAL 4503 BUMPHUS RD CHAPEL HILL NC 27514 1.73 W/S SR 1009(OLD 86) 318/263 9862899868 GWIN SUMMERS MYRA E 103 GRAPEVINE LN Hillsborough NC 27278 2.91 1 REV GWIN-SUMMERS P103/172 5455/571 9862898435 AUSTIN WILLIAM NEALIR 2803 LITTLE RIVER DRIVE HILLSBOROUGH NC 272789720 2.33 S/S DAVIS RD P81/104 1783/400 9862896927 DAVIS DIANNE H 319 DAVIS RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 2 N/S SR 1129 9862896438 HILTON MISTY C 320 DAVIS RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 2 2 NANCY DUNNAGAN P44/67 5952/119 9862894739 HILTON MISTY C 320 DAVIS RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 1.29 3 NANCY DUNNAGAN P44/67 5952/119 9862894553 HILTON MISTY C 320 DAVIS RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 1.01 S/S SR 11921 NANCY DUNNAGAN 5952/119 9862893609 DAVIS DIANNE H 319 DAVIS RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 0.65 D ISABETH W DAVIS P94/98 9862891480 BUCHANAN JAMES GJR 1313 OAK RIDGE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 272787395 3.53821#1 WHITE OAK P60/73 1891/123 9862698851 ROJAS IRWIN O 111 LINNET RD Hillsborough INC 1 27278 1.3613 DAVIS FARM P92/113 15380/523 9862690948 WRIGHT I ROBBIE D 3914 ODE TURNER RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 1 272789377 15.43 15.43 AC N/S SR 1130 CH TP P30/5 307/392 TI TI TT T1I I, I TT T#aTJ TI IT.TTI - 1031 1114-, BB&T 1111 OLD NC 86 PARTNERS, LLC 23 LD 504 MEADOWLANDS DR. NORTH CAROLINA 1111111 HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 66-112/531 11 (919)732-5055 02/02/2017 0 2, 1 111111 0 r 11111 11111111 PAY TO THE . Orange County Planning and Inspections De $ **9,296.00 111111 ORDER OF % I I I ** * ******** I Nine Thousand Two Hundred Ninety-Six and 00/100******************************************************* * ** DOLLARS 4' 111111 I III Orange County Planning and 1 1 114-4, Inspections Department , , ,Al 1 ,h ,,,,, „," , h h 131 W. Margaret Lane , / , ItillIld1 10 ‘ Hillsborough NC 27278 [ ol' i 11/ 0. .,0, _ f 1 MEMO 19i 10 IVLD SIGNATURE ,0 00000 LO 3 Lila 1:0 S 3 LO L L 2 L1:000 5 20 291, 79LEol 1 li I 11 1 1) ) 1/ 0 L 1 i) I 1111 I [ 1111 1111 1111 1111 Ifi 14 1111 I1J J1 1) 11' ) 111 11 II f I 0 11) 11 11' 1(1 f I If , 1 1111, ®®®`ikwmalri j ,; g : ' Attachment 2 - Vicinity Map . , // 1 jI 1 COLLEGE pd I PARK RD r '` WATF S r I ® �/ • t� ? R TOAi� SUMMIT/ `, % l�` v O,Q j��TRAILI o! ,, /*-,1)(I ( QTN " ,, 'RIPPY—W, rn Flood � !� � Panel: � pror. '.... �`" - ., 1 9873 "I °� `V �+/ 1 40 W _ s, ?: . ,: ENT261 14p- ��, 14w , District 2 fl Flood t- r /��i�F E 9863) / !� -�67 Ap� ti I , I r s i I_. i',v tai , •�� °, ALICE L 111111111 v / b /NM" irf/ r xs� District 1 °" a a ED •„- ^� ^ ' GLADYS.LN T!! EIT• � DAV/s R 4 .Dr // Panel tf ? � ,� � � ThIS area Flood 4 OLD * ' panel: �' ° HEFT/AGE cT /� �y *4 ~ represented 9872) ur b ;r �} Y District 3, which WSCARLETT was eliminated as MOUNTAING� r■ ///���:� part of this ��, i request. //Stream Buffer 65ft ('FIRM Floodway(Effective N Data shown on this map is obtained from Orange County '/,Floodplain Buffer 65ft 100 YR Floodplain 02/02/07) G Exact locations is for reference only. Exact locations and boundaries should be verified. El Parcels (Effective 02/02/07) I Map prepared by Orange County Planning&Inspections. 10/20/2017-mharvey Streets 1 inch = 800 feet 0 750 1,500 I Feet 25 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Current Planning 131 W. Margaret Lane (919) 245-2575 Suite 201 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) 7)14 A 1 P.1 P. O. Box 8181 www.orangecountync.gov NOR 1 (ARCA INA Hillsborough, NC 27278 6., 0, 601.1101,,�''Of �rw� 1 Ih,/�V%i jl,i^l V .° ' % ..., — :11°1111:1t ri 01n1 �� ir 9�//I ,nlul�a�R•a�g% %: SETTLERS POINT: As modified by the applicant, the proposal involves the rezoning of 10 parcels of property, totaling approximately 195 acres in area, further identified as follows: 1. A 90.37 acre tract of land PIN# 9863-71-8857, 2. A 58.56 acre tract of land PIN# 9863-91-6573, 3. A 1.36 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-11-4636, 4. A 1.65 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-11-5415, 5. A 0.50 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-11-7506, 6. A 1.75 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-11-9450, 7. A 1.46 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-11-7247, 8. A 4.50 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-10-7937, 9. A 34.58 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-20-2388, and 10. A 2.45 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-10-4310 26 The project is broken down into the following areas: 1 . District 1 Light Industrial/Manufacturing and Research —Located west of Old NC 86 accessed via Service Road and south of Interstate 40 intended to provide for light industrial/manufacturing and research operations. The District is approximately 148 acres in area involving 2 parcels of property (PINs 9863- 71-8857 and 9863-91-6573) and is depicted within the submitted application narrative as follows: • •ti. •Y, i•a., .. y.r ► P • ti sir fir* - . :Y.i•' • - •‘. ` — ] .,Y" * - f • . .. 2. District 2 Commercial —Located east of Old NC Highway 86 and south of Interstate 40 intended to provide for high intensity office uses, retail, and services. The District is approximately 47 acres in area involving 8 parcels of property (PINs 9873-11-4636, 9873-11-5415, 9873-11-7506, 9873-11-9450, 9873-11-7247, 9873-10-7937, 9873-20-2388, and 9873-10-4310) and is depicted within the submitted application narrative as follows: • cam. - ! '? _ - l _'s. �.• 'IL..l(i'..R. "�.-aye '.•y'� t�! _�. .. I MYRTLE TOWN'ORIOFQ?.GTJ/ Al RUBRUM UN III �NI R/orPL QQ' Attachment 3 - Future Land Use WATERSTONE Y �J , Map / Growth Management System PARK©� FI!ETCH: U. COUNTY 6" 'Map E SEAT DR`cS4 �� �, a ill . -�,' HOOVER Fr 4i Nog )7" +- OUDRRSO it, 1' ,,,,,,,,�,, ! WINTLNPASq O k/ig i� j-.. qTF �(m � RST0NF,aR TRtAIL DR 4, .q 4/ r ,� RIPPY-'LN 140 W ENT/;261/1/1. 4o�F° \ District 2 ' 3 /1 .75t p� y /Zji9:- I--40 6,7 A / /(', A IIII l' / / 26, , simmiNEME 117/ ‘) I . ; ■ District 1 - / 0 _.,- ' yo �9DYS�N i2 illu.. ...._\y, i AA,VAS RD - ETDR Ao / / i ,x i ill This area °��R�x °� TINY FS 41.represented °9F°R - DR District 3, which , --� was eliminated as 40 0 part of this to:HEALT-O . , �' request. AGE:CT r V,■ 7/Floodplain Buffer 80ft Rural Residential — USGS Stream Sir Ms 833.333 feet F Data shown on this map is obtained from Orange County GIS and is for reference only. _ 10 Year Transition Rural Buffer Soils Survey Stream 100 YR Floodplain C Exact locations and boundaries should be verified. Map prepared by Orange County Planning&Inspections. ■ EDD Transition City Limits -- OC Updated Stream (Effective 02/02/07) Y 11/01/2017-mharvey 20 Year Transition ETJ Q Parcels 0 790 1,580 Feet Growth Management System 28 Urban and Rural Designated Areas Urban Designated-Property located within Transition Areas as identified in the Land Use Plan. Rural Designated-Property not located in Urban Designated areas I • 4■ 1114 I po. b 123 -Nev N m ______ :,,, W�};� _&_E m.-1 Area where District �� I 1 and 2 are located Legend Urban Designated Rural Designated ` Rural Buffer City Limits ��_V' Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction Chapel Hill/Carrboro Transition - (Not part of Growth Management t .- 0 System) 15 EDe 0 1 2 3 ® Miles 1 inch = 3 miles Orange County Planning and Inspections Department GIS Map Prepared by Brian Carson. Growth Management System adopted by BOCC 11/5/03 Printed 9/20/2017 Attachment 4 29 SL.Jt's1 .1I1 919.732.3883 SUMMIT•ENGINEER.COM DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES 504 Meadowland Drive, Hillsborough,NC 27278 October 25, 2017 Mr. Michael D. Harvey, AICP, CFM, CZO Current Planning Supervisor Orange County Planning Department 131 West Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Re: Settler's Point - request to formally remove District 3 from the MPD-CZ application Dear Michael: I am formally requesting that District 3 be removed from the current application and that any and all action on our request only involve Districts 1 and 2. This is to formalize our request made at the October 4, 2017 Orange County Planning Board meeting. As you are aware earlier in 2017 we submitted the aforementioned MPD-CZ application involving approximately 272 acres of property allowing for a mixed-use development project including industrial/manufacturing, commercial, and residential: continuing care land uses. The project was further broken down into the following separate development areas: District 1: Light Industrial/Manufacturing and Research - The district is located west of Old NC 86 accessed via Service Road and south of Interstate 40 intended to provide for light industrial/manufacturing and research operations. The District is approximately 148 acres in area involving 2 existing parcels of property (PINs 9863-71- 8857 and 9863-91-6573) and is depicted within the submitted application narrative as follows: } i ice- I' I jry I 1 1 � 30 ) i SUI' �IIT y= I i .. �A DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES District 2: Commercial -The district is located within the central most portion of the property, along Interstate 40 intended to provide for high intensity office uses and supporting retail and services. The District is approximately 47 acres in area involving 8 parcels of property (PINs 9873-11-4636, 9873-11-5415, 9873-11- 7506, 9873-11-9450, 9873-11-7247, 9873-10-7937, 9873-20-2388, and 9873-10-4310) and is depicted within the submitted application narrative as follows: sitsr.,,yliiiimair„..-„ ;,,...,:„, ,„1.,, ' � v4 ; _ y . .r '% 1 , , , i!. R ' ti, • 4' . : ' r 0;•'.... • 0 — 7 .: ' .,,,,•1/4,‘ ' '.,, ,- r, . 0 8 ..,4fr. -- . _: 4„.. ;., „., ; "i r. • _ i, 7- 1 4stkluktitiw ,,-;:-iisoot:4100 -�1 4 � "tti i Y• • a, ,yam ;,.,,' F h�� #�til 14 "a 1.0 - . �+i '.:E - Y .Dig, t } 4„ •t i �{ + 0Na' l -+w i 3 .d !!s .r _ \ ' 1 }x, '\ District 3: Residential: Continuing Care - The district is broken down into 2 distinct areas, namely: a. The Multi-Family District: Located within the southern portion of the project along Old NC 86, and Gladys Lane intended to provide for low to moderate intensity office uses as well as multi-family residential uses with a maximum allowable density of 10 units per acre. b. Single Family District: Located within the southeastern most portion of the project along Old NC 86 and north of Destiny Drive, intended to provide for single family residential (continuing care) uses. As currently proposed, development would be limited to continuing care/assisted living facilities and single- family housing for the elderly. The District is approximately 76 acres in area involving 10 parcels of property (PINs 9873-10-4230, 9873-10-8103, 9872-19-6844, 9872-19-3549, 9872-19-8336, 9872-29- 2222, 9872-29-8289, 9872-28-6779, 9872-18-7626, and 9872-09-8324) and is depicted within the submitted application narrative as follows: 31 r ft SUI' 'IIT ,,; DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES A 9r 1 .,'IV N '\■:,,,.:.'"A,'`'' Y, T--1 •' Bit M1–?y ti` - —.`�– s 1 x:' _;, 20 14 l 2 15 \ .\\\17 \ I t•:suet'. ,, 18 l _ 1 .7,,,,,,.00-,,,N ' \ _ t r., . .y-1'-;.:A-,J' y.rr'} `„, }ter / ...,f, ..,-1 _.: 14 . s��w�Zt �,�,.�,'i,t °J �..,hS,:,:z.,... -�'` {�'' ,jt ; ; ",,,f } .,;� '. 1, " l'- �.J R,; cif• `,•;• .''s 4% 4; I ` 'jam r, ;}a r fr x F 1 As we understand the situation there are concerns from the Town of Hillsborough about serving a residential development south of the Interstate. As a result County initiated amendments to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan and the Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) in support of our project were tabled. This, ultimately, limited our ability to move forward with the project as originally submitted. To that end, and as previously indicated herein, we formally requested District 3 be eliminated from our MPD-CZ application. Our current plan is to meet with County and Town officials to understand their concerns in an attempt to facilitate moving forward with the residential: continuing care portion of the project as proposed within our original application. It is our hope to have a revised application/narrative submitted to the County in time for review by the Planning Board at its April 2018 regular meeting. Respe• ul submitted, k Jim •arker, PE, PL CEO 1 perations Manager Attachment 5 32 SUMMIT lP 919.7323883 SUMMIT•ENGINEER.COM DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES 504 Meadowland Drive, Hillsborough,NC 27278 October 25, 2017 Mr. Michael D. Harvey, AICP, CFM, CZO Current Planning Supervisor Orange County Planning Department 131 West Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Re: Settler's Point - response to recommended conditions associated with our MPD-CZ application Dear Michael: Please accept this letter detailing our response to recommended conditions associated with the Setter's Point Master Planned Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) application request. we had no objections to the condition(s) as originally recommended by staff and presented to the Planning Board at its October 4, 2017 regular meeting. During the Planning Board meeting the Board and staff recommended modification of said condition(s) as follows: 1. Condition 4 (b) to be rewritten by adding the following language denoted in red underlined text: For development of structures, vehicular use areas, and roadways, a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) shall be completed in accordance with Section 6.17 of the UDO regardless of anticipated traffic counts for the development. APPLICANT COMMENT: We have no objection with the addition of highlighted language to the condition. 2. A new Condition 4 (f) reading as follows: Documentation indicating the Town of Hillsborough has reviewed a site plan application package and determined there is sufficient water and sewer capacity to serve the project. A lack of water and/or sewer capacity shall result in the denial of the site plan application by the County. APPLICANT COMMENT: We believe this recommended condition is consistent with existing agreements and requirements and have no objection with its imposition. 3. Condition 5 (f) reading as follows: The right-of-way and roadway for Service Road shall be extended West through District 1 to provide additional connectivity to adjacent parcels. Any extension of Service Road shall be constructed to NC Department of Transportation public road standards. APPLICANT COMMENT: We have an objection to this condition as recommended. We agree with the need of dedicating Right-of-way with the intention to provide connectivity to adjacent parcels, but not to be responsible to extend the roadway. We would like to note that the future roadway extension should be designed based in the trip generated by the adjacent future land use with consideration to the existing floodplain to the West of District 1. We request the BOCC rewrite the condition as follows: The right-of-way for Service Road shall be extended West through District 1 to provide future additional connectivity to adjacent parcels. 33 SUts eIIT DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES 4. Condition 6 being revised to indicate all site plans shall be reviewed and approved not only by County and Town Fire Marshals but also by representatives of the Orange Rural Volunteer Fire Department with respect to the location of roadways, fire lanes, fire hydrants, etc. APPLICANT COMMENT: We have an objection to this condition as recommended. While we wholeheartedly support having Orange Rural Volunteer Fire Department review and provide comments on development proposals, ultimate approval should remain with the appropriate County and Town officials. We request the BOCC rewrite the condition as follows: For all site plans within the Project, the Orange Rural Volunteer Fire Department to be provided a copy of the proposal, and invited to County Development Advisory Committee (DAC) meetings, to review and provide comments on the development proposal consistent with the provision(s) of Section 1.9 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). 5. Condition 13 (a) (iii) shall be amended to eliminate the unnecessary repetition/listing of a 'Movie Theater' from District 2. APPLICANT COMMENT: As indicated during the October 4, 2017 Planning Board meeting, staff identified a typo within the condition establishing the list of permitted land uses, specifically the'Movie Theater' land use was listed more than once. We have no objection with the elimination of this typo. Further, we request the BOCC consider allowing for a further modification of the condition by eliminating the term 'Movie'and revise the land use to be'Theater'. This would permit development of all theater uses (i.e. movie, play, etc.) within District 2. 6. Condition 13 (h) (i) be revised to eliminate language allowing for the development of irrigation wells within the Project. APPLICANT COMMENT: As indicated during the October 4, 2017 Planning Board meeting, we hereby withdraw language from the application allowing for the development of individual irrigation wells. Through this letter we do not object to the imposition of a condition prohibiting same. 7. Condition 13 (h) (vi) be modified by adding the following language denoted in red underlined text: No disturbance of the MTC buffer along adjacent Interstates shall be permitted with the first 50 ft. as measured from the right-of-way unless clearing is consistent with the provisions of Section 6.6.5 (A) of the UDO APPLICANT COMMENT: As indicated during the October 4, 2017 Planning Board meeting, we have no objection to the recommended modification. We are fully aware further modification of the recommended condition(s) is possible as the project is continued to be reviewed. Further we reserve the right to offer comments/suggestions on the possible re-wording of said conditions to address future review comments, most notably from the NC Department of Transportation and the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Re pectfully submitted, I 11� Jim Par' -r, P , • CEO/Oper. ions Manager Attachment 6 34 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Administration 131 W. Margaret Lane (919) 245-2575 Suite 201 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181 www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278 • • — a. A '.' All ,l Mb GGam!' Di®L� r BB Ai lii� a " ' ° ' frwo- February 27, 2017 Jim Parker Chad Abbott Summit Engineering Summit Engineering 504 Meadowlands Drive 504 Meadowlands Drive Hillsborough,NC 27278 Hillsborough,NC 27278 Re: REVIEW of Conditional Zoning Petition for Settler's Point — Master Plan Development Conditional Rezoning INITIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS To Whom It May Concern: On or about February 3, 2017 the Orange County Planning Department received a Conditional Zoning Atlas Amendment application for several parcels located south of Interstate 40 within the Hillsborough Township. Specifically staff received an application to rezone several properties to Master Plan Development (MPD) Conditional Zoning for a mixed use development project entitled Settler's Ridge (hereafter `the project'). The processing of MPD Conditional Zoning applications is detailed within Section 2.9 Conditional Districts of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). According to the submitted narrative the project is a: ` ... mixed use development intended to encompass a variety of retail, service, office, light industrial/manufacturing, research, residential, and ancillary support industries designed to serve as an economic generator for Orange County and southern Hillsborough'. Three (3) distinct development/zoned areas are being created as part of the project namely: • Light Industrial/Manufacturing and Research, • Commercial, and • Residential—Senior Living. Parcels subject to the submitted application are identified utilizing the following Orange County Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN's): 1. A 90.37 acre tract of land—PIN 9863-71-8857 2. A 58.56 acre tract of land—PIN 9863-91-6573 3. A 2.10 acre tract of land—PIN 9873-10-0657 1 35 4. A 1.36 acre tract of land-PIN 9873-11-4636 5. A 1.65 acre tract of land-PIN 9873-11-5415 6. A 0.50 acre tract of land-PIN 9873-11-7506 7. A 1.75 acre tract of land-PIN 9873-11-9450 8. A 1.46 acre tract of land-PIN 9873-11-7247 9. A 4.50 acre tract of land-PIN 9873-10-7937 10. A 34.58 acre tract of land-PIN 9873-20-2388 11. A 2.45 acre tract of land-PIN 9873-10-4310 12. A 4.21 acre tract of land-PIN 9873-10-4230 13. A 3.27 acre tract of land-PIN 9873-10-8103 14. A 3.27 acre tract of land-PIN 9872-19-6844 15. A 10.09 acre tract of land-PIN 9872-19-3549 16. A 10.01 acre tract of land-PIN 9872-19-8336 17. A 10.01 acre tract of land-PIN 9872-29-2222 18. A 10.01 acre tract of land-PIN 9872-29-8289 19. A 4.00 acre tract of land-PIN 9872-28-6779 20. A 10.01 acre tract of land-PIN 9872-18-7626 21. A 10.06 acre tract of land-PIN 9872-09-8324 As previously conveyed to you staff determined the application package was complete and was accepted for processing. As a general reminder the timeline for the review of the project remains as follows: a. February/March 2017-Staff review and comment. b. March 27, 2017-Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM). A NIM shall be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on the aforementioned date allowing local property owners to ask the applicant questions and for staff to provide information on the process associated with the review of the project. Please note letters informing property owners within 1,000 feet of the project of the meeting date, time, and location will be sent by staff on March 8, 2017. Signs advertising the NIM shall be posted in the area on March 10, 2017. c. April 5, 2017-Planning Board meeting. d. May 22, 2017-Quarterly Public Hearing-BOCC review. In reviewing the submitted application package, staff would like to offer the following comments. I. GENERAL COMMENT(S): A. Compliance with Section 6.7.1 (B) of the UDO: In accordance with the aforementioned section staff is requesting the following modifications of the submitted application. 1. Section 6.7.1 (B) (1) of the UDO requires a map of the development site. The submitted map needs to be modified as follows: i. Label and identify the various `lines' on the submitted map(s). 2 36 For example there several `dashed lines' on Exhibit 1 Land Use Plan that are not identified. While staff may have the ability to guess what the lines represent the map(s) are not user friendly for the general public Please provide a legend indicating what these lines represent (i.e. project boundary lines, utility easements, utility service areas, rights-of-way,,etc.). ii. Label and document the width of all adjacent rights-of-way including, but not limited to: Interstate 40, Old NC Highway 86, Service Road, Destiny Lane, Gladys Lane, etc. You can label each roadway and provide a table denoting `status' of the roadway (i.e. public or private) and provide right-of-way widths to avoid confusion on the actual map. iii. Label and document all proposed and/or required landscaped and buffer areas for the project. For example there are streams and floodplains on the properties covered by the project that are not properly identified. Please label all proposed/required buffers as to what they are (i.e. stream buffer, floodplain buffer, Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) buffer, utility land use buffers, project perimeter buffers, etc.) and their proposed/required widths. STAFF COMMENT: Staff recommends references to these areas be included on the existing Exhibit 1 map with references to a separate map providing the requested detail in an effort to avoid confusion. iv. Identify and denote any existing structure(s) located on the properties associated with the project. 2. Section 6.7.1 (B) (2) of the UDO requires a map denoting the general layout of the proposed project. While staff is aware there is no specific land use associated with the project as of the writing of this letter, we nevertheless recommend a new exhibit be created providing the following information: i. A close-up layout of each individual development `pod' or area to include the following: 1. Anticipated location of curb cuts onto existing roadways. 2. A typical public road access cross section detail for the individual development areas. 3. A typical interior roadway design standard (i.e. cross section) including drainage detail(s) and explanation of how drainage will be handled by interior road systems if at all. 3 37 4. If there is a proposed layout (i.e. creation of individual parcels allowing for development) please denote same on this map. 5. Denote the location of any and all anticipated master drainage basin areas. STAFF COMMENT: The project indicates there will be 70% of impervious surface area for the project. Each development area is identified as having an allotment of square footage supporting the development of allowable land uses. From our standpoint it would behoove you to have master drainage basins identified within the project area to address compliance with applicable County stormwater standards as detailed in Section 6.15 of the UDO. We encourage you to provide this detail including appropriate cross sections and base calculations for the master stormwater areas. 3. Section 6.7.1 (B) (3) of the UDO requires a map detailing each allowable land use per individual development area (i.e. pod) to include a `master plan proposed use matrix' designed to identify how conflicts between adjacent land uses are to be addressed. STAFF COMMENT: We recommend taking the table of allowable uses contained within the project narrative and placing on a new map exhibit. An example compatibility matrix can be found in Section 6.7.1 (B) (3) of the UDO. This can all be placed on the new map exhibit to ensure compliance with the MPD Conditional Zoning submittal requirements. 4. Section 6.7.1 (B) (4) of the UDO requires a map detailing all setbacks and buffers for the project. As previously indicated herein, staff is recommending a new exhibit detailing proposed/required buffer areas associated with the project. This new map can also provide additional detail on internal and external setbacks for the project as detailed in the submitted narrative. 5. Section 6.7.1 (B) (5) of the UDO requires information detailing the maximum building heights for the project. While the narrative does provide this detail, staff is recommending Exhibit 1 be modified to include a chart denoting the allowable building heights for each individual development area(i.e. pod). 6. Section 6.7.1 (B) (6) of the UDO requires a map detailing the utility master plan for the project. This was submitted as part of the application and is denoted as map Exhibit 2. 4 38 Staff is requesting the following modifications to this exhibit: i. Denote the location of all utility lines (i.e. sewer, water, reclaimed water, stormwater management, electrical service, cable, telephone, etc.) on the map. As part of this modification please provide a key/legend detailing: a. Existing infrastructure in place, b. What infrastructure is expected to be constructed by Orange County/Town of Hillsborough, and c. New infrastructure serving the project. As part of this requirement, staff will need detailed information on proposed line types, sizes, anticipated construction, etc. ii. Denote the anticipated location of sidewalks to assist staff ascertain if there will be any conflicts with utility location. iii. The map will need to be modified to include the detailed design calculations for the project indicating that the proposed 12 inch utility line is sufficient for expected development and associated/estimated density for the project. iv. Include a note on Exhibit 2 indicating: `All onsite utilities shall be underground unless approved by the Board of County Commissioners'. v. Indicate connection points to various utility lines. vi. Denote the location of any anticipated/planned utility infrastructure (i.e. pump stations, etc.). Currently there is One (1) pump station denoted on the plan within the `Commercial' development area. With respect to this pump station please provide the following detail: a. Size and capacity of the station, b. Design calculations, c. Ability to serve associated/estimated density for the project. As an aside staff is concerned over the proposed pump stations proximity to an existing stream buffer and overhead power line easement. Additional detail concerning potential impacts and proposed mitigation options will need to be included on the revised Exhibit. vii. Please include the following information on the revised Exhibit: a. Provide detail on anticipated fire flow for the proposed utility lines with detail on how same will support the project. As a general reminder fire flow 5 39 requirements are necessary for consideration when sizing water lines. b. Provide detail on the anticipated placement of manholes and elevations same. This will include the provision of a typical manhole construction detail. c. Anticipated stubout locations. d. All existing and anticipated utility line easements. e. Provide sufficient detail outlining how the project will comply with the Town of Hillsborough water/sewer utility line construction standards. f. Additional detail on expected build-out. This information shall be essential in evaluating the ability of installed infrastructure to meet current and future needs of the project. g. Information outlining opportunities for water and sewer extension to serve adjacent parcels. STAFF COMMENT: Bear in mind the ability to serve surrounding parcels is predicated on said parcels location within a primary service area as detailed within the Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA), the County Comprehensive Plan, and the Orange County/Town of Hillsborough Joint Planning Land Use Plan. 7. Per Section 6.7.1 (B) (7) of the UDO you are required to submit a master signage plan. The narrative provides detail on anticipated sign standards and development limitations. Staff will continue to review the proposal and advise of any additional modifications. 8. Per Section 6.7.1 (B) (8) of the UDO you are required to submit a master architectural concept plan for the project outlining: i. Architectural themes for the project, ii. Acceptable building materials (i.e. siding, roofing, doors, trim, awnings, etc.), iii. Permitted color palettes (if any), and iv. Specific design requirements. While the narrative provides some of this detail, staff is recommending a new map Exhibit be created providing additional visual references to ensure compliance with applicable standards. 6 40 II. SPECIFIC COMMENTS: A. NARRATIVE: Staff has the following specific comments associated with the project narrative: 1. Staff is concerned there are conflicts between `appendices' and `sections' of the narrative. We recommend reviewing the product with the applicant to ensure these concerns are addressed. 2. Part 2-3 Performance Standards (page 14 of the narrative) Section 2-3-1 Land Use Intensity number 2 indicates there will be a minimum percentage of landscape area/open space of 20%. The minimum open space area for this project will have to be 30% in order to comply with existing stormwater permitting requirements. 3. Throughout the narrative you outline the minimum land use intensity standards that will guide the development of the project. It would appear in most instances you are `copying' existing standards detailed within Section 6.4 Performance Standards of the UDO. Staff recommends you modify the narrative to indicate you shall abide by County regulations as currently contained within the appropriate section(s) of the UDO and only specify those standards you wish to deviate from. Please note you will have to provide an analysis of the need for the revised standard and how the purpose and intent of existing regulation(s) shall be abided by. 4. Part 2-3-3 General Performance Standards (page 19 of the narrative) Section 1 Environmental staff has the following comment(s): a. Subsection (b) — Staff interprets this provision and requiring a 5 foot freeboard elevation for development within the project versus the County's existing 2 foot freeboard requirement. Staff agrees with the suggested limitation. b. Subsection (b) — The section indicates no development, including roadway,parking, etc. will occur within identified floodplain areas. This is consistent with the provisions of Section 6.6.1 of the UDO. c. Subsection (b) iv — The section appears to indicate a 50 ft. wide `stream buffer' will be observed for the project. Staff will be recommending the project comply with existing development standards associated with the development in and round stream/floodplain buffers shall comply with the provisions of Section 6.13 of the UDO. Required stream and floodplain buffers shall be based on the slope of the property and shall range from 65 to 80 ft. based on same. 5. Part 2-3-3 General Performance Standards (page 20 of the narrative) Section 1 Environmental there are provisions outlining standards 41 governing indoor environmental quality (i.e. smoking areas). Staff is still reviewing this section to ascertain compliance with existing County regulations. 6. Part 2-4-1 Design Criteria — Architectural Design (page 21 of the narrative) proposes the development of an Architectural Review Board for the project. Staff recommends representation on this Board include representatives from County planning staff as a non-voting member to offer comment and guidance on submittals with respect to compliance with the project's MPD Conditional Zoning designation. 7. Staff did not see references to a perimeter or project boundary setback within the narrative. Please note this document represents staff comments on the project thus far and should in no way be construed as our final determination. Additional correspondence shall be provided as necessary outlining our comments on the project. This will include comment(s) from.other County agencies (i.e. Erosion Control/Stormwater, Fire Marshal, Solid Waste, County's Attorney office, etc.) and external review partners (i.e. NC Department of Transportation, Orange County School Board, Town of Hillsborough, etc.) We will of course be more than happy to meet with you in person to' review these comments, any new issues, and methods of complying with other regulatory requirements. Please contact me at (919) 245-2597 and/or inharvey @orangecountync.gov schedule and/or discuss the project in greater detail. • Sincerely Mich.e D. •arve,ICP, CFM, CZO Current Planning Supervisor Orange County CC: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; James Bryan, County Attorney's Office; File. 8 42 Town "` 1 of Ills 1„,,,...- h Since 1754 c 994 Town of Hilfsbomugh "`..r. March 10, 2017 Craig N. Benedict Director, Orange County Planning and Building Inspections P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Courtesy Review Comments — Settlers Point Dear Craig, Thank you for providing an opportunity for the town to comment on the proposed Settlers Point rezoning application. The planning department offers the following comments for your consideration. Despite the lack of support for this particular project, the town does support the pending interlocal agreement to extend utilities into the Hillsborough EDD area. General comments and policy concerns: 1) Application materials are inconsistent. Parcel 3 does not show on all of the exhibits. It is unclear how many dwellings are proposed. The land use map indicates 930, while the tax statement indicates 690 and the traffic study indicates 760. 2) The assemblage is awkward, wrapping around existing developed lots. This will lead to conflicts. 3) The residential portion of this request is located outside the urban services area for the town and would require an amendment to the WASMPBA. 4) Committing water to this new area would take water capacity away from properties already within the boundary. 5) Opening 30 acres of retail up for development while the town is still trying to recruit retail for Daniel Boone and Waterstone will flood the market. The Waterstone properties have the added cost of the Special Assessment District and limited visibility while Daniel Boone has additional redevelopment time and costs. This site will appear easier and take away from these two higher priority sites for the town. 6) For more than 10 years the town has focused its policies and actions on more compact development to follow smart growth principles. The eastern portion of this site is premature and inconsistent with our adopted policies. The light industrial portion is acceptable due to the potential need for large floor plates to accommodate significant non-residential users. Specific comments: 1) The application materials are very general in nature to vest the project with staff level approvals moving forward. This is significantly less information that the town requires in order to vest staff review in a project. As the proposed use table simply shows "x" under uses, it is my understanding that no further board review would be needed if this rezoning is approved. 2) The materials do not include a proposed street network/internal circulation plan. 101 East Orange Street • P. O. Box 429 • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 919-732-1270 • Fax 919-644-2390 43 3) Parking standard for industrial is very high, especially if uses end up with significant warehouse space. 4) Elementary, middle, and high schools are listed as a permitted use in the light industrial portion of the site. This is undesirable as schools are a very low density but high traffic impact uses. Allowing more than 10 acres of an economic development district be taken by a non-taxable entity is not desirable. Schools generally do not have spin-off investments to compensate. 5) This site is a poor location for senior housing. True senior housing does not need prime road access but does need supporting retail and activities if the seniors are to be active and engaged. It's unclear that these uses are proposed for the retail component. This location is better suited to affordable housing to provide easy highway access to employees who may need to travel significant distances to their jobs. 6) Senior housing comes with many regulatory requirements from the state level if services are to be provided, as stated in the narrative. Assisted living and skilled nursing can't just be built without prior approval and Certificates of Need from the state. I have inquired as to whether any certificates exist for Orange County and the response from the state indicates it is unlikely that Orange County would see approvals for more beds through 2020. If the proposal is really just for an age restricted subdivision, the applicant should be compelled to remove these other services from their narrative as they are unrealistic and build unreasonable expectations in the reviewing board and general public. 7) Any residential development in this area will be isolated from the remainder of Hillsborough. Connectivity among neighborhoods is a high community priority. Isolation and the need for connectivity are currently being discussed in updates to the county Master aging Plan as an important quality of life aspect. Unless widening of South Churton includes sidewalks under I-40 and along the project frontage, it will not be possible for someone living here to safely walk or bike to Waterstone or any other part of town. This type of improvement can only happen with annexation as NCDOT does not allow sidewalk construction without a maintenance agreement. We will be creating another isolated node that will be extremely expensive to retrofit into the town's ideal of connectedness. 8) The proposed development details and criteria do not align well with the town's Unified Development Ordinances for setbacks, building heights, and the like. If annexed, the town would likely need to create a new zoning district to accommodate at least portions of this site or the site will be non- conforming. 9) The narrative is very light on development details. Pages are committed to landscaping, signage, and solid waste, but there is no clear mention of any other development standards. The signage requirements are very different from town requirements and will create significant non-conformities if this site is developed under these standards and then annexed. The town is nearing the end of its amortization period for existing freestanding signs and could begin compelling sign replacements in the city in 2 more years. To have the development happening with vastly different standards at the same time will be a public relations nightmare. 10)The driveway spacing is less than optimal. The existing service road is close to the interchange ramps and could be impacted by future widenings. The application doesn't include any additional frontage to access the western portion of the project or make use of Davis Road. 11)The submittal information gives no indication that there will be any internal connectivity on the east side. Sincerely, Q� Margaret A. Hauth, AICP Planning Director Assistant Town Manager 101 East Orange Street • P. O. Box 429 • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 919-732-1270 • Fax 919-644-2390 44 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Current Planning 131 W. Margaret Lane (919) 245-2575 Suite 201 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181 www.orangecountync.gov NORTH C OLINA. Hillsborough, NC 27278 September 12, 2017 Jim Parker Summit Engineering 504 Meadowland Drive Hillsborough,NC 27278 RE: INITIAL STAFF COMMENTS—Settlers Point Master Planned Development Conditional Zoning(MPD-CZ) Application Package Dear Mr. Parker: On August 4, 2017 staff received a. Zoning Atlas Amendment Package proposing the rezoning of several properties within the Hillsborough Township from Economic Development Office and Office/Flex (i.e. EDH-4 and EDH-5) and Rural Residential (R-1) to. a.Master Planned Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) designation. The name of the project, as contained within the submitted application package and narrative, is called"Settlers Point". As you are aware from previous correspondence, this package was deemed to be sufficient in accordance with the standards contained in Section 2.9.2 Conditional Zoning Districts of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and was accepted by staff on or about August 9, 2017 for processing. The Settlers Point development is proposed to be situated on approximately two hundred seventy-two (272) acres of property, south of Interstate 40 to be developed within the designated Hillsborough Economic Development District, south of I-40 and east of Old NC 86, involving the following individual parcel(s): • A 90.37 acre tract of land PIN# 9863-71-8857; • A 58.56 acre tract of land PIN# 9863-91-6573.; • A 1.36 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-11-4636; • A 1.65 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-11-5415; • A 0.50 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-11-7506; • A 1.75 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-11-9450; • A 1.46 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-11-7247; • A 4.50 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-10-7937; { 45 • A 34.58 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-20-2388; • A 2.45 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-10-4310; • A 4.21 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-10-4230; • A 3.27 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-10-8103; • A 3.27 acre tract of land PIN#9872-19-6844; • A 10.09 acre tract of land PIN# 9872-19-3549; • A 10.01 acre tract of land PIN# 9872-19-8336; • A 10.01 acre tract of land PIN# 9872-29-2222; • A 10.01 acre tract of land PIN# 9872-29-8289; • • A 4.00 acre tract of land PIN#9872-28-6779; • A 10.01 acre tract of land PIN# 9872-18-7626; and • A 10.06 acre tract of land PIN# 9872-09-8324. According to the submittal package, Settlers Point proposes a mixed use development project broken down into 3 distinct districts as follows: 1. District 1Light Industrial/Manufacturing and Research — The district is located along the western portion of Old NC Highway 86, accessed via and existing service roadway, and south of Interstate 40. The district is intended to provide for light industrial/manufacturing and research operations and is approximately 148 acres in area. 2. District 2 Commercial—The district is located south of along Interstate 40 and east of Old NC Highway 86. The district intended to provide for high intensity office uses and supporting retail and services and is approximately 47 acres in area; 3. District 3 Residential: Continuing Care — The district is broken down into 2 distinct areas, namely: a. The Multi-Family District: Located within the southern portion of the project along Old NC 86, and Gladys Lane intended to provide for low to moderate intensity office uses as well as multi-family residential uses with a maximum allowable density of 10 units per acre. b. Single Family District: Located within the southeastern most portion of the project along Old NC 86 and north of Destiny Drive, intended to provide for single family residential (continuing care)uses. The district is approximately 76 acres in area. Each district will allow the development of specific land uses (i.e. industrial, commercial, and residential) as spelled out within the application (hereafter `the Project'). As part of this submittal, the applicant is proposing the imposition of development and design standards that will govern the overall development of the Project if approved by the County. In completing our review, staff would like to offer the following comment(s)/recommendation(s): I. IN GENERAL—COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 46 a. The properties associated with the Project are located within different land use categories as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) contained within the adopted 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Those properties comprising District(s) 1 and 2 are located within the Economic Development Transition Activity Node. The properties contained within what is designated as District 3 are located within the Rural Residential land use category. Per Appendix F Land Use and Zoning Matrix of the Comprehensive Plan the MPD-CZ zoning category is permitted for development within the following land use categories: • 10 and/or 20 Year Transition; • Commercial Transition Activity Node; • Commercial/Industrial Transition Activity Node; and • Economic Development Transition Activity Node. District 3, which is located within the Rural Residential land use category, is not a designated land use category allowing for the rezoning of property to the MPD-CZ designation. The Project scope and narrative will have to be modified to include a request to change the FLUM land use designation of the properties contained within the aforementioned district in order to move forward. STAFF COMMENT: Current Planning staff was informed by the Planning Director on or about August 9, 2017 the Department would assume the responsibility to modifying the designation of the properties comprising District 3 to address the issue. At the writing of.this letter staff is recommending the properties contained within District 3 be changed from the Rural Residential land use category to Economic Development Transition Activity Node. This would ultimately allow for the processing of an application , proposing rezoning of parcels to MPD-CZ from a Comprehensive Plan standpoint. IL IN GENERAL—APPLICATION PACKAGE AND NARRATIVE: a. Update the application submittal to ensure the County has all necessary documentation denoting the properties subject to the Project are either under contract or you have legal authority to include same. b. Staff is recommending the inclusion of a table of contents to aid in review. Further individual tabs denoting various sections should be included in future copies provided to the County as part of the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) review of the project. 1 47 c. As submitted exhibit maps lack a legend outlining various graphics denoted on same. Please provide a legend on all exhibits with detailed explanations of the information you are intending to convey. d. The title of the submitted narrative needs to be modified to read Settlers Point Master Planned Development Conditional Zoning(MPD-CZ). While the denoted conditions of approval are important to this process, it is not the only/sole purpose of the submitted document. This comment applies to all headers throughout the document. Headers should be modified to reflect the Section/Chapter of the narrative the reader is currently reviewing. e. Section II — Land Use Program of the narrative needs to contained information identifying the current Orange County Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designations for the various properties associated with the Project. Staff is recommending you have a copy of the FLUM as an exhibit within the document denoting the area. f. Staff is requiring Section II be modified to include the following additional information: i. Current designation of area as delineated on the Growth Management System map, ii. Current designation of area as delineated on the Orange County/Town of Hillsborough Joint Planning Land Use Map, and iii. Current designation of area as delineated on the WASAMPBA map. STAFF COMMENT: It would be prudent to include these various maps within the submittal package as exhibits or appendices. g. Page(s) 6 and 7 (Section II—Land Use Program) purports to identify various goals and policies from the Comprehensive Plan purporting to support development of the project. Please specifically identify the Goal/Policy number(s) in the application narrative as it appears within the Comprehensive Plan. h. Staff is recommending you include details on how the project complies and/or promotes the intentions and goals of the Orange County/Town of Hillsborough Joint Planning Land Use Plan as well. i. Throughout the narrative there are discussions related to the various conditions associated/recommended for the Project. Staff recommends in these instances you identify the section/page of the narrative where such conditions are located to aid the reader in finding/identifying same. j. Section 1-2 of the narrative indicates the Project will involve 272 acres. Revise Exhibit 1 to have a total acreage note with breakout of acreage per `district'. • 48 k. On various map exhibits adjacent rights-of-ways are indicated but not all of them are labeled. Revise and label all rights-of-way. Please note you will also need to label and define the utility easement running through the center of the project. 1. Exhibit 6 contains information denoting the zoning designation of adjacent properties. Please add a legend to this map denoting current land uses on adjacent properties as well. m. Exhibit 2 provides basic landscaping/buffering information on the project. This map denotes the presence of streams and other environmental features within the Project. This map will need to be modified to include all water features (i.e. previously identified wetlands, floodplains, streams, etc.) including required buffers. Further all water features within 1,000 feet of the Project will have to be denoted as well. n. A new exhibit/map will need to be created denoting existing conditions (i.e. structures, contours, etc.) on individual parcels associated with the Project. o. Exhibit 3 provides basic information related to the development of the Project. Staff is requiring additional information on this exhibit denoting the following: i. Provide additional detail on how District 1 is obtaining vehicular access. ii. Denote the location of any service road proposed for District 1. p. Exhibit 3 shows location of sidewalks and/or trails. Provide typical cross section detail of anticipated construction of sidewalks and/or trails. Also provide additional detail on composition of same within the narrative and on the aforementioned exhibit. III. PROJECT NARRATIVE -PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS: a. Section 2-1 Light Industrial/Manufacturing and Research: Staff recommends dropping the work `light' from the title of the District refer to same as: "Industrial/Manufacturing and Research". From staff's standpoint some of the recommended/requested land uses do not necessarily fall into what some might consider `light' industrial. b. Section 2-1 Residential: The narrative and corresponding exhibit needs to be revised to provide sufficient detail establishing the differentiation between the areas considered to comprise the `multi-family' component and the `single- family component. There is currently insufficient detail denoting same. c. Section 2-1 Residential: On or about Page 11 of the narrative there is a brief `intent'section outlining the overall intention of the district as proposed. 33 49 As currently situated the statement is confusing and incompatible with the explanation of the area in question. Staff recommends this paragraph be moved to the introduction section to eliminate existing confusion. d. Section 2-1 Residential: On or about Page 11 of the narrative there appears to be an orphaned statement reading as follows: "Development of all permanent structures and support facilities, including parking facilities, constructed within each established District shall be in accordance with the Design/Architectural criteria as contained herein". As currently contained there is appears to be confusion if this statement is intended to cover all 3 development Districts (i.e. industrial, commercial/retail, and residential) or just the `2' residential subcategories as contained in District 3. Staff believes the intent was for all proposed Districts to abide by the provision. As such we recommend the statement be moved towards the beginning of Section 2-1 before you breakdown individual districts. e. As a general reminder, concern has been expressed by the Town of Hillsborough with respect to the development of District 3 for residential land uses, including the provision of utility services (i.e. water and sewer). IV. LIST OF PERMITTED USES: a. Section 2-2 Permitted Land Uses: Staff is requesting clarification on your intention to use existing/proposed County definitions with respect to various land uses or will the Project have a unique set of definitions outlining what individual land uses may be. As an example what does the term religious facility mean as it relates to allowable development within the Project? b. Section 2-2 Permitted Land Uses: There appears to be confusion within the submitted narrative relating to the proposed table of permitted uses. It is difficult to ascertain what is and is not permitted in a given development area. Staff recommends additional formatting work designed to distinguish between `headers' and the listing of individual land uses. An example of this concept is provided as follows: Use Type Industrial, Commercial Residential Manufacturing,and (Continuing Care) Research ssembl Religious X Social X X Club/Lodge hild care/Educationa 50 c. Section 2-2 Permitted Land Uses: On or about Page 14 there is a listing of various land uses intended to be permitted in all Development Districts. After our last conversation on this topic staff is recommending you include the following within this specific section of the narrative: i. Government Facilities and Office Buildings ii. Government Protective Services d. Staff recommends the development of an appendix within the narrative outlining the similarities and differences between existing allowable land uses within the Hillsborough EDD (i.e. EDH-4 and EDH-5) as well as the Rural Residential (R-1) general use zoning districts and what you are proposing. This information will be essential in demonstrating how the Project is consistent with the overall intent of existing County regulations and with respect to acceptable land uses in the area. V. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: a. As a general rule in those instances where it is your intention to have the Project comply with applicable County development regulations, a simple statement attesting to same is all that is required within the narrative. b. As with proposed land uses staff recommends the development of an appendix outlining the similarities and differences between existing design standards enforced by the County within the Hillsborough EDD and the Rural Residential (R-1) general use zoning districts and what you are proposing. This will be essential in demonstrating how proposed standards meet the overall intent of existing County regulations. c. Section 2-3 Land Use Intensity: Staff recommends 30% minimum open space area for the Project consistent with current land use policies and regulations. d. Section 2-3 Land Use Intensity: Add language within this section indicating all floodplain (i.e. floodway and the 100-year floodplain) and streams within the Project shall be buffered and maintained in accordance with applicable County regulations as contained in Article 6 of the UDO. e. Section 2-3 Land Use Intensity—Building Height: On a general note there is confusing and conflicting language within the narrative dealing with building height. From a practical standpoint the Project is not maintaining a building height of 6 stories but allows for a maximum building height of 6 stories for development. Language should be modified accordingly to eliminate the confusion. f. Section 2-3 Land Use Intensity — Building Height: Staff is concerned over a carte blanche height limit of 6 stories. Under current land use regulations enforced by the County, the minimum building height within the EDH-4 and EDH-5 general use zoning districts (Districts 1 and 2 respectively) is 40 ft.. Additional height is allowed with the imposition of more restrictive setbacks. 51 Staff recommends you modify this provision to for a 6 story building height limit with the incorporation of more restrictive front, side, and rear yard setbacks for a proposed structure. g. Section 2-3-2 Environmental Factors: It would appear regulation(s) governing noise, vibration air pollution, electromagnetic interference, and hazardous materials as contained within the narrative are consistent with existing County enforced standards as detailed within Section(s) 6.4.2 through 6.4.7 of the UDO. Staff believes a simple reference to same is all that is necessary for the Project. h. Section 2-3-2 Environmental Factors: Page(s) 18 through 20 of the narrative provides information on complying with Erosion Control and Stormwater regulation(s). Language within the narrative indicates the Project will abide by applicable County standards. A simple reference to same is all that is necessary for the Project. i. Section 2-3-2 Environmental Factors: If the Project involves a universal or centralized stormwater facility, please denote the location of same on Exhibit 2 for review and comment. j. Section 2-3-2 Environmental Factors: Within this section you reference a cumulative tracking of impervious surface area for the Project in an effort to verify acceptable levels of development intensity. Language should be modified to include references to this data being an essential component denoting compliance with stormwater management standards as enforced by the County and as detailed in Section 6.15 of the UDO. k. Section 2-3-3 General Performance Standards - Environmental: This section contains language related to development within or near floodplains, wetlands, streams, etc. As previously indicated herein all floodplains, wetlands, streams, water bodies, etc. shall be required to observe applicable buffers as detailed within Section 6.13 Stream Buffers of the UDO. VI. DESIGN CRITERIA—ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS: a. Staff recommends the completion of an exhibit providing a graphic representation of various building elevations containing the allowable exterior finishes and/or siding materials as detailed in Section 2-4-1 of the narrative. b. Staff recommends the completion of an exhibit providing a graphic representation of various roof designs and allowable screening of equipment (i.e. HVAC, solar, etc.) as detailed in Section 2-4-1 of the narrative. c. Staff recommends the completion of an exhibit providing a graphic representation of various setback and separation standards as detailed in Section 2-4-1 of the narrative. 52 d. Section 2-4-2 Landscaping and Preservation Design: Staff recommends revising this section and corresponding exhibit(s) as follows: i. Denote the currently required 100 ft. Type F perimeter land use buffer along the western and southern portions of District 1 separating the Project from external properties. STAFF COMMENT: The narrative is requesting a 50 ft. Type D land use buffer. Staff is not supportive with a request to reduce the required perimeter buffer current enforced in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.8.12 (C) (1) of the UDO. ii. Include language indicating required buffers along the eastern portion of District 1 abutting Economic Development zoned property shall be consistent with the provisions of Section 6.8 of the UDO. iii. Denote a 100 ft. perimeter buffer along the southern portions of District 3 separating the Project from external properties. STAFF COMMENT: The narrative is requesting a 50 ft. Type D land use buffer. Staff believes the recommended 100 ft. Type F perimeter land use buffer is more appropriate given the proposed development. iv. Adding a condition of approval is that no development and/or clearing activity occur on property within the Project on property zoned Rural Buffer(RB) general use zoning. v. Add language indicating the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Buffer shall be maintained in accordance with the provisions of the UDO. This includes allowances for clearing of areas to promote visibility. e. Section 2-4-2 Signs and Lighting: Include an exhibit for the project denoting anticipated location(s) for proposed architectural landmark and entry portal signage as detailed within the narrative. VII. TRANSPORTATION: a. Provide a typical cross section denoting the proposed road construction as well as anticipated drainage for the Project. b. Provide cross section of typical access points intersecting both any internal roadway system as well as connecting to State maintained roadways. c. As staff understands the narrative all internal roadways shall be constructed to applicable NC Department of Transportation public road standards. d. Please revise Exhibit 3 to include any external roadway improvements required by the NC Department of Transportation as identified within the submitted Transportation Impact Assessment(TIA). e. Revise Exhibit 3 to include anticipated locations for bus stops for the Project. 53 f. Include a reference on Exhibit 3 to the provision of proposed park and ride parking spaces as detailed in Section 3-2 Alternative Transportation of the narrative (page 33). g. Staff recommends the placement of a sidewalk running parallel with NC Highway 86 for District(s) 2 and 3. This sidewalk will have to be maintained by the developer in perpetuity and potentially require an encroachment agreement with the NC Department of Transportation. h. Revise the narrative and applicable exhibit(s)to identify the phasing of on and off-site transportation improvements required for the Project. The narrative will need to include a clear explanation of the anticipated schedule for the commencement of development activities associated with each required improvement. VIII. UTILITIES: a. Staff recommends Exhibit 4 be modified to include anticipated location(s) for fire hydrants. Further staff recommends the modification of the narrative to contain a condition indicating final hydrant location shall be review and approved by the Town and County Fire Marshal's offices as part of the typical site plan review process. b. As you are already ware there is a local agreement between the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County concerning provision of utility services. Information contained within the narrative and Exhibit 4 appears to be inconsistent with this agreement. The County will be installing a sewer line towards District 1 under Intestate 40 (I-40). As the Project is developed, staff is of the opinion a request will have to be formally submitted and processed by the Town of Hillsborough requesting extension of sewer lines serving different development districts as defined within the Project. Staff is requesting utility lines denoted on Exhibit 4 be detailed using different colors to differentiate those portions of the project already supporting by the existing utility services agreement, which will require additional review and action. Staff recommends the modification of the narrative to contain a condition that extension of sewer service to District(s) 2 and 3 has to be approved by the Town of Hillsborough prior to the submittal of any development application(s). Further staff recommends the inclusion of language within the narrative outlining the provision of water and wastewater treatment services in the event public water/sewer cannot be extended. c. If the project is not proposing to utilize a reclaimed water system, add a note on Exhibit 4 indicating same. d. Provide note(s) on Exhibit 4 on the anticipated location of other utilities (i.e. electric, gas, cable,telephone, etc.). 54 Staff looks forward to continuing working with you on this project. If you require additional assistance, please contact Mr. Patrick Mallett of my staff at (919) 245-2577. Thank you again for your efforts. Sincerely, !4 ) Michael D. Har -y AICP, CFO, CZO Current Planning Supervisor Orange County CC: Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager • Craig Benedict, Planning Director Patrick Mallett, Planner II James Bryan, County's Attorney Office Margaret Hauth, Town of Hillsborough File 55 To: Michael Harvey Current Planning Supervisor From: Alan Clapp Environmental Health Director RE: Settlers Point Mixed Use Development Michael, It is my understanding that this project will be served by the Town of Hillsborough for water and sewer needs, so Environmental Health will not be involved in the infrastructure of the project. However if the project does contain establishments for Food, Lodging, Institutions or Public Swimming pool then permits will be required from Environmental Health at time of construction. Environmental Health would also permit irrigation and geothermal wells if required for the project. Alan Alan Clapp Environmental Health Director Phone: 919.245.2360 / Fax: 919.644.3006 Website: ttp://www.co.orange.nc.us/env It /index.asp Email: aclapp@orangecountync.gov 919 245 2360 1P 131 West Margaret Lane,. Suite 100 > Hillsborough, NC 27278 uw arangecauntync.gav 00,,MIGE COUly 56 Orange County Emergency Services pa 011111111111 V '111111111' ‘11,,‘ 401111 4111I I 510 Meadowlands Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 " setzvIcae! ' 919.245.6100 September 21, 2017 Memorandum: Settlers Point Michael Harvey 131 W. Margaret Lane P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Harvey, I am writing today on indicating that I have no comments at this time but request all site plans/building plans be reviewed by the Orange County Fire Marshal Division to ensure compliance with applicable codes and standards. Infrastructure to support fire protection such as hydrants and fire lanes shall be reviewed and approved by the Orange County Fire Marshal Division,Town of Hillsborough Engineer and Town of Hillsborough Fire Marshal prior to site plan approval. Sincerely, , 411 Jason B. Shepherd Orange County Fire Marshal jshepherd@orangecountync.gov A Prepared, Coordinated, and Integrated Emergency Services System Twtter(a 0(m cm(rgency 57 Michael Harvey From: Chuck Edwards Contact Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 2:40 PM To: Michael Harvey Cc: Jones, De Angelo J Subject: RE: Setters Point Michael, Some of the mitigation recommendations by our Conges ion Management Section are not likely feasible because the Applicant does not control all necessary right of way. Prior to me formally identifying required improvements, I need to explore possible alternates.This will take a little time. I appreciate the need to inform the Planning Board but I want to avoid the risk of misinformation as well. Thank you for your patience. Charles N. Edwards Jr., PE (Chuck) District Engineer N. C. Department of Transportation Division of Highways Division 7, District 1 336 570 6833 nnadwandsAnndot.Oov 115 East Crescent Square Drive P. 0. Box 766 Graham, NC 27253 r E'n�Voumeqzundenoe »o and 0u'n this a(biross/tsob/ect»othe IVorth Carolina Public Recoiiis Law and ay be /iscios d to third aitie s. From: Michael Harvey [mailto:mharvey@orarigecourityric,gov] Sent:Thursday, September 21, 2017 8:44 AM To: Edwards, Charles N <cnedwardsricdot.gov> Cc:Jones, DeAnge|o] xd/iones1@ncdot.gov> Subject: RE: Setters Point Any way you could share initial comments that I can share with my Planning Board? Michael D. Harvey AICP, [FM, CZO Current Planning Supervisor— Planner III Orange County Planning Department 131 West Margaret Lane PO Box 8181 (919) 245-2597 (phone) 58 Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 132, correspondence sent and received from this account is a public record and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Chuck Edwards Contact Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 5:04 PM To: Michael Harvey Cc: Jones, De Angelo J Subject: Re: Setters Point Still pending. Current goal is about two weeks. Charles N. Edwards Jr., PE (Chuck) District Engineer N. C. Department of Transportation Division of Highways Division 7, District 1 336 570 6833 cnedvvards@ncdot.gov 115 East Crescent Square Drive P. 0. Box 766 Graham, NC 27253 On Sep 20, 2017, at 3:04 PM, Michael Harvey<mharvey@orangecountync.gov>wrote: Can you give me an update on NC DOT's letter on the TIA for the project? Thanks Michael D. Harvey AICP, CFM, CZO Current Planning Supervisor—Planner Ill Orange County Planning Department 131 West Margaret Lane PO Box O1O1 (919) 245-2597 (phone) (919) 644-3002 (fax) Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 132, correspondence sent and received from this account is a public record and may be disclosed to third parties. Iiiiiiiirrall correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Iiiiiillublic I"Records I......aw and may be disclosed to third parties. Iiiiiiiirrall correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Iiiiiillublic I"Records I......aw and may be disclosed to third parties. 2 59 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Engineering / Erosion Control / Stormwater 131 W. Margaret Lane (919) 245-2575 Suite 201 u P. O. Box 8181 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) R] iF t : a R 1i t I A Hillsborough, NC 27278 www.orangecountync.gov th SAM / rP .,.1� ////r„�r%-�y/%►///►r 1)1 i�„im'%rf/'(°1r1`�YjI"T�111111r;,r1r1>1r; i y.° ,a,�VIldl alm,u;1 b a 6�f / ° lll 11wJlw F✓;Vr I I f� .R® ® t I) l r�wl �' i f I . I �m� „ t n�• ii „ MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Harvey COPY TO: Patrick Mallett FROM: Howard W. Fleming, Jr., PE, Engineering/Stormwater Supervisor DATE: 09/21/17 PROJECT: Settlers Point, DAC Agenda Item 09/07/17 PIN: Multiple (20) - See Outline Below SUBJECT: Master Planned Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Application - Comments The Settlers Point project is proposed to be situated on approximately two hundred seventy-two (272) acres of property, south of Interstate 40, specifically: 1 . A 90.37 acre tract of land PIN# 9863-71-8857 2. A 58.56 acre tract of land PIN# 9863-91-6573 3. A 1 .36 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-11-4636 4. A 1 .65 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-11-5415 5. A 0.50 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-11-7506 6. A 1 .75 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-11-9450 7. A 1 .46 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-11-7247 8. A 4.50 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-10-7937 9. A 34.58 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-20-2388 10.A 2.45 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-10-4310 11 .A 4.21 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-10-4230 12.A 3.27 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-10-8103 13.A 3.27 acre tract of land PIN# 9872-19-6844 14.A 10.09 acre tract of land PIN# 9872-19-3549 15.A 10.01 acre tract of land PIN# 9872-19-8336 16.A 10.01 acre tract of land PIN# 9872-29-2222 17.A 10.01 acre tract of land PIN# 9872-29-8289 18.A 4.00 acre tract of land PIN# 9872-28-6779 19.A 10.01 acre tract of land PIN# 9872-18-7626 20.A 10.06 acre tract of land PIN# 9872-09-8324 S:\5 Erosion Control and Water Quality\Correspondence\HWF\DAC\SettlersPointMPD-CZ\HWF-OC-E&SC-SMMemo(SettlersPointMPD- CZ)092117.doc 60 09/21/17 Page 2 of 2 Memo to Current Planning EC/Stormwater Comments — Settlers Point MPCZ EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL / STORMWATER MANAGEMENT COMMENTS: The project will have to comply with the provisions of Section(s) 6.14 Stormwater Management and 6.15 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), as proposed. According to the application, Settlers Point will be a mixed use development project, including light industrial / manufacturing and research, commercial and residential. All parcels, with exception of the most southeasterly boundary of the proposed residential "District 3" parcels, lie within the Lower Eno Protected Watershed. That most southeasterly boundary along West Scarlett Mountain Road flirts with the Jordan Lake Unprotected Watershed. Both of those watersheds have the same land disturbance thresholds, as follows: • 20,000 SF —An Erosion Control Plan is required • A Stormwater Management Plan is required if cumulative proposed disturbed area exceeds... > 12,000 SF for multi-family residential development, or a commercial, industrial or institutional facility > 21 ,780 SF for single family or duplex residential development or recreational facility. Having reviewed the subject project, Erosion & Sedimentation Control / Stormwater staff members understand this project must proceed through certain discretionary actions in order to determine functional and economic viability, prior to the developers investing in more detailed design and subsequent jurisdictional submittals for compliance reviews and permits. This being stated, we find no fundamental objections to this project moving forward through this discretionary approval. S:\5_Erosion Control and Water Quality\Correspondence\HWF\DAC\SettlersPointMPD-CZ\HWF-OC-E&SC-SM_Memo(SettlersPointMPD-CZ)092117.doc 61 Michael Harvey From: Chuck Edwards Contact Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 2:40 PM To: Michael Harvey;Jones, DeAngelo J Cc: Craig Benedict;Jim Parker(jimparker16 @gmail.com) Subject: RE: [External] NC DOT Comments on Settlers Point Attachments: Final Settler's Pointe Development.pdf Michael and Jim, I apologize for my oversight and delay in providing comments for this project.The NCDOT Congestion Management Section has reviewed the TIA submitted for this development and have provided the attached comments and recommendations for access and mitigation of the expected traffic impacts attributable to the site. I concur with these findings. It is noted, however,that included among the recommendations is the construction of a new driveway serving the proposed Phase 1 light industrial component with access to Old NC 86 approximately 1700 feet from the 1-40 westbound ramps and directly across from the proposed residential driveway 1 as proposed in Phase 2. It appears that this configuration would require the Applicant to obtain a right of way or easement across property that is not part of the proposed development and may not be under his control. Alternatives may need to be explored. NCDOT staff looks forward to further collaboration with the County and the Applicant on this project. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Charles N. Edwards Jr., PE (Chuck) District Engineer N. C. Department of Transportation Division of Highways Division 7, District 1 336 570 6833 cnedwards(a7ncdot.gov 115 East Crescent Square Drive P. O. Box 766 Graham, NC 27253 1 y �pf}Y3 Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. ,�ja HGti. id:,y 62 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ROY COOPER JAMES H.TROGDON,III GOVERNOR SECRETARY August 31, 2017 Settler's Pointe Development Traffic Impact Analysis Review Report Congestion Management Section TIA Project: SC-2017-057R1 Division: 7 County: Orange jotlitiroo -0A cAiip • sEAL r�: = Clarence B. Bunting,IV,P.E. Project Engineer r 029443 • ' Charles V. Sorrell • `a r`' rt Mailing Address: Telephone:(919)814-5000 Location: NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Fax:(919)771-2745. 750 N.GREENFIELD PARKWAY TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY&SAFETY DIVISION Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968 GARNER,NC 27529 1561 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH,NC 27699-1561 Website:www.ncdot.gov 63 Settler's Pointe Development SC-2017-057R1 Orange Au•ust 31, 2017 Per your request, the Congestion Management Section (CMS) of the Transportation Mobility and Safety Division has completed a review of the subject site. The comments and recommendations contained in this review are based on data for background conditions presented in the sealed Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and are subject to the ap•roval of the local District Engineer's Office and appropriate local authorities. Date Initially Received by CMS 8/14/17 Date of Site Plan N/A Date of Complete Information 8/16/17 A Date of Sealed TIA 8/4/17 Proposed Development According to the TIA, the proposed Settler's Pointe Development is to be located on Old NC 86 in Orange County, The TIA states the development is to be constructed by 2022 and is to consist of the following: L`and Use Uses Si ands Co .� k. r Warehousing 150 1,248,000 sq.ft. General Office 710 50,000 sq.ft. Continuing Care Retirement 255, 760 units Hotel 310 200 units Shopping Center .820 58,800 sq.ft. High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant II 932 5;000 sq.ft. High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 932 8,000 sq.ft: .: : Fast-food Restaurant with Drive-Thru Window 934 5,000 sq.ft. Trip Geneetation ,Unad�,usted VolumesµDuring a;TypecaIWee day ,.m� ,- _: IN OUT TOTAL AM Peak Hour 811 440 1,251 . PM Peak Hour 696 '974 1,670 Daily TriPi---1 17,620 General Reference For reference to various documents applicable to this review please reference the following link: http://www.ncdot.orp/doh/preconstruct/traffic/teppl/Topics/C-37/C-37.html ' Once the driveway permit has been approved and issued, a copy of the final driveway permit requirements should be forwarded to this office. If we can provide further assistance, please contact the Congestion Management Section. S�gna izaf�on We defer to the District Engineer, the Division Traffic Engineer, and the Regional Traffic Engineer for final decisions regarding signalization. 64 2020 Phase 1 e ---------- Site 0 a � � z a wl I Restrict to RIRO °o 160 125 250 .. �Y_ �►►"[ �[�I j� J— Old NC 86 '1,000;:. -::1,300:-• - <400% .-800:> Full 100 of JIVI4 b Settler's Pointe Development SC-2017-057R1 G= Existing Laneage -t-- Recommended Laneage <— Laneage Built By Others 41— NCDOT Recommendation Existing Signal Monitor for Signal ',... Developer Proposed Signal XXX Storage XXX NCDOT Recommended Storage <XXX:> Distance Between Intersections IPS Internal Protected Stem All Distances in Feet Drawing Not to Scale i 65 2022 Phase 2 ------ - I , I I , Site A aI G� Restrict to R1R0 Cam` 125 4j4 125 �j�250 1 100 . ,ff� 200 _ �Y C d' •:1,000- .700:' �a �Y <6W- c� :400:^ c`� .:800:- •c1,100> g Old NC 86 200� b ',�'Fuli� "I N IRestrict to Directional Crossover I VI aQ I aQ I � I Settler's Pointe Development Site I SC-2017-05 7R1 <= Existing Laneage 4— Recommended Laneage 1---------------------I 6'� Laneage Built By Others 4® NCDO'I'Recommendation ® Existing Signal ® Monitor For Signal Developer Proposed Signal XXX Storage XXX NCDOT Recommended Storage °:XXX> Distance Between Intersections IPS Interval Protected Stem All Distances in Feet Drawing Not to Scale '... Attachment 7 66 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Administration 131 W. Margaret Lane (919) 245-2575 w° Suite 201 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) m , ° r I' .. E C�� I ��p�� P. O. Box 8181 www.orangecountync.gov NOR "ARO1 IN Hillsborough, NC 27278 a io HUH Nr+7m»�FWa^�r� * fi 114 J/l /�)'/////f 0.a1 ���� pp v it Y � ?7�) 4 ,rc ,,.JJJO r :VV� , r loo''1�Jj1 �; Iir", =�U y4,14 Ji! • ii � Y , 1111 . :. MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Parker, Summit Consultants; File FROM: Michael Harvey DATE: September 19, 2017 SUBJECT: Settler's Point - Summary of Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) This memo serves as a summary of the Neighborhood Information Meeting for Settler's Point and MPD-CZD zoning held on September 14, 2017 from 7:00-9:OOpm at the UNC Hospital Hillsborough Campus - Meeting Room HBT 10011. I. MPD-CZD Rezoning and Proposal Overview: The subject area contains approximately two hundred seventy-two (272) acres of property, south of Interstate-40 along Old NC Highway 86. The request includes 20 parcels further defined as follows: Acres PIN 1. 90.37 9863-71-8857 2. 58.56 9863-91-6573 3. 1.36 9873-11-4636 4. 1.65 9873-11-5415 5. 0.50 9873-11-7506 6. 1.75 9873-11-9450 7. 1.46 9873-11-7247 8. 4.50 9873-10-7937 9. 34.58 9873-20-2388 10. 2.45 9873-10-4310 11. 4.21 9873-10-4230 12. 3.27 9873-10-8103 13. 3.27 9872-19-6844 14. 10.09 9872-19-3549 15. 10.01 9872-19-8336 16. 10.01 9872-29-2222 67 17. 10.01 9872-29-8289 18. 4.00 9872-28-6779 19. 10.01 9872-18-7626 20. 10.06 9872-09-8324 The above properties are currently zoned: • Economic Development Hillsborough Linear Office (EDH-2); • Economic Development Hillsborough Office/Retail (EDH-4); • Economic Development Hillsborough Research and Manufacturing (EDH-5); • Rural Residential (R-1) ; and • Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Overlay District. The MPD-CZD request is broken out into the following 3 Districts that allow for distinct land uses: District 1: +/- 148 acres of Light Industrial Research District 2: +/-47 acres of Commercial/Retail/Service Distrcit3: +/-760 Senior Community and Single-family units II. NIM Meeting Overview: The meeting was attended by Orange County Current Planning Staff, the applicants, consultants, the real estate brokers and approximately 24 nearby residents. As specified in the UDO, the meeting afforded the applicant and area residents to review the project, the rezoning process and potential issues. A. Introduction Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor with Orange County opened the meeting by reviewing the basic zoning requirements as outlined in the UDO, the rezoning and other required development processes, the site features and the major elements of the proposal. The applicants then reviewed the overall vision for the development as well as specific considerations for each of the districts and an illustrative rendering of the development. The meeting was then opened up to questions and answers with residents. B. Topics Discussed The topics of discussion included: 1. Traffic: On-site and off-site improvements, the applicant summarized the findings of the submitted Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) including a breakdown of existing and planned signalization, walking connections between various Districts and the Waterstone Development within the Town of Hillsborough, phasing of existing and projected future levels of service (LOS) for immediate intersections. Comment(s) received from those in attendance included: a. Attendees indicated the TIA did not provide sufficient detail on the timeline for the installation of required improvements. DEVELOPER COMMENT: The Developer indicated the TIA is an overall guide identifying all required internal and external roadway improvements associated with the project. Each development 68 project will be required to submit a revised TIA documenting any and all required improvements that will have to occur to allow for the development of a specific project. b. Questions were asked about proposed walkways along Old NC Highway 86 connecting this project to Waterstone. DEVELOPER COMMENT: The feasibility of a sidewalk along Old NC Highway 86 was being investigated and would be discussed with the NC Department of Transportation, Orange County, and the Town of Hillsborough at the appropriate time. c. Concerns were expressed over the exacerbation of existing congestion in the area as the result of the proposed development. d. Concerns were expressed that development of the project will cause additional traffic on local side roads by travelers looking to access Hillsborough. e. Attendees supported the signalization of intersection points between Old NC Highway 86 and the Interstate but expressed concern that this would increase congestion in the area overall. 2. Land Uses: The developer reviewed the proposed permitted land uses for the project. Comment(s) received from those in attendance included: a. The application needed a clear definition of the various housing types proposed for District 3 (i.e. what is Assisted Living, Senior Living, etc.) b. Concerns were expressed over the proposed internal walking trails in Districts 2 and 3 as leading to potential public safety hazards for individuals using same. c. More information was requested on what type of hotel was envisioned for District 2. d. What type of retail and restaurants would be developed (i.e. fast food, chain restaurants, would a supermarket be developed in District 2, etc.) 3. Open Space and Buffers: The developer reviewed the proposed open space and buffer program including requested modification(s) to the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) buffer; proposed perimeter buffers; required stream buffer and floodplain buffers, fences, sidewalks and walking trails. Comment(s) received from those in attendance included: a. Concerns were expressed about the proposed 50 ft. wide buffer separating District 3 from properties to the south. b. There was a general concern removal of trees along the Interstate could increase the noise generated by motor vehicles on same. 4. Phasing: The developer reviewed the likely scenarios for development within each district; road improvements, and provision of water and sewer services. STAFF COMMENT: Staff reviewed the inter-local agreement process currently in place with the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County. Further staff discussed where the anticipated sewer line was being located 69 and reviewed the process by which the developer would have to obtain approval to extend water/sewer services to serve the project. 5. Developer Responsibilities: The development reviewed the project's current retail commitments, potential end users, conditions of approval, phasing for infrastructure. STAFF COMMENT: Staff reviewed the site plan development review process for the project reminding those in attendance the approval of the MPD-CZ application merely changed the zoning of the property. All development proposals would still have to abide by the County's formal site plan review process. 6. Hillsborough: Both the developer and County staff reviewed issues associated with potential future annexation, provision of water/sewer services, economic and land use plan modification(s). 7. Adjacent Properties: There was general discussion over the impact the project might have on existing adjacent driveway access points, potential impacts on existing well and septic systems, as well as the potential for later modification of the district to include additional property. C. Conclusion The meeting ended with a summary of the next steps including the Planning Board Meeting in October, and BOCC Quarterly Public Hearing in November. Staff also outlined where to find information on the project via the Orange county website. Attachment 8 —Excerpt of 70 Approved Planning Board Minutes MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 4,2017 REGULAR MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative; Tony Blake(Vice-Chair), Bingham Township Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Kim Piracci, At-Large; Township; Alexander Gregory, Chapel Hill Township Representative; David Blankfard, Hillsborough Township Representative; MEMBERS ABSENT: Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Donna Coffey, Cedar Grove Township Representative; STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Ashley Moncado, Planner II; Patrick Mallett, Planner II; Meredith Kern, Administrative Assistant II; OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Parker, Settlers Point Developer; Ariel Gamboa, Engineer from Summit Engineering, Ed Sarginey, Traffic Engineer; MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC; Imbi Kiiss, Charlene Summers, Vicki Berry, Amanda Berry, Ralph Warren, Deborah Markely, B. Tatum, Ursula Stumpf, Ricki Walker, Michael Efland, Joseph Shore, Charles Brantley, M.K. Ramm, Gerald Scarlett, Tara Hulse, Truitt Holmes, Ellen McRae, Deborah Christensen, Jim Record, Joe Chockley, Phllyis Moody, Lindsay Tapp, Michele Dixon, Carol Yavalek, Melinda Wilson, Edward Lourdevwik, Nannie Richmond, Robert Kadle, Ariel Gamboa, Robin Schectman, William Piscitello, Wayne Honeycutt, Janet Marks, Joan Kalnitsky, John Lemaine, Jane Ottara, Amber Dunn, David Liner, BJ Ray, Brenda Tate, J. Davis, Jana Doherty, Sandra Tromba, Craig Burch, Kevin Nicholson, Beverly Scarlett, Ron Spada, Beth Rosenberg; AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Lydia Wegman called the meeting to order and thanked the Board and members of the public for being present. She went over how the meeting would run and advised that if members of the public wanted to speak,they should sign-in. AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a) Planning Calendar for October and November • November 1 —Planning Board Meeting • November 14—Quarterly Public Hearing Lydia Wegman informed the Board of the several upcoming meetings: Planning Board Meeting on November 1st and the Quarterly Public Hearing on November 141h; the next Orange Unified Transportation (OUT) Board Meeting on October 18117; a Joint Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) - Town of Carrboro Meeting on the October 26th, regular BOCC meeting on October 17th and Nov. 2nd;the Assembly of Governments Meeting on November 16th and an OUTBoard meeting on November 15th. Ms. Wegman noted that Planning Board members'attendance is expected and desired at the BOCC November 14th Quarterly Public Hearing. AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 6, 2017 ORC Notes September 6, 2017 Regular Meeting MOTION by Kim Piracci to approve the September 6, 2017 ORC Meeting Notes. Seconded by Tony Blake. VOTE: UNANIMOUS MOTION by Tony Blake to approve the September 6, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes. Seconded by Kim Piracci. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 71 AGENDA ITEM 9: MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION-SETTLER'S POINT-To make a recommendation to the BOCC on an application for an MPD-CZ (Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning). The proposed project encompasses 272 acres in and adjacent to the Hillsborough Economic Development District(EDD)south of Interstate 40 on both sides of Old Highway 86. This item is scheduled for the November 2017 quarterly public hearing. PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor Michael Harvey reviewed the presentation. He guided the Board through the additional materials Staff passed out, including a replacement page for the recommendation (page 259), a revised Attachment 7 which is the ordinance amendment to the Orange County Zoning Atlas for this project. Mr. Harvey said that Staff has received a Zoning Atlas amendment that proposes a rezoning of 20 parcels of property, approximately 272 acres of land south of Interstate 40 through a Master Plan Conditional Zoning designation. Mr. Harvey showed visually the area which located both within Economic Development Transition and Rural Residential (R-1)(shown visually), and within urban- designated and rural-designated within the Growth Management Plan. Mr. Harvey said that Staff recommends that the review of District 3 (properties 10-20) be tabled for this discussion this evening, reason being that this area containing said 10 parcels of property is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the way that a Master Plan Development isreviewed. This area is not in a land use classification that will allow the review of this project. Mr. Harvey continued with the presentation and discussed the rezoning of the subject parcels of property from Economic Development — Hillsborough 2 (EDH-2), Economic Development — Hillsborough Office/Retail (EDH-4), Economic Development— Hillsborough Research and Manufacturing (EDH-5) to Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ). He also noted that there are portions of the property within the Special Flood Hazard Area District Overlay, and until the Overlay is eliminated, it has to be referenced. District 1 is intended to allow for research and manufacturing land uses (see revised Attachment 7, page 307). The first parcel of property is 148 acres (see breakdown of each Parcel Identification Number in packet)of land to be rezoned to allow for research, manufacturing and industrial land uses. It is west of Old NC 86, south of the interstate, and is currently accessed via a service road. As noted, these properties are located with an economic development transition area, according to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan, allowing for the MPD-CZ. District 2 encompasses 10 total parcels covering 47 acres in area; it is intended to be commercially-zoned. It is located east of Old NC 86, south of interstate, and is currently accessible via Old NC 86. It is also located within an economic development transition area which allows for a MPD-CZ. The intended land uses include office, retail, service operation, hotels, restaurants, etc. He reminded the Board that District 3 is not being discussed at this meeting. Mr. Harvey briefly reviewed the MPD-CZ rezoning process wherein Staff reviews the proposed plan which, being different than a Special Use Permit, does not require sworn testimony as part of the application. The schedule of review of this project started with a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) on the September 14, 2017 per the UDO. The developer held its own neighborhood meetings without Planning Staff for adjacent property owners. The second action in the review process is for the Planning Board to make a recommendation and then the project will go before a public hearing, which if recommended, will go to the upcoming November 14, 2017 Quarterly Public Hearing. Per Section 2.9.2 (F) (3)of the UDO, mutually-agreed-upon conditions can be imposed, addressed compatibility with the proposed development with surrounding property, and proposed development of support facilities and other matters the County may find appropriate, and the petitioner may propose. The applicant and Staff have created conditions through this mechanism. If approved, the Zoning Atlas would be modified to change the 10 properties identified to MPD-CZ, allowing for the development of the Settler's Point project. Mr. Harvey said that the development of individual land uses will be handled by Staff (i.e. reviewing site plans for permissible uses) but there will be no additional Board review. This proposal would establish a zoning district and development will be accordance with the UDO along with any specified condition articulated in Attachment 7 that the developer has asked to be imposed. Tony Blake asked if there would be special uses. Michael Harvey replied that Mr. Blake's question would be reviewed later in the presentation. He continued with his remarks saying that the Boards would only review this proposal again if the developers proposed an amendment to the Master Plan. Mr. Harvey summarized the conditions (25 pages)of which the applicant is imposing. One condition 72 is that the project is not guaranteed utility services by the Town of Hillsborough. With respect to utilities, the applicant must comply with the provisions in the UDO. The developer proposes that the project be served by public water and sewer and Staff agrees. Utility provision must meet UDO and Town standards. Mr. Harvey said that extension of utility services to District 2 shall have to be reviewed and approved by the Town of Hillsborough prior to its development. The County is working on a detailed agreement with Hillsborough but the County has already committed to extend water and sewer under the interstate, which could be used to serve District 1. The extension of utility services to District 2 would have to go through a similar process by the Town amending its agreement to allow for water and sewer to serve District 2. Lydia Wegman asked if the County would do the extension. Michael Harvey replied that it would be on the developer or successor to secure this extension; it is up to the individual(s) proposing the project. Mr. Harvey said that the project must go through site plan review per the UDO and that per the developer's recommendation, all submittals will be subject to an environmental and transportation impact analyses. He reviewed that an environmental assessment(or Environmental Impact Assessment(EIA)) looks into potential negative impacts on environmental features on the property (namely water bodies, floodplain, wetlands), soil composition, best location for a road, and weighs environmental constraints on the property. Staffs site plan review takes into consideration this assessment to ensure that environmental conditions are not exacerbated. The Transportation Improvement Assessment (TIA) is designed to identify internal and external roadway improvements required. Typically, these are only required once certain thresholds are met, but the developer suggested that TIAs be mandatory for every site plan review. These reviews ensure that the data that the developer submitted as part of the master plan application is viable as conditions change over time, and can implemented to reach individual site plan approval. Mr. Harvey pointed the Board to the existing TIA included in the proposal that gives a broad picture of what traffic improvements will be required for this project. The additional submittals of TIAs with site plan review provides Staff with any information on changes, that improvements are necessary and consistent, and that the TIA is approved in concert with the site plan so that it is installed by the same developer. Tony Blake asked when the Department of Transportation (NCDOT)gets involved. Michael Harvey said that NCDOT has been reviewing the existing TIA since March 2017. While Staff has not heard back from them with feedback, he hopes to hear from them soon. Since NCDOT is on an advisory committee that reviews site plans, they will be reviewing all documents along the way. Applicants are also required to document everyday water and sewer needs for a cumulative track record. The Town of Hillsborough will provide courtesy review on this project and will benefit from data on utility needs as well. Landscape plans will detail how vegetation will be cared for. Lydia Wegman asked for a review of the impervious surface area requirements. Michael Harvey said that the developer is required to document existing and proposed impervious surface area as well as building-to-open-space ratios. Since there are mandatory restrictions on total building area for each district and requirements for percentage of open space (based on the building to open space balance), the developer will continue to update Staff on where they are in meeting those thresholds. He noted land use buffers for the project. District 1 will maintain a 100 foot land use buffer along the western and southern property lines, roughly up to the economic development zoning line. There is a 50 foot buffer proposed along Old NC 86. There is a request to allow for thinning in this area to accommodate potential access, parking and stormwater features, along with replanting requirements.As proposed, Staff does not have an issue with the thinning of vegetation within the 50 foot buffer. The Major Transportation Overlay (MTO)will also be maintained along the interstate and has a required 100 foot buffer. The applicant is also proposing for thinning in this buffer, which Staff also finds reasonable since the UDO allows for breaks in the buffer to create visibility, especially since the developer is providing a replanting plan and describes in detail how the area would be disturbed, setting-up reviews in the site plan approval process. The developer provided illustrations of buffers for proposed parking lots in front of buildings (see narrative section). Standards for allowable architectural materials have been met. Transportation impact plans comply with the regulations outlined in 6.10 of the 73 UDO. Specifically, external roadway improvements will meet NCDOT requirements; internal roadways will be public; sidewalks and bicycle lanes will be developed; and 4 bus pullouts and transit shelters will be constructed to serve the project. By design as outlined in the developer's conditions, no structure or building erected will be outside the recommended distance to a transit stops to ensure accessibility. Staff is very supportive of this. Tony Blake asked if building heights and setbacks are included in the plans. He asked if they are following a form- based code. Michael Harvey replied that setbacks and building heights are included and said that the project is not being proposed within a fully-functioning form-based code. Paul Guthrie asked if there is consideration of the expansion of Interstate 40, especially in relation to planning going on adjacent to the right-of-way. Michael Harvey answered that even though Interstate 40 will be expanded in the future, Staff can only plan in the now as Interstate 40 exists. If NCDOT secures additional right-of-way, the buffers, setbacks and other details will be affected, but until this time, people cannot be denied reasonable development opportunities on their property. Mr. Harvey said he is unsure of the time horizon on the expansion and NCDOT is still working out the details. Paul Guthrie replied that he asked the question because he suspects that NCDOT can do expansion within the proposed plan MPD-CZ without a problem, but some of the ramps may require more property. Michael Harvey said in response that the TIAs will help with the integration of these plans over time. The developer can only be consistent with NCDOT comment, and Mr. Edwards with NCDOT has not indicated anything about a large-scale exit ramp reconfiguration yet. Paul Guthrie said that he had seen a map of long-term expansion. Michael Harvey replied that it is a good idea to keep the interstate expansion in mind. Mr. Harvey redirected the discussion to land uses. In District 1, an abbreviated list of land uses includes computer and electronic manufacturing, pharmaceutical research manufacturing, metal production manufacturing, furniture man, food and beverage bottling manufacturing, research facilities, etc. In District 2, commercial services could include retail, professional office, restaurant, recreational land use, health services, hotel and motels, and gas stations. The applicant asked if an elementary-secondary level school could be allowed as part of this project. Staff does not have an objection to the use,just to the use of it by right. The development of a school would be required to go through the Special Use Permit process,just as any proposed school would have to go through. Tony Blake asked if the plan provides for fire services and the like. Michael Harvey responded that it does and that government services (inclusive of protective services) are permitted in every district. Tony Blake said that he knows that they are permitted, but does the development plan take into account the additional resources needed? Building height would affect the fire department. Michael Harvey said that the Orange County Fire Marshal serves on the Planning Department's advisory committee and will be reviewing all site plans . With respect to Mr. Blake's question, he noted that there is a condition that requires the County Fire Marshal and the Town of Hillsborough's Fire Marshal, in consultation with the Utility Director of the Town of Hillsborough, to approve road layout at construction, location of fire lanes, location of fire hydrants and location of proposed standpipes. There will also have to be float tests required. 74 Tony Blake asked for confirmation that this project is located within the County and not in Hillsborough. Is the fire department Orange Rural for this area? He wants to make sure that the local fire department is also included in the review. Michael Harvey replied that yes, it is in the County but will be in the Town's jurisdiction at some point. Buddy Hartley noted that the local fire department is#316. Michael Harvey said that the local fire department can be added to the advisory group on these topics. He believes that Hillsborough will provide mutual aid, especially with the extension of water-sewer.As structures go over a certain height, there will be a sprinkler requirement. Tony Blake said that he wants to ensure that the local department responsible for fire protection is involved in the process. Michael Harvey said that he can accommodate that. He continued with his presentation and discussed the extensive signage provisions. He said that he has heard concerns from Board members and from attendees at the NIM about the architectural landmark as the visual identifier for the development. Staff has shared these concerns with the applicant. The applicant described the development's visual identifier as more of an architectural feature than a sign. Waterstone has the big architectural feature as well. Staff is suggesting that the applicant provide visual examples of the feature. As described, the sign will be subject to UDO guidelines that govern design for an entry portal marker. Staff did not have any major concerns with signage; they just want to ensure that the signage does not exceed square footage requirements, despite this being a high intensity project. Tony Blake said that a project such as this may want a sign visible from the interstate. This issue is better addressed sooner than later. Michael Harvey responded that there are not going to be many opportunities for a McDonald's to come to this site and have the 60—70 foot sign. The applicable signage requirements from the UDO still apply. Tony Blake replied that he had brought-up form-based code for this reason. Michael Harvey said that master planning,at its heart and soul, gives a developer the opportunity to propose different standards to try and address peculiarities of a specific project, and it is up to the BOCC to determine if there is sufficient justification. Mr. Harvey explained that with this project, the Staff and the applicant have been working on how to best apply design standards, landscaping, and signage innovatively and reasonably while following the UDO. There is some flexibility in this project, like with the MTO buffer, that still upholds the County's vision of preservation of the view-shed along the interstate as best as possible. Mr. Harvey said that Staff is satisfied that the application is complete and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He reiterated that Staff and the developer agreed that environmental assessments would be part of all site plan reviews, though it is too soon for a formal Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as the layout of the property has not yet been determined. The development is consistent with other existing and anticipated development in this area, and Staff believes that that the land uses are compatible and consistent with what is already allowed in the economic development districts. Mr. Harvey said that the Town of Hillsborough has provided the County Planning Department with its courtesy review comments and expressed some concern about District 3. District 3 was originally proposed as residential, specifically senior housing. Future Land Use Map amendments cannot be updated until the Water and Sewer Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) and other related documentation is modified to allow for this are to be considered as Transition Area. Per the emails that Mr. Harvey sent to Board members, the Town of Hillsborough and County elected officials are interested in meeting to discuss this further; Margaret Hauth, Hillsborough's Planning Director and County Planning Staff are working to facilitate this meeting. As discussed previously, District 3 will not be considered at this time due to its current land use designation. The Board's options are to recommend tabling the entire application until the Water and Sewer Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) and Future Land Use Map are modified (Staff is not recommending this option); recommend approval of District 1 and 2 for this project as they would be consistent with current and anticipating 75 development activity and are consistent with the Future Land Use Map,with a recommendation of delaying action on District 3 until the Water and Sewer Boundary Map (WASMPBA) and Future Land Use Map issues are resolved; recommend denial of the project (Staff is not recommending this option); or recommend approval of the application as submitted, including District 3(Staff is not recommending this option). Kim Piracci said that this is the first time she has heard of Settler's Point mixed use development and it seems like with very little information, she has more questions than answers. She said that if she moved to approve this, she does not feel like she knows what she is approving. Michael Harvey said that part of this process is for the Board to ask questions to get a comfort level. He pointed to the detailed, comprehensive narrative that Staff has provided and maps outlining what the area will look like. This project was originally submitted February/March of 2017 and was then tabled. It was resubmitted in August 2017 and this is the first hearing for the Planning Board to review the project. The narrative provides the standards for developing this project. Since this is a master plan, there are not specifics on where exactly a hotel or a motel or an industrial site will go. Board members are being asked to approve the zoning and regulatory limitations that will govern this project overtime, from setbacks to land use buffers to parking requirements, etc. Staff will utilize the Board's approval to approve or deny the developer's site plans as they come forward. This is different than a Special Use Permit application is required to have a site plan showing how the property is going to be developed. Rather, this process is a rezoning process. Design standards and criteria can and are going to be opposed. This criteria will be the basis for approval of site plans as Staff moves forward. Kim Piracci asked what Michael Harvey meant at the beginning of his presentation when he told the Board that this was the last time they would see this project. Michael Harvey replied the Board would be approving the zoning district. Site plans are going to be reviewed by Staff, subject to permitted uses in the UDO. What he meant was that the Board will not see site plans for this project, unless the concept of the school moves forward. He did note that the school would need a Class A Special Use Permit and that application would go through the Board. Tony Blake asked if Staff had received much public comment on this application. Were people concerned? Michael Harvey responded the NIM notes that go over concerns and other comments are included Attachment 5 in the packet. Mr. Harvey said that people were concerned about traffic impacts, congestion and congestion management. There is a TIA outlining what external traffic improvements will be required to accommodate the project. There was also some concern that this project could even be served by water-sewer. Staff made the aforementioned conditions regarding this concern. Additionally, there were concerns expressed about the intensity of District 3. There is also buzz in this project because of the economic development interest it brings to the County. Neighbors at the NIMs also expressed concerns about noise and air pollution. There are regulatory standards of which the applicant is aware that will hopefully address these concerns. Tony Blake said that he did not get the impression that the public would have more time to comment on this if the Board approves it tonight. Michael Harvey said that the public always gets the opportunity to comment on any development project that goes through Orange County, even if the project is permitted by right; and they get to comment tonight and at the BOCC public hearing. However, they cannot influence the outcome. Staff is reviewing and taking action on permitted land uses, most of which could already be developed in this area. From Staffs standpoint, the benefit of the project going through the master plan process is that it gives a comprehensive approach of developing roadway standards and addressing buffer issues, purposeful utility management in coordination with Hillsborough. The master plan process helps establish a zoning district that addresses some of the applicant's needs, the Planning Department's needs, and economic development needs in the County. There could still be limitations that impact this project, just like any project. 76 Tony Blake said that the streamlining is clear. He wants to make sure that the people affected by the project have been listened to. Michael Harvey said that the applicant's gone to great lengths to alleviate concerns, as has Staff, by making conditions of approval that address concerns. Mr. Harvey said that unfortunately, nothing is perfect. However, the application represents a reasonable move forward in this area of the County, and as Staff continues to address external roadway improvements, ancillary agencies will have more ability to compel some modifications of roadways that may impact certain components of projects. Lydia Wegman acknowledged Paul Guthrie to speak. Paul Guthrie asked a couple of questions: Has there been a formal analysis on the capacity with potential increases for water and sewer?And to what level? Michael Harvey said that he will let the applicant answer that question. Paul Guthrie asked-Who is going to pay for the expansion of the facilities if Hillsborough takes on the responsibility? Will the water supply be from Hillsborough? Michael Harvey said that was not a question he could answer. Paul Guthrie asked about a transmission line about a block-and-a-half from the site. Have there been discussions with the power company about this line? Michael Harvey replied that no, there have not because no site plan has been submitted yet. While Staff knows there is service availability, it is currently unclear which use will be reviewed for approval first. It is incumbent upon the developer to make improvements on utilities for the good of the project, just like any developer in Orange County when it comes to utility upgrades. As site plans come-in, the Town of Hillsborough will decide if they can handle capacity,and if they cannot, the use cannot be approved. Paul Guthrie asked if the developer will pay for additional costs associated with this. Michael Harvey responded that if a developer wants utility upgrades for a project, they will have to pay for it. He cannot comment for the Town of Hillsborough. Paul Guthrie noted that there has been an interesting dialogue going on with Hillsborough on this project, as he read in the materials provided. Michael Harvey agreed and said that most of that dialogue is on District 3. Ms. Hauth's letter voicing concern over the Town serving a residential project this far south, outside the Town's corporate limits, is included in the materials given to the Board.These are the issues to discuss further. Paul Guthrie said that Hillsborough will have to weigh capacity of water needs/use based on what gets built on the site. Michael Harvey replied that applicants have to provide information for site plan review to figure out these very issues. Craig Benedict said that in regards to water capacity for District 1, the agreement that the County has with Hillsborough does have a certain allocation — 108,000 gallons/day. This is part of the agreement in that area. Any uses that come forward will have to spread-out over the 148 acres or so to accommodate the capacity. For other issues outside of District 1, District 2, and possibly District 3, there will have to be an independent agreement between Hillsborough and the developer to negotiate water and sewer consumption. The County is involved with the 77 District 1 agreement because the County is involved with getting the sewer system under the interstate and beginning the loop of a water system to support that project and more. Michael Harvey said that Staff's recommendation is for the Board to receive this application, to deliberate, and consider the following recommendation: Table action on District 3 with a recommendation to the elected officials that this area (District 3) come back to the Planning Board for continued review and discussion for your April 2018 meeting. If there is action that would enable District 3 to be acted upon by the County, the Board would have sufficient time to do so. Staff wants to avoid the unnecessary re-advertisements if the Planning Board can review this at a later time after the elected officials make a recommendation. Tony Blake asked if NIMs for District 3 are done. Michael Harvey replied that the NIMs for the entire project are done. He continued with the recommendation. Staff recommends that the Board approve the Statement of Consistency in Attachment 6 with the provision that any references to property in District 3 be eliminated; approve the ordinance, Attachment 7, which has already been modified to eliminate references to District 3. Mr. Harvey said that he will fix some errors in Attachment 7 at the appropriate time, once he gets more direction from the Board. He turned the presentation over to the applicant. Someone from the audience asked when the public would be able to make comments. Lydia Wegman replied that the applicant will make his presentation and then the public will be invited to speak. Jim Parker introduced himself and said that he is representing Old NC 86 Partners as the developer and applicant. He also introduced the engineer for the project, Ariel Gamboa from Summit Engineering and Ed Sergainey, Traffic Engineer. Mr. Parker said that Michael Harvey and Craig Benedict did such an extensive presentation that he would not show the same maps again, but would focus on the history of the project as he and his partners see it, and then take questions, listen to the public and try to respond. He said that he has lived and worked in Hillsborough for over 30 years, and in that time, has worked on various development. He and his partners are very familiar with the County and the Town from working and living in the area for many, many years. The County has had its Economic Development Districts (EDDs)for a long time and they are meant to provide economic benefit for the County and the Town. He said that they saw the Hillsborough EDD as a gem. The subject area has one of the best interchanges in the County and it is close to Hillsborough. He said that he believes the development will provide a transportation market, a transient market. This does not mean that the development is not of quality or second rate in relation to this market; but it is positioned well to provide economic development and benefit the tax base. For the last 2.5 years, Mr. Parker and his partners have been assembling properties in the southeast quadrant (showed a map). He said that they set the template for the development for the site plans that would occur in this area. The land uses presented mirror what the County has already identified as viable for the subject properties. He said that they are bringing an assembled mass that will spur development. It is very difficult for development to occur on a 1 acre property, but the properties collectively together give the uses a palette through which the development can occur. Mr. Parker thanked the Board for its consideration of this project and hopes that they will vote favorably for it. He said that they are here to answer questions. Lydia Wegman thanked him for the time he put into evolving project and for involving the Planning Department, Michael Harvey in particular. She recognized Paul Guthrie to ask a question. Paul Guthrie said as a follow-up to his previous question, has asked Mr. Parker if he had any conversations with the Town of Hillsborough about who is going to pay for the expansion of water services and treatment facilities if necessary. Jim Parker replied that in regards to utilities within the site, within the public right-of-way, other than the sewer and water infrastructure discussed by Mr. Harvey and Mr. Benedict, the developer would pay for it. He said that there is capacity, but they have not yet identified what may be needed to improve the capacity for the development. At this point, they do not know exactly the volume, based on the buildings. Development will be done on a piece-by-piece 78 basis. If it were to reach that limit, and the capacity was not there to reach the next site plan, the developer will have to pay to expand the capacity. Paul Guthrie said that he asked the questions because some years ago he was involved in the funding and building of some 200 community treatment plants in another state and provided a water supply. The biggest trap was when developers came with grand designs when they heard there was land available, and then the community got stuck with building a new facility without recourse to keep money out. The result was great burdens on the small communities without great capacity ability. Jim Parker responded that he appreciated the comment and that as Mr. Guthrie knew, there are good officials working on these issues that will not let a scenario like what he just described happen. He noted a water line (16 inch)in the right-of-way off Old NC 86 that has been serving Hillsborough from OWASA for years. It is now becoming Hillsborough's to meter. The sewer line being put in will be 12 inches in diameter. There has been some planning and sizing of the lines for the areas in the EDD, with the anticipation of a certain volume being generated from the land uses. David Blankfard asked about the neighborhood meetings that Mr. Parker held separately from the Planning Department. How did it go? Jim Parker thanked him for asking that. He said that they have held 3 neighborhood meetings: September 2016, August 2017 and September 2017. The meetings have been generally well attended.At the first meeting, they mostly talked about the area itself since they did not have specific plans together at the time. There were questions from adjacent property owners that live outside of and south of this property. These neighbors have not come back to subsequent meetings. There have been concerns over types of uses, traffic, but generally, no concerns from individual property owners with specific things they wanted from the developers. The attendees have been well- informed and he said that he and his partners have listened to them. Tony Blake asked if in the project would expand in the future if additional adjacent properties became available. Jim Parker said that they have reached out to most every property owner in the area and offered to buy their property to make it part of the development. The properties in the development are a result of property owners selling their lots to Mr. Parker's group. Tony Blake responded that he sees the challenge facing the County that there are no big areas for development,just segmented properties. Jim Parker said that other EDDs look similar; it's just the way it is. There are a lot of little properties that need to be amassed to do a development. Michael Harvey made a point of clarification. He said that if the development secured additional property, the Settler's Point Master Plan would have to be amended to add the additional properties into the proposal, which would initiate another public hearing process. If Settler's Point is approved without District 3 and District 3 becomes possible to develop later on, the developer will have to go through an entire new process to do so as well. Lydia Wegman asked for clarification. If the Board tabled District 3 this evening, there would not be a need for an entirely new process, unless District 3 is withdrawn. Michael Harvey said that this is correct and added that if District 3 were to come back to the Board but there is no movement forward on the components still needed for it to be viable, the Board may recommend that it is denied, and it would have to go through the process again as well. Jim Parker said that they are supportive of Staff's recommendation. 79 Kim Piracci said that she did not do her homework to study the materials for this development. She cannot make an informed decision on any of the items tonight. She said that she suspected that other members may be in a similar position. If she recommended that this item be tabled, the world would not come to an end. What is the worst that would happen? Michael Harvey responded that if the decision is to table the entire project, it will be tabled and brought back up at the Board's November regular meeting. With the delay, the project would not be going forward to public hearing in November because there will likely not be enough time to get it to the BOCC. He recommended that she ask Mr. Parker any questions. He also said that he would need direction on what Staff should provide in terms of more information or direction. Kim Piracci said that she needs more time to study this project. She feels like this is too much to go forward with, for her personally. Lydia Wegman said that she appreciated Ms. Piracci's comments and gave Mr. Parker a chance to respond. She said that she would also like to know how other members feel, and wanted to give the public a chance to comment. The public has been extremely patient. Jim Parker said that he understands Ms. Piracci's position. He said that on his end, they are on a timeline and have a contractual obligation. Mr. Parker said that he does feel like the world would come to an end for he and his group. He wishes the project had been ready to move forward this past spring but here they are so much later. He said that he really hopes the Board approves the project. If anyone has questions, he will take as long as it takes to answer all of them. He thanked the Board. Lydia Wegman turned to the public for their comments. She thanked them for being patient and asked people who wanted to speak to come forward to the microphone. Beth Rosenberg said that she lives off Davis Road and she is in the same boat as Ms. Piracci. She did not know about this important meeting until she saw a sign. She did not find information about the project online. She wished that the developers had also met with property owners in the area at large since the interstate entrance/exit she uses to get home is the same entrance/exit as the proposed development. Her neighborhood will be impacted. She noted that already Old 86 can get busy with back-ups from the highway and more traffic on Interstate 40 is concerning. She is also concerned about environmental impacts of the project on her neighborhood. Lydia Wegman thanked Ms. Rosenberg for her comments. She noted that the notification requirement is only to property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property/properties of the intended development. Janet Marks said that she lives off of Davis Road in a small neighborhood. They chose their neighborhood because they could easily get to Interstates 40 and 85 but also live in the country. As a neighborhood, they have not been involved in the discussion. The signs on the side of the road notifying the public about these meetings were too hard to read and were put in places where it was too dangerous to pull-off the road and read them. She said that there is so much traffic already (for example, 4 dead squirrels on the road in one day). Both the heavy as well as the light environmental impacts all matter. Living in the country to her means that lights are dim. She conveyed her frustration in not being included in the neighborhood meeting process; her neighborhood is very much impacted by this proposed development. Gerald Scarlett said that his driveway is Scarlett Mountain Road, the southern boundary of the subject property. His property goes about a half a mile back into the woods. While he came with a lot of questions tonight, he is not going to ask them because they involved District 3. One of his main concerns is with water. If the County is so concerned about "going green" and renewable energies, the point should be made that there are no renewables for water. He said that he lives at a high elevation and has a line of sight to the Sharon Harris Nuclear Power Plant when the skies are clear. The proposed development is at a lower level than his property. His well was made 250 feet down through solid granite. Even though the discussion has been about public water infrastructure, the development document 80 online shows the digging of wells for landscaping purposes, and the wells would be used when storm retention ponds are dry, for irrigation. This is of great concern —if retention ponds are dry during a drought and then the wells will be used and he may not be able to get access to water while the trees in the development look nice and pretty. This concerns him as an individual and he thinks it should concern everybody in that area. He does not know how big the water table is but he thinks it needs to be considered. He is also concerned about traffic. He knew a development like this would be coming since the state took part of his property to build interstate 40. It is incumbent on the County and the state to do something about Old 86 before this kind of development goes in, or at the same time. Driving from Carrboro to Hillsborough on Old 86 can be dangerous. Bicycle lanes may be created for this project but bicycles are going to be traveling from Old 86 to get there. He hopes that the Board and the developer will consider his comments. He said that for himself, he would say leave everything like it is, but he is trying not to be one of those people. He asked that they consider the problem of timing for this. Vicki R. Berry introduced herself and said that the former speaker was one of her school mates. She said that she is a Hillsborough native and involved in Hillsborough activities. She said that she and her family live off Old 86 South, on a small farm. She talked about her upbringing of going to a church and being a part of a sharing community of love and hope, not destroying and taking from each other, and displacing families. She said that she and her family want to stay where they are and nurture it to be what it once was and help it to grow. She is not against economic growth; she is for it and for schools and for health. She recently retired to take care of her granddaughter and is from a family of artists, attorneys and teachers. They all want economic growth but with less congestion, less development and other populations moving in. Such big changes can all be detrimental to children and their growth and development. Maybe there could be development of schools along the development area. She is also considered about the traffic but is in support of water and sewer along Old 86. She supports progress as long as it does not interfere with people's wellbeing and privacy. Joseph Shore said that he lives off of Old 86 and the proposal would be building all the way around him. He just bought his house a year ago. He agreed with Ms. Piracci that delaying the project would not end the world and could provide benefits to have a greater understanding of the impacts. He said that with all due respect, he disagrees with Mr. Harvey. He thinks that the NIMs were not well attended (6 — 10 people) and should have been expanded to neighbors who lived closeby but outside of the 1,000 foot notification area. He encouraged the Planning Board to take its time, do what they think is the best decision for this area and the people who live there and the overall County. His questioned if the proposed zoning change would be all around him. His parcel is not included in the zoning change but it is one of 4 parcels surrounding the development area. How will the zoning affect his property? How will it affect the sale of his home? If his property zoned differently than everything around it, will he have to get it rezoned for it to be marketable if he want to sell it one day? Lydia Wegman asked Michael Harvey or Craig Benedict to try and answer this question and discuss the process Mr. Shore would have to go through for a rezoning. Michael Harvey said that the decision would be between Mr. Shore and the developer, not the County. He has a residentially-zoned property surrounded by economic development-zoned property, and it has been on the map that was since the 1980s and 90s. Many of the uses that the applicant is proposing can already be developed on these parcels as currently laid out. This process does not change Mr. Shore's property. His property can still be used for residential purposes and it is still surrounded by economic development-zoned properties that could be developed, even if this project gets denied, based on the UDO as it exists today. Tony Blake asked about the changes to any setbacks that are currently in place. Michael Harvey said that there is still the 100 foot buffer around the project. If someone wants to sell their property, it is incumbent upon he/she to do this. Regardless of whether or not the Board approves this project tonight, these parcels are economic development-zoned; water and sewer are already being extended to the area through an inter- local agreement; thus, there are already opportunities being set-up with this area. Tony Blake said that development could not affect the buffers by which Mr. Shore's property is protected. 81 Michael Harvey agreed that the perimeter buffer would remain the same. He showed District 1 visually and how the 100 foot buffer is situated around the development. He also noted buffers around streams and floodplains per Section 6.13 in the UDO. There is a condition that the applicant adheres to those standards and requirements. He also showed District 2 and certain properties on Old NC 86 that are also zoned Economic Development and are not a part of the project. Tony Blake asked Mr. Harvey to point to Mr. Shore's property on the map(displayed on the screen). Michael Harvey pointed out Mr. Shore's property on the map. Lydia Wegman thanked everyone for their questions and feedback. Corinn Shaker said that she lives off of Davis Road as well. She said that her concerns mirror those her neighbors have expressed. She explained that she has lived in Hillsborough for the past 11 years and has watched businesses start and empty out. Why is the plan to expand and development outside of Hillsborough when it seems like there are places inside of the Town that are dying in a sense? She voiced concern that Hillsborough would one of those communities with a vibrant downtown with an area in between Old 86 and Interstate 40 that is dying, and now there is a development like District 1 and District 2. Why not go back and reinvigorate the parts of Hillsborough that have not been doing well? She does not understand this dynamic. She said that if the Planning Board votes on the re- zoning, they will have no other control after it is zoned residential over what is developed there. Lydia Wegman said that portion of the development being reviewed is not residential; it is light industrial and research in Distirct 1 and commercial/retail in District 2, not residential. These properties have been identified since the '80s and '90s that the County wanted to focus on for economic development. The current zoning is for economic development. Corinn Shaker commented that the Board still does not know definitely what will be developed in District 1 and 2; there could be a hotel or a restaurant or a pharmaceutical company. Lydia Wegman said that the Planning Board would not be able to approve any of that anyway. The Planning Department will be reviewing this. The provisions of the master plan allow for specifics to come in later. Corinn Shaker replied that she can understand that. She still just feels shocked that she did not know about the development. Why is the County not working to fix what is inside of Hillsborough before focusing out? Lydia Wegman responded that that would not be up to the Planning Board but rather individual developers and business owners. It is not the Board's job to tell them where to go. Tony Blake agreed that this would be out of the Board's scope. The Planning Board is an advisory board. Corinn Shaker said that she is just putting her concern out there about how Hillsborough is evolving over time. Tony Blake confirmed that Davis Rd. is in the County's jurisdiction. He thanked Ms. Shaker for her comments. Joan Kalnitsky said that she also lives off of Davis Rd. Her concern is District 1 and the light industrial permitted uses described on pages 309-310. She is concerned about the noise. She tried to read the document but it was exhausting to read. She read that noise and light will be governed by County standards and she does not know what that means. There are over 70 homes in the Davis Road community mentioned earlier; it is a not a small community. Their community has consistently voted to keep it dark in terms of lighting enhancements. She said that even though residents there are not within 1,000 feet, they are within 1 mile of the proposed development. If the proposal goes through, the flavor of the area is going to change drastically. She wished that the community had been invited to the NIMs. She hopes that that Board will ask for more information on what light industrial uses are considered, which 82 could potentially include a textile mill, which would change their lives dramatically. She asked the Board to consider her comments, to read over the packet thoroughly, ask more questions, and better understand the potential impact of unknown the light industrial uses. Tony Blake and Lydia Wegman looked to Michael Harvey for more information on light industrial uses that the speaker mentioned (referring to page 314). Michael Harvey said District 1 is, by its zoning designation, and as defined in the current UDO, a light industrial zoning district. He said that the County is currently revising its Table of Permitted Uses and that the Board has been participating in reimagining what the Hillsborough Economic Development Districts would be like, going back a year ago. The Planning Board and the elected officials recommended expanding the uses in general, including in this light industrial and research zoning district, EDH-5. The permitted uses listed in the application narrative are the same as those listed in the application. Tony Blake said he knows that the Table of Permitted Uses is being redone. Is it the case that if a use is not identified as an allowable use in a zoning district, it is permitted by default? Is this a state ruling? Michael Harvey said yes, Mr. Blake is referring to a state court ruling. Tony Blake asked if the master planning process protects the area better than what the Table of Permitted Uses lists. Michael Harvey said that it sort of does.As a condition, the developer agrees to the list of permitted uses spelled-out in Staffs conditions of approval, and understands that this is all he gets. Thus, there cannot be the same reaction for a use that is not listed, which could mean that by definition, it is permitted. One benefit of the master planning process it that the aforementioned argument will not stand, based on conditions set and agreed upon. As Board members and Staff have noted, there will be a Table of Permitted Uses that will allow for a lot of these activities that are not going to be completed in a comprehensive manner consistent with the UDO, but that process is not this process. For example, typically, Staff can only require EIAs and TIAs if certain thresholds are met, whereas this with master planning process, a condition is listed that mandates it. There will now be mandatory assessments, based on the conditions, on how development of this project could impact Old 86 and the interchanges on the interstate. While everyone's concerns may not be addressed, the master plan process does allow for more opportunity to work with a developer to establish reasonable conditions, especially with respect to environmental and transportation impacts at the site plan level. If thresholds are not met, Staff does not usually have the opportunity to require a developer consider the impacts of environmental and transportation impacts. He said that there was some concern about not being able to find information on this project. The application is on the Planning Department's website with a link to the Settler's Point website. The existing TIA is also available for study(a 600+ page document). Amanda Berry Shocklu introduced herself as Ms. Berry's (previous speaker) daughter. She lives at 3303 Old 86 in Hillsborough. She said that they have about 8 acres of land. She said the family is working with someone to get rid of some trees on the property. She had heard that she needs to have a certain amount of trees on the property to turn a profit from logging. The wooded area on the property currently has a lot of snakes which is a concern for her. She also said that her family would like to be connected to Hillsborough's public water expansion instead of using her current well,which she worries is not clean. Tony Blake said that he is not sure if the expansion of water-sewer will affect her property. There would be a fee to hook-up. Lydia Wegman said that Mr. Harvey could provide some guidance on how to begin the process. Michael Harvey said that the first step is figuring out if her property is in the primary service area where water-sewer services are being extended. If it is located there, she needs to petition the Town of Hillsborough. If their property is not within the service area, they will not be able to get public water at this time. Mr. Harvey advised Ms. Berry to 83 come to the Planning Department to meet with him on concerns around the development of her property so that he can provide the best information, instead of answering individual questions about her property at this meeting. Lydia Wegman agreed that the best thing to do is to contact the Planning Department and setup a meeting with Mr. Harvey about both of the issues she raised. Tony Blake said that he sympathizes with her about the snakes. Craig Benedict agreed that for those specific cases, it is best to meet with Staff at the Planning Department. Debra Markley said that she also lived off of Davis Rd. She said that she frequently walks on Davis Rd. in order to get to another development to be able to walk for a distance. She said that with the increased traffic that is trying to get to Orange Grove Rd., she worries that the area will not be walkable or safe with even more traffic. She is also concerned about light from the development as well as sound issues. She moved to her community 19 years ago and she has seen development now where areas are clear-cut to make way for Waterstone (mixed residential) and for development with the Sportsplex. She is most concerned about development with District 1 with furniture and textile factories and chemical uses. These uses really concern her. She asked that the Board to take a month to study this. Randy Marshall asked how long ago the area was established as an Economic Development Zoning District. Michael Harvey said that it was established in the late '80s. The Hillsborough Economic Development District was created as it currently exists in the mid to late'90s. Randy Marshall said that it sounded like the possibilities for many of these uses have been there for 20 to 30 years. Michael Harvey clarified that there are land uses as part of this application that are currently are not allowed. He said that said land uses have been discussed in several forms with this Board and the BOCC as uses that these bodies want to see. The applicant has mirrored its application based on the proposed changes in the Table of Permitted Uses. There are aspects of this project that are currently permitted. If the question is, could there be some type of industrial operation in this project, the answer is yes. Would it be reviewed under the current confines of the UDO? Yes. This area has been encouraged and promoted as a good area for heightened economic development. Randy Marshall said that several people have pointed out that they know that something is coming to the area and no one wants to have their quality of life impacted by the area being developed, but the County wants to develop it. He said that the Board is trying to make the best decision about what goes into the area. Michael Harvey said that it is also important to note that up until recently, there have been limitations on development in this area; most notably, lack of infrastructure. That's about to change, he said. In a way it is inevitable that this area be used for economic development, notwithstanding utility services, and because it is one of the last interchanges in the area that has not seen appreciable development. The scarcity of land like this positioned near interchanges will make this area attractive. These are the facts but these comments are not meant to make the Board act now. He made the point again that the necessary tools to make development more possible in this area are being extended. Lydia Wegman asked Michael Harvey to identify which of the uses listed on page 314 would not currently be allowed but that are being considered for inclusion in the revised Table of Permitted Uses. Michael Harvey said that most of these uses on page 314 will be included in the revised Table of Permitted Uses, based on the directive Staff has from the Planning Board and the BOCC. There is not a lot of distinction, and the developer used the Table of Permitted Uses discussion to influence what the County wants to see land use-wise. In consideration of the purpose and intent of this zoning district, there could be a heightened level of industrial uses allowed, once the Table is adopted at some future date. 84 Craig Benedict said that the regulations that the County has put together, in anticipation of this land use implementation that has been on the map since the '80s, takes into account the impacts that community members voiced. Traffic-wise, road capacity is evaluated by the TIAs. When traffic from this project meets certain thresholds, the developer has to make improvements. Mr. Benedict said that this is not a case where the project continues and someone else fixes the project later. Many residents raised concerns about lighting. Orange County has one of the best"dark sky" ordinances in North Carolina. The lighting program in Section 6.11 of the UDO requires that light be limited and directed down. In terms of the environmental issues, the site-by-site EIAs will be considered alongside master planning for stormwater management which protects the water table. Even though wells are permissible within the development, they may not necessarily have to install them. It could be the case that stormwater areas down to groundwater could provide the water for irrigation and other landscaping. Tony Blake asked if there is something that can be done to restrict the amount of water used from a well during a drought. He acknowledged the technical solutions but asked if verbiage could be added to address the issue. Craig Benedict responded the water table in Orange County is not in the typical stratospheric table seen in other parts of the country. It is in granite. The creation of a well is about hitting the right cracks in the rock. Since there are some adjacent properties with wells that are outside of this project, if there are wells are requested in the future for landscaping, Staff can direct the developer to an area with the least susceptibility of affecting nearby wells. Tony Blake said that there could be something codified about this issue. Craig Benedict noted that the protections as part of the MPD-CZ are more intense than in general use zoning. The amount of uses allowed in a master plan development is a restricted list from the full list in the Table. There are more precautions in a MPD-CZ, with traffic impacts, and more comprehensive development that is a value to everybody and to the surrounding Towns, and people who use the roads in the area. This type of project takes a better look at all of the impacts on-site and off-site. Kim Piracci said that she understands that it has been established that the County has and wants to develop this area, and this is a valuable area. She asked if developers tell Board members what they are planning to do with this. Craig Benedict replied that there is not going to be 272 acres of development all at once. The perimeters will be set with approved zoning and then the developer will market the property. In this case, there is not a specific site plan or use that says that an Ikea is coming here; it is not this type of proposal. This type of proposal develops the road pattern - the utility pattern, the use pattern, the buffer pattern, and other such patterns. Once something like this is established, there will be more activity and will be prepared to a higher level than in the past for the advent of the infrastructure being put into this area. In the early '80s, 1-40 was not there. The impact of 1-40 spurred interest in creating an interchange and jobs. This project will likely feed off of the interstate with people going to work from the rural areas of the County. The traffic here is interstate-related to a large degree. Kevin Nicholson said that he lives at 1006 Davis Rd. He said that he is part of the sixth generation living on his property; he lives in his grandfather's house. He raises chickens, cows and has a farm (farm use value program). This proposed development within a mile of the house. He said that he can remember a time when there was a proposal to widen Davis Rd. to 5 lanes. Everybody from his family and in community fought this proposal off. Is there a plan to widen Davis Rd.with this project? He knows that something will have to be done with Old 86 eventually. Jim Parker said that his project is not proposing the widening of Davis Rd. Craig Benedict said that there is long range planning for road patterns. Based on the long range planning going on, he can say that there are no long-range plans to widen Davis Rd. but there are plans to widen NC-86 over the long- term and short-term. The road between Old 86 and new 86 through the Waterstone development was part of the Planning Department's planning efforts 15 years ago. There may be a traffic light at Davis Rd. someday, when it meets NCDOT's needs. 85 Kevin Nicholson said that in regards the economic development zoning in the `80s, he would not know anything about such a plan formed when he was a kid. Will economic development zoning continue down Davis Rd or continue towards Carrboro? Craig Benedict said that even though economic development plans have been around for 30 years, and they have only gotten this far. The long range planning in Orange County focused on interchanges, like at Mt. Willing Rd., Buckhorn Rd., and there will be plans for the US 70 1-85 interchange in the Eno Township. There are about 3,000 acres of land zoned for economic development and Staff does not see an expansion. He also noted the Water and Sewer Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) between Hillsborough, OWASA, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County. This boundary starts around Davis Rd. and flows north towards the Hillsborough sewer system. From the south of the Davis Rd. ridge, it flows towards Jordan Lake. The department has a compact development pattern that keeps it development clustered as close to cities and towns as possible and will not be running down Old 86 or new 86. Kevin Nicholson said that he knows that the Board is going to do what they are going to do. If he had the kind of money that developers had, he would buy all that land and keep it the way it was. He thanked Board members for their time. Lydia Wegman thanked Mr. Nicholson for coming to the meeting. John Lemaine introduced himself as a taxpaper who lives in a community off of David Rd. which is outside of the 1,000 ft. boundary. He said that he would be most considered if there was a District 3 at this point. He thanked Mr. Harvey for his explanations but said that he was still unclear. Is the plan to change District 3 from rural to economic development of some sort? He said that this is different than the established zoning of District 1 and 2. He said that a change in zoning for District 3 would establish a change to the community and he is concerned about this. He said that he did not quite follow the process of when District 3 would come-up again. Could he get some clarification please? Michael Harvey said that District 3 was explained in the application would have single family and multifamily housing with nursing and continuing care facilities; it would be an age-restricted development. It is intended to be high- intensity senior living community. District 3 is not being reviewed tonight. If the Planning Board recommends the approval of this project tonight, it will not include District 3. District 3 is currently zoned Rural Residential, a residentially-zoned parcel of property, and this proposal calls for a higher intensity residential land use than is currently permitted. Staff has recommended that all discussion on District 3 be tabled and that sounded like the Planning Board wanted the BOCC to refer this part of the plan back to the Planning Board at a future date, if the externalities keeping them from reviewing it tonight are modified, allowing District 3 to move forward. However, District 3 may have to be modified or abandoned, and the developer will need to decide what action he will take. Staffs recommendation to the Board is that they table and wait for further input from elected officials. As mentioned, there will be meetings with the Town and County elected officials regarding how the southern portion of this area will be developed. He recognized that Margaret Hauth, Planning Director, was present and should correct him if he is wrong, but he said that the Town was interested in purposeful extension of economic development and opportunities that can be served by the Town. The Town provides courtesy review and if it is determined that a project cannot be served, the project will not be able to move forward. At this juncture, District 3 is a non-issue and the only recommendation for it is for all talk of it to be delayed until everyone can make an informed decision about it. Tony Blake said that to summarize, District 3 is not in an economic development zone. Michael Harvey said that District 3 is not in a transitional zone, meaning that by definition, a master plan project cannot be reviewed. Tony Blake said that there is potentially a capacity issue for water and sewer that still needs to be discussed. 86 Michael Harvey agreed with this statement and said that a reason that the conditions read the way they read is to anticipate the eventuality of the capacity issue. A process will have to be established regarding how a developer with a site plan can work with the Town. Tony Blake said that regardless of the proposal, the set of uses would not be permitted in District 3. Michael Harvey said that District 3 was proposed for residential development only. Right now, District 3 will remain a rural residentially-zoned parcel of property. Tony Blake said that he was pointing this out to quell apprehension. (Michael Harvey clarified with the previous speaker that District 3 would not be acted on.) Charles Brantley spoke and said that he lived off of High Rock Rd. He asked when the Board had received the plethora of materials in this packet. He asked if Board members had seen this packet before tonight. Tony Blake and Lydia Wegman responded that Board members had received these packets. Charles Brantley said that he was under the impression that Board members had not seen it. Tony Blake said that it is a lot to go through but they did receive it. Lydia Wegman asked if any other members of the public wanted to speak. Hearing none, she invited Mr. Parker to speak and to address some of the questions. Jim Parker thanked Ms. Wegman. He reiterated that as developers, they see this as a transportation and interstate market. He said that what they have done is collectively bring parcels together to form one parcel to which this zoning would apply, as opposed to individual property owners having to go through individual rezoning processes, which may not be effective since the parcels alone make-up a smaller area. He said that they are trying to create the palette by which they can attract and bring in users into a development. He said that he cannot say what will go there except that they will be land uses that are needed and desired, or that are allowed to develop in that type of environment. He addressed concerns about the neighborhood meetings, notifications, and attendance. He said that the first and third Neighborhood Information Meetings (NIMs) were well attended with about 15 people, though the second meeting was not as well attended, but he believes there were about 10 people there. He conveyed that they would have liked to notify further but that that area of notification beyond the County's requirement is hard to define. Where do you stop?With this dilemma in mind, he followed the County's requirement. Tony Blake pointed out that the County's notification requirement goes further than what the state requires. The state only requires notification to property owners within 500 ft. of the subject property, not 1,000 ft. like the County's notification. Jim Parker remarked that the addition of the wells was a project component put in in 2008-2009 during dry spells in the County when people were trying to find different irrigation techniques without using potable water to put less of a demand on public water. He said that they have no problem taking out the wells out of the development design and will do so. Lydia Wegman thanked him. Jim Parker continued with his responses. He said that his traffic engineer could answer more technical questions but as far as the improvements to NC 86, they will be extensive when all of this land is developed. It is unlikely that this process will all happen at once. The ultimate build-out will likely be 4 lanes with turn lanes and signals at the interchanges serving the entrances to District 1 and 2. There will be 3-4 signals,one at the service road. In regards to comments about dying business in Hillsborough, he sees Hillsborough as a growing town. He said that the"interstate 87 businesses" should be kept on the interstate and the ones in the intersections of town should grow healthy there. He said that his development provides a place for some of the businesses that one sees around interstates. He said that the vision for District 1 is for light industry and an increase in tax base by the land uses allowed there. District 2 is the interstate market, meaning commercial, restaurants, and a potential hotel that could provide a meeting space in addition to lodging. He hopes that the Board will approve this tonight. By doing so, the Board does not relinquish control. Staff will ensure that moving forward the development plan is in concert with the guidelines. He thanked the Board. Kim Piracci asked Mr. Parker if the Board does not approve this tonight,will the project be"done." She asked if this is what he said and how it would work if this is not approved. Jim Parker said that they are on a timeline and not making a decision tonight will push the process back. He asked if Mr. Harvey knew how far it would be pushed back. Michael Harvey replied that it is hard to say because the next item on the agenda deals with how public hearings are scheduled. The scenario that could be forthcoming on this project is that the Board tables the decision and takes it up at the November meeting and the Board makes a recommendation at the November meeting. It is conceivable that if the text amendment being reviewed next is approved, it could be schedules at a public hearing in December, January, or February to review this case. Lydia Wegman asked if there was a possibility that this could be reviewed at the November 14th quarterly public hearing if the Board made a decision at its November 1st meeting. Michael Harvey said that would not be possible because of the heavy workload associated with getting meeting packets together. Draft minutes may not be done in time and the BOCC needs to be able to review the draft minutes to understand the Planning Board's decision. There is not sufficient time. Lydia Wegman said that she understood. Kim Piracci asked—what if this gets put off for 6 months. Why would the developer say"nevermind?" Lydia Wegman quickly noted that this project could potentially be heard in February 2018 at the quarterly public hearing, a 3 month delay. Kim Piracci asked that if it were 6 months,why would the developer want to exit? Jim Parker said that they are contractually-bond to the land. Tony Blake said that it sounded like there was a contingency at play and there is an end date on it. Kim Piracci asked if these properties had already been purchased. Paul Guthrie said that it sounded like options to buy. Jim Parker said that they are options,which is typical. PB MEMBER?asked if Mr. Parker could tell them when the contract expires. Jim Parker told him that he will not tell the Board when the contracts expire as a matter of confidentiality between the seller and the buyers. Lydia Wegman agreed that it was a matter of confidentiality. 88 Randy Marshall said that he is ready to make a motion. Buddy Hartley said that this is as good an application that he has seen. Mr. Parker has covered about everything that needs to be covered. For the Board to make a recommendation on this, there is nothing that is not to approve. He said that the County does need senior housing somewhere. He said that he will be a senior someday too. Lydia Wegman asked if there were any additional comments. She thanked everyone for coming to the meeting to speak and thanked Mr. Parker and his team for coming, and to Michael Harvey and Craig Benedict for their help this evening. She said that from her perspective, she appreciated the applicant's willingness for continued discussions on the environmental and transportation assessments; this is is very important. That component is a plus of this application. She did hear concerns about transportation and she does hope that the developer and other businesses will work closely with members of the community on transportation and environmental concerns. She asked again if anyone else had additional comments. Michael Harvey said that if there is a consensus among Board members that the item be tabled until November, it is the Board's prerogative. If the decision is that there is a consensus to recommend this project, there are modifications that need to be made to Attachment 7. He will walk the Board member through making the motion on this part in order to address the Board's comments and to fix some items in the review that he did not catch earlier. He needs to ensure that the motion is consistent and clean to address all concerns from Board members, and modifications that ensure District 3 is eliminated from any review, point or discussion. Tony Blake clarified that Item C would include Attachment 7 as amended. Michael Harvey added that it would read "as amended and as further amended," if that is the decision to move forward. Lydia Wegman asked if any of the modifications would be relevant in the Board's thinking. Michael Harvey said that they could potentially be relevant. Lydia Wegman asked for Mr. Harvey to go through the modifications. Michael Harvey said that in Attachment 7, he will be applying the following notes. He heard from a Planning Board member tonight that in regards to Condition 4 regarding site plan approval (page 308) that references be included to local volunteer fire departments to review site plans. Tony Blake said that this would be for the primary responding volunteer fire department. Michael Harvey continued with his proposed modifications. He said that there would have to be explicit language saying that the Town of Hillsborough has to review and indicate if there is capacity for water and sewer service, prior to the County Planning Department issuing a site plan approval. On page 311, in Condition 6, the local volunteer fire department needs to be added to the Orange County Fire Marshall and Town of Hillsborough sharing review and approving location of fire lanes, location of fire hydrants, and location of proposed standpipes. The local volunteer fire department shall also be involved in the float test, which is now all in Condition 8. On page 315, for District 2, numbers 3 and 16 are for movie theaters. There only needs to be one movie theater so the recommendation would be to delete number 16 and renumber accordingly to correct the duplication. On 317, the condition (Condition H) regarding landscaping around the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District, a statement needs to be added to number one at the end to say, "unless clearing is consistent with Section 6.6.5 (a) of the UDO." The UDO does allow for breaks for visibility in the MTC. He said that there was some discussion that the BOCC receive a rendering or an example of the architectural landmark sign and an entry portal sign so that they can make a recommendation if the proposed square footage is acceptable. Mr. Harvey said that he did not hear the Board express concerns about the square footage of the signage, but everyone wants to see and understand what the 89 feature will look like to determine if it is appropriate. The recommendation is that the developer provides this. There are examples of other signage in the application. Paul Guthrie said that he thought seeing the examples would be a good idea. Tony Blake noted a typo in Condition H with feet. Michael Harvey made a note of it and said that it was correct in the developer's application. Michael Harvey said that Mr. Parker offered that onsite wells in Condition H, subprim 1, be eliminated, to address concerns over the depletion of wells if irrigation is necessary. Mr. Harvey suggested that this portion be reworded as follows: "Landscaping shall be watered by reclaimed water or water from the site." He said that the department is open to rain barrels or other systems of catching rainwater. The other modification would be to Staff's recommendation to table action on District 3 with a recommendation that the request for this area come back to the Planning Board for discussion and edits at the April 2018 regular meeting, which seems like a sufficient amount of time for this to move through the process. This date should be set even if this part of the project does not come back through the process. Next, the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 6) relating to Districts 1 and 2 only — the motion needs to include that Staff needs to remove all references to parcels connected to District 3 from the Statement of Consistency as currently contained in Attachment 6. Finally, there should be an amendment that calls for approving the ordinance to revise Attachment 7 to include all modifications discussed this evening, with a recommendation to approve to the BOCC as the Planning Board sees fit. Lydia Wegman asked if there is anything else to discuss. Paul Guthrie counseled that when they are working close to a jurisdiction like the Town of Hillsborough that there might have been more presence in the notes regarding where issues were in progress, based on recent conversations. Michael Harvey replied that he thinks that this was done but that the main issues is District 3 and the Town's concern about serving a project this far south of the interstate. Ms. Hauth's comments are also included in the packet outlining other concerns. The service issue and District 3 issue were discussed. Paul Guthrie said he was talking about the utility issue. He said that based on his experience, it is important to be upfront when working on such a project with another jurisdiction for certain services as to who is responsible and for what. Michael Harvey said that he does not disagree with this counsel but that he does think that Staff has discussed this issue in many of the conditions with the project and the addition of the requirement of any project with expanded services needs to go through the Town of Hillsborough for approval. As Craig as alluded, there is already a gallon limitation for water-sewer as part of this expansion. Paul Guthrie and Michael Harvey thanked each other. Lydia Wegman asked if there were any additional questions. Hearing none, she asked if Randy Marshall would like to make the motion. Randy Marshall said that he would make the following 3 recommendations to the BOCC. MOTION by Randy Marshall made a motion to table action on District 3 with a recommendation to request this area to come back to the Planning Board for review and discussion at the April 2018 regular meeting. Seconded by Buddy Hartley. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 90 MOTION by Randy Marshall to approve the Statements of Consistency in Attachment 6 relating to Districts 1 and 2 of the project only with Staff to assure remove to all references of District 3 in Attachment 6. Seconded by Buddy Hartley. VOTE: 8-YES,1-ABSTAIN(KIM PIRACCI) MOTION by Randy Marshall to approve the ordinance in Attachment 7 as amended and further amended, amending the zoning atlas relating to Districts 1 and 2 of the project only. Seconded by Patricia Roberts. VOTE: 8-YES,1-ABSTAIN(KIM PIRACCI) 91 Attachment 9 STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Orange County has received and processed a petition submitted by Old NC 86 Partners LLC (hereafter `the Applicant') seeking to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). This petition seeks to rezone 10 parcels totaling approximately 195 acres of property to Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZD) for the purpose of developing the Settlers Point mixed use development (hereafter `the Project). The properties subject to this rezoning are identified, utilizing Orange County Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN), as: i. A 90.37 acre tract of land PIN# 9863-71-8857 ii. A 58.56 acre tract of land PIN# 9863-91-6573 iii. A 1.36 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-11-4636 iv. A 1.65 acre tract of land PIN#9873-11-5415 v. A 0.50 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-11-7506 vi. A 1.75 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-11-9450 vii. A 1.46 acre tract of land PIN#9873-11-7247 viii. A 4.50 acre tract of land PIN#9873-10-7937 ix. A 34.58 acre tract of land PIN#9873-20-2388 x. A 2.45 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-10-4310 hereafter`the Property' and, At this time, two overlay districts also apply to portions of the Property subject to this atlas amendment, specifically the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) and Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Overlay Districts. No modifications are being proposed to the boundaries of these two overlay districts as part of this process. The Planning Board finds: a. The requirements of Section 2.8 of the UDO have been deemed complete; and, b. Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 153A-341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within the record denoting that the amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which is proposed for concurrent amendments. 1. The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it supports the following 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives: • Objective LU-1.1: Coordinate the location of higher intensity / high density residential and non-residential development with existing or planned locations of public transportation, commercial and community services, and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer, high-speed internet access, streets, and 92 sidewalks), while avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural resources. This could be achieved by increasing allowable densities and creating new mixed-use zoning districts where adequate public services are available. (See also Economic Development Objectives ED-2.1, ED-2.3, ED-2.10, and Water and Wastewater Objective WW-2.) The atlas amendment is consistent with this goal and objective by proposing the rezoning of property to create a mixed-use zoning district, including the development of high density residential and non-residential land uses, in an area of the County designated for the location of adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e. water and sewer). c. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it: 1. Expands economic development prospects within the County while continuing to protect adjacent and nearby land uses. The atlas amendment involves the approval of a master plan establishing a detailed list of allowable residential and non- residential land uses to aid in the marketing on an area designated within the Comprehensive Plan as being suitable for high density residential and non-residential development. Further, the approved master plan establishes mandatory land use buffers and setbacks for development within the project to ensure off-site impacts are mitigated. The Planning Board of Orange County hereby recommends that the Board of County Commissioners consider adoption of the proposed Zoning Atlas amendments. E ® I Lydia N. Weg an, Chair Date 93 Attachment 10 STATEMENT OF APPROVAL AND CONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Orange County has received and processed a petition submitted by Old NC 86 Partners LLC (hereafter `the Applicant') seeking to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). This petition seeks to rezone 10 parcels totaling approximately 195 acres of property to Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZD) for the purpose of developing the Settlers Point mixed use development (hereafter `the Project). The properties subject to this rezoning are identified, utilizing Orange County Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN), as: i. A 90.37 acre tract of land PIN# 9863-71-8857 ii. A 58.56 acre tract of land PIN# 9863-91-6573 iii. A 1.36 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-11-4636 iv. A 1.65 acre tract of land PIN#9873-11-5415 v. A 0.50 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-11-7506 vi. A 1.75 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-11-9450 vii. A 1.46 acre tract of land PIN#9873-11-7247 viii. A 4.50 acre tract of land PIN#9873-10-7937 ix. A 34.58 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-20-2388 x. A 2.45 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-10-4310 hereafter`the Property' and, At this time, two overlay districts also apply to portions of the Property subject to this atlas amendment, specifically the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) and Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Overlay Districts. No modifications are being proposed to the boundaries of these two overlay districts as part of this process. The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the Zoning Atlas Amendment and finds: a. The requirements of Section 2.8 of the UDO have been deemed complete; and, b. Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 153A-341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within the record denoting that the amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which is proposed for concurrent amendments. 1. The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it supports the following 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives: • Objective LU-1.1: Coordinate the location of higher intensity / high density residential and non-residential development with existing or planned locations of public transportation, commercial and community services, and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e., 94 water and sewer, high-speed intereet access, streets, and sidewalks), while avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural resources. This could be achieved by increasing allowable densities and creating new mixed-use zoning districts where adequate public services are available. (See also Economic Development Objectives ED-2.1, ED-2.3, ED-2.10, and Water and Wastewater Objective WW-2.) The atlas amendment is consistent with this goal and objective by proposing the rezoning of property to create a mixed-use zoning district, including the development of high density residential and non-residential land uses, in an area of the County designated for the location of adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e. water and sewer). c. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it: 1. Expands economic development prospects within the County while continuing to protect adjacent and nearby land uses. The atlas amendment involves the approval of a master plan establishing a detailed list of allowable residential and non- residential land uses to aid in the marketing on an area designated within the Comprehensive Plan as being suitable for high density residential and non-residential development. Further, the approved master plan establishes mandatory land use buffers and setbacks for development within the project to ensure off-site impacts are mitigated. The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts this Statement of Approval and Consistency as well as the findings expressed herein. Mark Dorosin, Chair Date Attachment 11 95 Ordinance#: ORD-2017-023 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS WHEREAS, Orange County has received and processed a petition submitted by Old NC 86 Partners LLC (hereafter `the Applicant') seeking to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and WHEREAS, This petition seeks to rezone 10 parcels totaling approximately 195 acres of property to Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZD) for the purpose of developing the Settlers Point mixed use development (hereafter`the Project), and WHEREAS, The properties subject to this rezoning are identified, utilizing Orange County Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN), as: i. A 90.37 acre tract of land PIN# 9863-71-8857, ii. A 58.56 acre tract of land PIN#9863-91-6573, iii. A 1.36 acre tract of land PIN#9873-11-4636, iv. A 1.65 acre tract of land PIN#9873-11-5415, v. A 0.50 acre tract of land PIN#9873-11-7506, vi. A 1.75 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-11-9450, vii. A 1.46 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-11-7247, viii. A 4.50 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-10-7937, ix. A 34.58 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-20-2388, and x. A 2.45 acre tract of land PIN# 9873-10-4310 hereafter`the Property' and, WHEREAS, The applicant has voluntarily chosen to establish development and land use limitations on the Project to ensure proposed land uses do not conflict with surrounding properties, and WHEREAS, This petition has been submitted in concert with a formal master plan in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.9.2 (C) of the UDO, and WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 and 2.9.2 of the UDO have been deemed complete, and WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County Zoning Atlas is hereby amended to rezone aforementioned 10 parcels 96 of property to Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) and allow development of the Project as detailed within the submitted application. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT The terms and conditions contained herein shall encumber the Property and bind the owners and lessees thereof, their successors in title and interest. The development of the Project as well as all necessary site improvements, both internal and external to the Project, shall be reviewed, approved, and developed in accordance with: a. The applicable provisions of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), b. Any and all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations, and c. The approved application package as submitted by the Applicant and as approved by the Orange County Board of Commissioners on November 14, 2017. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT in accordance with Section 2.9.2 (F) of the UDO the approval of this Conditional Zoning applicant is subject to the following mutually agreed to conditions: 1. Approval of the Project does not constitute a guarantee utility services (i.e. water and sewer) shall be provided and/or extended by the Town of Hillsborough. 2. The Project shall be composed of 2 individual development district(s) further identified as follows: a. District 1 (PINs 9863-71-8857 and 9863-91-6573) — A total of 148 acres of land area allowing for the development of light industrial and research land uses; and b. District 2 (PINs 9873-11-4636, 9873-11-5415, 9873-11-7506, 9873- 11-9450, 9873-11-7247, 9873-10-7937, 9873-20-2388, and 9873- 10-4310) — A total of 47 acres of land area allowing for the development of commercial, retail and service land uses. 3. In addition to the requirements of Section 6.20 Public Sewer Connection of the UDO, required utility extensions and/or connections shall abide by the following: a. Development within the Project shall only be served by public water and sewer services as provided and maintained by the Town of Hillsborough. b. Utility connection(s) shall comply with applicable Town of Hillsborough standards. c. Extension of utilities to District 2 shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Hillsborough. 97 d. A written, signed agreement between a developer, Orange County, and the Town of Hillsborough shall be executed describing the timing, phasing, design, and financing of public water distribution and public sanitary sewer collection mains. 4. In addition to the requirements of Section 2.5 Site Plan Review of the UDO, development applications within the Project shall provide the following additional information as part of the site plan application process: a. For development of structures, vehicular use areas, roadways, and/or utility installation(s), an Environmental Assessment shall be completed in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.16.3 of the UDO regardless of the proposed land disturbance. b. For development of structures, vehicular use areas, and roadways, a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) shall be completed in accordance with Section 6.17 of the UDO regardless of anticipated traffic counts for the development. TIAs shall include the following additional information: i. A review and analysis of required internal and/or external roadway improvements for consistency with the previously prepared TIA reviewed as part of this Project, ii. Weekend traffic count data for similar mixed use developments within the area. c. Documentation outlining proposed and/or existing cumulative impervious surface area as well as building/open space ratios with the Project. d. Documentation denoting approval of proposed mail kiosk locations by the Postmaster General and the North Carolina Department of Transportation. Documentation denoting anticipated daily water and sewer needs for proposed land uses. e,f.Documentation indicating the Town of Hillsborough has reviewed a site plan application package and determined there is sufficient water and sewer capacity to serve the project. A lack of water and/or sewer capacity shall result in the denial of the site plan application by the County.2 f,g_In addition to the standards detailed in Section 2.5 of the UDO, all landscaping plans shall include information denoting the proposed method of care (i.e. underground sprinklers, maintenance personnel, etc.) for the development. Language added by Planning Board at its October 4,2017 regular meeting. The applicant has expressed no objections to the revision. Please refer to Attachment 5. 2 Condition added by Planning Board at its October 4,2017 regular meeting. The applicant has expressed no objections to the revision. Please refer to Attachment 5. 98 In addition to established review criteria, all landscape plans shall be reviewed and commented upon by: i. Orange County Cooperative Extension (staff arborist), ii. NC Department of Transportation, and iii. Local utility companies (i.e. power, cable, phone, etc.) Identified conflicts associated with landscaping shall be resolved prior to the approval of the site plan for a given project. Required plantings shall not be reduced to accommodate a conflict with utilities or roadway issues. 5. TRANSPORTATION: In addition to the requirements of Section 6.10 Roadway Improvements and Multi-modal Transportation of the UDO the following standards shall apply: a. External roadway improvements shall be constructed in accordance with NC Department of Transportation requirements and guidelines, approved Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), and the standards outlined herein. b. All internal and external roadway construction/improvements shall be completed or appropriately bonded prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance (C of C) allowing the occupancy of a structure triggering completion of same. c. Internal roadways shall be developed in accordance with Section 6.10 (A) of the UDO. d. All streets, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, etc. shall be designated for public access/use. e. Driveway permit(s) shall be issued by the North Carolina Department of Transportation prior to the commencement of any earth disturbing activity. f. The right-of-way and roadway for Service Road shall be extended west through District 1 to provide additional connectivity to adjacent parcels. Any extension of Service Road shall be constructed to NC Department of Transportation public road standards. 3 g. Additional right-of-way necessary to support roadway improvements shall be secured in accordance with North Carolina Department of Transportation right-of-way acquisition processes. The right-of-way shall be secured prior to the County accepting a site plan application proposing development requiring same. The applicant is requesting the condition be modified to only require the applicant to extend the existing right-of- way to the end of the project. Construction of a new road will be addressed during site plan review of a site specific development plan. The applicant has further argued connectivity will be difficult given the presence of floodplain to the west of the existing road. For more information please refer to Attachment 5. 99 h. All street signals shall be erected on metal poles. i. Orange County and North Carolina Department of Transportation shall approve the location of all proposed utility poles housing street signals, both internal and external to the Project, prior to installation. j. Segregated entrances and exists for pedestrian, construction vehicle, and non-construction vehicular traffic shall be developed to avoid conflict during construction activities. k. Traffic directional signage shall be required for all internal and external roadway as directed by Orange County and the North Carolina Department of Transportation including but not limited to: i. Stop signs, ii. Yield signs, iii. Bus parking and unloading informational signs iv. Lane ends, v. Merge signs, vi. Caution Pedestrian Traffic — Yield Signs, vii. Traffic safety signs designed to direct construction traffic throughout the site, viii. Traffic warning signs indicating the location of private driveways and forbidding public access to the various properties, and ix. Through traffic signs. I. Bicycle lanes and sidewalks shall be constructed along all internal roadways as well as the portion(s) of Old NC Highway 86 located within the Project. m. Four (4) bus pullouts and transit shelters shall be constructed to serve the Project consistent with transit plans adopted by Orange County and shall be developed in accordance with the following: i. Each transit stop shall be a covered and enclosed on 3 sides to shield users from the elements, ii. Kiosks shall be developed to provide transit information, including schedule and route information, and shall be illuminated to five (5) average maintained foot-candles. n. In addition to the standards contained within Section 6.10 (A) (2) of the UDO, the following additional requirements shall apply to the development of crosswalks: 100 i. Signals shall be installed, where stoplights are located, providing assistance to deaf and visually impaired individuals announcing when it is safe to cross roadways. o. Speed limits for internal roadways shall be as follows: i. Alleys affording access to the rear of various buildings for service delivery: 10 Miles an Hour. ii. Streets serving the interior portions of District(s): 10 Miles an Hour. iii. Streets serving as service roads allowing for the free flow of traffic between District(s) as well as Interstate 40 and Old NC Highway 86: 25 Miles an hour. p. In stances where drop-off zones/areas are provided they shall be located near building entrances and segregated by bollards or landscaping from required parking spaces and/or vehicular travel lanes to avoid conflict. 6. The Orange County and Town of Hillsborough Fire Marshal, and representatives of the Orange Rural Volunteer Fire District4 shall review and approve: a. Road layout and construction methodology, b. Location of fire lanes, c. Location of fire hydrants, and d. Location of the proposed stand-pipe(s). prior to the commencement of earth disturbing activity. 7. The Orange County and Town of Hillsborough Fire Marshal, in consultation with the Town of Hillsborough Utility Director, shall review and approve location(s) of proposed water lines prior to the initiation of land disturbing activity. Sizing of said lines shall be based on the proposed development, including water flow test data. 8. Fire-flow test(s) of all installed hydrants shall be conducted, in coordination with the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County Emergency Services, to ensure compliance with applicable State Fire Code standards. 9. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS: Development within the Project shall abide by the following: a. Permitted exterior finishes and/or siding materials shall be limited to: i. Cement/concrete siding, such as Hardi-plank, 4 Language added by Planning Board at its October 4,2017 regular meeting. The applicant has expressed concern over the revision. Please refer to Attachment 5. 101 ii. Brick and/or stucco, iii. Concrete in pre-cast or cast-in-place (CIP) applications. 1. Where utilized, large expanses shall be broken-up and modulated with architectural variations like scoring, reveals, ornamental embellishments, etc. iv. Concrete masonry units (CMU's) limited to: 1. Standard block, painted for service areas out of public view, rears of parapets, etc. OR 2. Split-face and/or ground face CMU's v. Dry-stack and/or ashlar stone shall be permitted only when utilized as an identifying characteristic for a structure. b. All storefronts and glass walls shall utilize glazing. Reflective and/or mirrored glass is prohibited. c. Roofs shall abide by the following standards: i. HVAC equipment, elevator overrides, and other similar devises shall be screened utilizing 1 of the following methods: 1. Clad in exterior materials that are non-reflective or illuminated, OR 2. Designed as an architectural feature of the proposed structure, OR 3. Screened through some vegetative buffer or fencing. ii. Solar panels shall be allowed to be installed along roof tops, including raised panels to allow for tracking of the sun's rays, in accordance with the following: 1. The panels shall oriented or designed to prevent glare, and 2. The panels shall be screened from view at street level through an architectural feature, fencing, or vegetative buffer. iii. Metal roofs shall be non-reflective and designed to blend in with the architecture of the building. iv. Flat roofs shall be shielded from the public's street view through the use of parapets, railings, or balusters. d. Proposed building(s) shall abide by the following orientation standards: 102 i. Front farade(s) serving as the primary means of public ingress and egress shall face either a public space/court yard or a street. ii. Parks, green plazas, squares, court yards, etc. shall have a minimum area of at least: one —tenth (1/ 10) of an acre. These areas shall be located, at a maximum, within one- sixth (1/6) of a mile of at least seventy-five percent (75%) of any and all building entrances. e. Non-roof mounted HVAC, mechanical equipment cabinets, etc. shall be screened from view in accordance with Section 6.8.9 Screening of the UDO. f. Solid waste containers, dumpsters, recycling bins, etc. shall be screened from view in accordance with Section 6.8.9 Screening of the UDO. Screening of said facilities shall be reviewed and approved by Orange County Solid Waste as part of the site plan review process. 10.A Memorandum of Agreement regarding transit service shall be developed and executed describing how bus transit service(s) shall be provided such that all building entrances are within one-quarter (1/4) mile of a transit stop. 11.All lease agreement, or individual sales documents, shall include provisions requiring the installation and maintenance of bicycle racks or other similar secure location for the storage of bicycles within the development. 12.INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: Developments within the project shall abide by the following standards: a. Smoking within a building(s) shall only be permitted within designated smoking areas consistent with the following condition: i. Smoking areas shall be located in an area of the building designed to contain, capture, and remove smoke from the building through an appropriate ventilation system. b. External smoking areas shall be a minimum of 50 ft. from all entries, outdoor air intakes, and operable windows. External smoking areas shall be required to be identified on submitted site plans. 13.Development of and within the Project shall abide by the following: a. LAND USES: Development within the Project shall be limited to the following land uses: i. Permitted in all districts: 1. Accessory uses to principal uses of property, 103 2. Bus passenger shelter, 3. Surface and structure parking, 4. Mail kiosks for central mail pick-up, 5. Elevated water storage tanks with a maximum height limit of 75 ft., 6. Public parks, 7. Pedestrian and bicycle paths, 8. Government administrative offices, 9. Government protective services (i.e. Police/Fire Station, Rescue squads, EMS station, etc.) ii. Permitted in District 1: 1. Bank automated teller machine as a standalone use, 2. Schools: vocational, technical, and trade, 3. Health services (i.e. licensed practitioners and/or specialists, outpatient surgical centers, medical and diagnostic laboratories, etc.), 4. Hotel/motel/convention center, 5. Motor vehicle service station, 6. Apparel manufacturing, 7. Mail order houses, 8. Clay product and refractory manufacturing, 9. Computer and electronic manufacturing, 10.Fabricated metal product manufacturing, 11.Food and beverage product manufacturing and bottling, 12.Furniture and related product manufacturing, 13.Glass and glass product manufacturing, 14.Machinery product manufacturing, 15.Pharmaceutical and medical product research and manufacturing, 16.Plastic product manufacturing, 17.Printing and relates support services, 18.Research facility, 19.Research and manufacturing facility, 104 20.Rubber and plastic, hoses and belting manufacturing, 21.Storage and/or warehousing inside of a building, 22.Textile mills and textile product mills, 23.Restaurant, 24.Telecommunication tower 75 ft. and under in height. iii. Permitted in District 2: 1. Religious facility, 2. Social club or lodge, 3. Movie theater, 4. Bank and financial institution, 5. Bank automated teller machine as a standalone use, 6. Childcare facility, 7. Library, 8. School: vocational, 9. School: dance, art, music, physical fitness, etc., 10.Health services (i.e. licensed practitioners and/or specialists, outpatient surgical centers, medical and diagnostic laboratories, etc.), 11.Hotel/motel/convention center, 12.Motor vehicle service station, 13.Professional offices and services (i.e. attorney, realtor, accountant, insurance agent, financial consultant, financial securities brokers, etc.), 14.Retail, 15.Restaurant, 16.Movie theater,5 416. Indoor gym/physical fitness center, X17. Arcade, 4$18. Indoor/outdoor swimming pool. iv. Development of a School: elementary, middle and secondary land use shall be permitted in District 1 subject to compliance with existing development standards, and the submittal and approval of a Class A Special Use Permit, in accordance with the provisions of the UDO. 5 Planning Board recommended the deletion of a duplicate reference to a previously identified land use. 105 b. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS: All development shall abide by the performance standards as articulated in Section 6.4 of the UDO inclusive. c. RATIO STANDARDS: All development shall abide by the following ratio standards: i. Minimum Percentage of Open Space: 30% or a cumulative total of 81.6 acres in Districts 1 and 2. ii. There shall be a minimum of 30 acres of open space in District 1 or 2. iii. Maximum Allowable Floor Area Ratio shall be as follows: 1. District 1: 0.20 or 1,248,000 sq.ft. 2. District 2: 0.13 or 261,800 sq.ft. d. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS: Accessory buildings and enclosures whether attached to or detached, including automatic teller machines, shall be designed to complement the site architecture and shall be integrated with the same scale, texture, color and detailing of adjacent architectural design. e. BUILDING HEIGHT: Buildings within the development shall abide by the height limitation(s) established within Section 3.7 Economic Development Districts — Economic Development Hillsborough Research and Manufacturing of the UDO. Under no circumstances may a structure exceed 6 stories in height through the incorporation of additional front and side yard setback(s) consistent with the aforementioned section of the UDO. f. SETBACKS: All development shall abide by the following setback standards: i. District 1: 1. No structure shall be located within 50 ft. of any external roadway. 2. No vehicular use area shall be located with 25 ft. of any external roadway ii. In District 2: 1. No structure shall be located within 75 ft. of Old NC Highway 86. 2. No vehicular use area shall be located within 50 ft. of Old NC Highway 86. iii. In all Districts the following setbacks shall be observed from internal access roads: 106 Setback Freestanding In-line Vehicular Storage Signs from Buildings Shops use areas internal and areas property Buildings line Front 25 ft. 10 ft. * 10.ft. * 10 ft. 10 ft. Side 25 ft. 10 ft. * 10.ft. * 10 ft. 10 ft. Rear 25 ft. 10 ft. * 10.ft. * 10 ft. 10 ft. * When proposed use is adjacent to common ownership property such as a private street, alley, or parking area the setback shall be reduced to 5 ft. * iv. No building shall be permitted within required land use buffers as required by the UDO and detailed herein. g. STORMWATER AND EROSION CONTROL: All development shall abide by the provisions of Section(s) 6.14 Stormwater and 6.15 Erosion Control of the UDO. h. LANDCSAPING: In addition to the applicable provisions of the UDO, the following standards shall apply: i. Landscaping shall be watered through reclaimed stormwater. On-site wells may be permissible in the event that stormwater is unavailable. Proposcd irrigation wcll(s) shall be permittcd by Orangc County Environmental Hcalth 6 ii. A 100-ft. undisturbed land use buffer shall be installed and/or maintained along the western and southern boundaries of District 1 . No thinning shall be permitted within this area. iii. A 50-ft. undisturbed land use buffer shall be installed and/or maintained along Old NC Highway 86. Thinning within this land use buffer shall be permitted consistent with the following: 1 . A maximum of 50% of the required land use buffer area may be thinned. 6 After concerns were expressed at the Planning Board meeting,the applicant requested the provision allowing for irrigation wells be removed. The Board agreed and modified the resolution accordingly. 107 2. Thinning shall only be permitted to accommodate development of stormwater retention ponds, including support infrastructure, or required utility structures. 3. Vegetation shall be replanted consistent with the Type C land use buffer standards as detailed in Section 6.8.7 of the UDO. iv. A 25ft. land use buffer shall be installed along Service Road within District 1. v. Internal streets shall have one (1) tree, installed at a minimum three-inch (3") caliper, every sixty (60). vi. Modification of the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. 1. No disturbance of the MTC buffer along adjacent Interstates shall be permitted with the first 50 ft. as measured from the right-of-way unless clearing is consistent with the provisions of Section 6.6.5 (A) of the UDO. 7 2. The remaining portion of the buffer can be disturbed consistent with the following: a. Disturbance shall only be permitted to facilitate development of access roads, parking lots, walkways, and stormwater facilities. No structures, other than stormwater facilities, shall be permitted within this area. b. Reduction shall only be permitted in instances where sight lines and distances from the Interstate are not adversely impacted by the proposed clearing. c. The disturbed area shall have vegetation re- established consistent with the Type C land use buffer standards as detailed in Section 6.8.7 of the UDO. d. Vegetation shall be replanted to a minimum 50% of the disturbed area. e. As part of the site plan submittal, a formal landscape plan shall be required denoting the following: a. Area to be disturbed, Clarification suggested by staff and recommended for approval by the Planning Board at its October 4,2017 regular meeting.The applicant has expressed no objections to the revision. Please refer to Attachment 5. 108 b. Tree survey denoting the existing foliage to be removed, c. The cross section of the buffer area and the area of the Interstate to be impacted, d. A synopsis of proposed land uses in the disturbed area, and e. Detail on any required revegetation of disturbed area. vii. Required landscaping for parking lots: 1. Parking lot shade trees shall be provided at a ratio of one (1) three-inch (3") minimum caliper tree for every ten (10) parking spaces. 2. Ninety percent (90%) of proposed parking spaces shall be within fifty (50) feet of the center of a shade tree. 3. Minimum tree planting area shall be nine (9) feet by eighteen (18). In cases where tree grates are provided, the minimum planting area shall be sixty- four (64) square feet in area by two (2) feet in depth. 4. Consistent with Section 6.8.7 (D) Landscaping of Vehicular Use Areas of the UDO a 10 ft. wide vegetative strip, exclusive of drainage and/or utility easements, shall be provided between the vehicular use areas and the right of way or adjacent property line, except: a. Where permitted driveway openings are to be provided. b. In instances where parking areas and drive- isles abut interior property lines, the 10-ft. required landscaped area may be split among the two (2) adjoining properties. 5. Screening of parking areas located along the perimeter boundary of a District shall maintain a minimum tree spacing of sixty (60) feet and provide the required thirty-six-inch (36") screening, required to be a minimum of twenty-four inches (24") at initial planting, adjacent to proposed parking spaces. viii. Required landscaping along structures: 1. Thirty percent (30%) of a buildings perimeter shall be landscaped, while maintaining space for required sidewalk area, composed of: 109 a. Lawn, b. Planters, or c. Shrubs a minimum of twenty-four inches (24") in width comprising a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the total linear dimension along the building's perimeter. i. PARKING: In addition to the requirements of Section 6.9 Parking of the UDO, development within the Project shall abide by the following: i. Parking for individual land uses shall be in accordance with Section 6.9.7 of the UDO. The overall maximum amount of surface parking permitted for the entire development combined, shall be one (1) space for every two hundred (200) square feet of floor space. ii. Development of joint parking facilities shall allow for the reduction of required parking spaces in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.9.11 if the UDO. iii. Off-street parking design shall be in accordance with Section 6.9.10 of the UDO. iv. Compact car parking shall be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.9.10 (A) of the UDO. v. In cases of a corner lot, parking shall not be located directly adjacent to the corner of the property facing the intersection. Landscaping, and/or a prominent building feature, shall be installed within this area to avoid confusion. vi. 100 park and ride spaces shall be developed within the Project. Parking intended to support Retail land uses can be designated to meet this requirement and shall be located at/near proposed transit stops. vii. Parking areas shall be separated from structures by: a. A raised concrete walkway, b. A landscaped buffer/natural area, or c. A segregated pedestrian walkway. In no case will parking be allowed to directly abut a proposed structure at the same grade. viii. Parking areas shall be designed so that pedestrians walk parallel to moving cars in order to minimize the need for pedestrians to cross parking aisles and landscape areas. 110 ix. All exterior lighting, including traffic signals and street lighting shall conform to ASHRAE / IESNA Standard 90.1-2004, Exterior Lighting Section, without addenda, for Zone LZ3 — Medium (Commercial/Industrial, High-Density Residential). j. LIGHTING: All proposed lighting shall comply with the standards detailed in Section 6.11 Outdoor Lighting of the UDO. k. SIGNAGE: In addition to the standards detailed in Section 6.12 Signage of the UDO, development within the Project shall abide by the following: i. Unless otherwise specified herein, signs shall be composed of individual internally lit letters. ii. Approved copyright logos shall be allowed on signage in a box type fashion. iii. The signage shall be permitted for the Project: 1. One (1) architectural landmark freestanding sign serving as a visual identifier for the Project subject to the following standards: a. Maximum height of 50 ft. b. Allowable sign area of 400 sq.ft. per sign face. c. Shall comply with principal setbacks for the District in which it is located. 2. Eight (8) entry portal freestanding signs providing the name of the development and identifying tenants subject to the following standards: a. Maximum Height of 8 ft. b. Allowable sign area of 300 sq.ft. c. 10 ft. setback from all rights-of-way and/or property lines. d. Sign shall be composed of either raised/blocked lettering or shall be a wall sign. e. External illumination shall be permitted in accordance with Section(s) 6.11 and 6.12 of the UDO. f. 60% of the sign area shall contain the name of the Project. 3. Signage for theater shall abide by the following standards: a. One (1) marquee, as a permanent canopy projecting over the entrance shall be permitted and may contain the name and/or trademark of the cinema. 111 b. Sign shall not extend more than 10 ft. from the building nor be less than 12 ft. above the ground or sidewalk at the lowest point. c. Maximum display sign area shall be 400 sq.ft. d. Changeable copy shall be allowed to denote the names of the films and/or productions available for view within the facility. e. Sign shall be located on a portion of a building with frontage along interior roadways only. f. For movie theaters, 1 poster box per movie screen shall be allowed in accordance with the following standards: i. Signage shall be mounted on front the façade of the building serving as the public entrance. ii. The poster box shall be a maximum of fifty-six (56) inches high and forty (40) inches wide. 4. Wall signs for tenants occupying freestanding buildings subject to the following standards: a. One (1) wall or building mounted sign per façade or per individual retail space. b. Sign shall not extend above the actual building or building façade. c. Allowable sign area shall be 2 sq.ft. for every one (1) sq.ft. of building frontage not to exceed three hundred (300) square feet. d. In cases where a building contains multiple tenants, wall signs shall be allowed as follows: i. 32 square feet of sign are per tenant not to exceed three hundred (300) square feet per building. ii. Sign shall be located above tenant space. iii. Sign shall only occupy two-thirds (2/3) of the façade. e. No external lighting shall be permitted. 5. Projecting signs shall be permitted consistent with the provisions of Section 6.12.12 (D) of the UDO. 6. Window signs shall be permitted consistent 6.12.12 (E) of the UDO. 7. Directional signs shall be permitted consistent with the provisions of Section 6.12.14 (C) of the UDO. 112 I. ENVIRONMENTAL: Development shall adhere to applicable regulations as detailed in Section 6.13 Stream Buffers of the UDO including required buffers from water features (i.e. streams, wetlands, floodplains, etc.). m. The Project shall abide by all applicable floodplain management standards as detailed within the UDO. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption. Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this day of , 2017. I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on , 2017 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , 2017. SEAL Clerk to the Board of Commissioners Attachment 12 113 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Current Planning 131 W. Margaret Lane (919) 245-2575 Suite 201 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181 www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278 • m CERTIFICATION OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I, Michael D. Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor with Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that in accordance with the provisions of Section(s) 2.8.7 and 2.9.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance I have mailed, or have caused to be mailed, a Notice of Public Hearing regarding the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment. Specifically notice was mailed via first class mail to property owners within 1,000 ft. of an application submitted by Old NC 86 Partners LLC to rezone 10 parcels totaling approximately 195 acres of property to Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZD) for the purpose of developing the Settlers Point mixed use development within the Hillsborough Township of Orange County. The mailed notices specified the date, time, place and subject of the Public Hearing. WITNESS my hand, this 27th day of October, 2017. 'Vr,k-k--k- - :4-— Mic el D. Hare y, AICP, CFM, CZO Current Planning Supervisor 114 MISTY C HILTON ROBBIE D WRIGHT IRWIN 0 ROJAS 320 DAVIS RD DAVID FRANKLIN WRIGHT SILVIA E MORENO HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 3914 ODE TURNER RD 111 LINNET RD HILLSBOROUGH,NC 272789377 Hillsborough,NC 27278 Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING CYNTHIA L PETERSON MICHAELJ DODSON MATTHEW CLARK ETAL JEAN FRANCOIS PROVOST P 0 BOX 1081 4503 BUMPHUS RD 2425 ARBOR LN HILLSBOROUGH,NC 272781081 CHAPEL HILL,NC 27514 HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING JAMES GARLAND RANT B BARLOW JR DAN E WAY 2711 ODE TURNER RD 3315 OLD NC 86. 3401 OLD NC 86 HILLSBOROUGH,NC 272787631 HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 Notice of Planning Board meeting Notice of Planning Board meeting Notice of Planning Board meeting VERONICA DUCLAY FREDERICK LTAPP BEATRICE S BROOKS THIERRY DUCLAY LINDA Y TAPP 3410 OLD NC 86 32 GREENHILLS RD 4030 LEGATO LN HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 HUNTINGTON STATION,NY 11746 EFLAND,NC 27243 Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING CHRIST HILLSBOROUGH UNITED CHURCH OF THEODORE L BRYANT MYRA E GWIN SUMMERS 200 DAVIS RD BEVERLY N BRYANT RICHARD W SUMMERS HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 2000 WOODVIEW DR 103 GRAPEVINE LN DURHAM,NC 27704 Hillsborough,NC 27278 Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING W ALLEN ADDISON JAMES G BUCHANAN JR PARTNERS LANDMARK MANAGEMENT LLC SALLY A ADDISON RONDA F BUCHANAN 3025 ODE TURNER RD PO BOX 727 313 OAK RIDGE DR HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 272780727 HILLSBOROUGH,NC 272787395 Notice of Planning Board meeting Notice of Planning Board meeting Notice of Planning Board meeting MICHAEL WILLIAM SUDYK LOUISE J SCARLETT CHARLENE W HAMLETT 418 DARBY CREEK LANE 3209 OLD CH HILLSBOROUGH RD 3333 CHAPEL HILL BLVD MORRISVILLE,NC 27560 HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 STE C DURHAM,NC 27707 Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING KAREN FAITH TURNER HALL MICHAEL W SUDYK ROY VERNON SCOTT 1101 SAM TUCKER LANE GEORGE W SUDYK MARY G SCOTT HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 3412 COUNTRY CLUB DR 302 DAVIS RD GASTONIA,NC 28056 HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING ROWDY B WALKER JOSEPH S SHORE WILLIAM NEAL AUSTIN JR 1877 FLYING W TRL SARAH C SHORE SHIRLEY B AUSTIN Hillsborough,NC 27278 3501 OLD NC 86 2803 LITTLE RIVER DRIVE HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 HILLSBOROUGH,NC 272789720 Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING DIANNE H DAVIS CHRISTY D BAILEY ETAL OLD 86 COMMONS LLC 319 DAVIS RD JOHN 0 CLAYTON PO BOX 1083 HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 7510 COUNTRY LANE HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 ROUGEMONT,NC 27572 Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING 115 AMANDA B SHAKHLOUL JEANINE L DUKE JOHN BOXIER JR TAMER G SHAKHLOUL JAMES N POULOS SHANNON MARTIN 3303 OLD NC 86 S 4606 PACES FERRY DR 3423 OLD NC 86 HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 DURHAM,NC 27712 HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING RANT B BARLOW JR THEODORE L BRYANT DAVID M BARLOW 3315 OLD NC 86 BEVERLY N BRYANT RHONDA M BARLOW HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 9016 ALBATROSS CT 223 DAVIS RD RALEIGH,NC 27613 HILLSBOROUGH,NC 272787317 Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING MICHAEL)DODSON SUZANNE UPTON JOSEPH LLOYD LINEBERRYJR P 0 BOX 1081 11508 BRIDGETENDER DR MARY LT GILBERT HILLSBOROUGH,NC 272781081 RICHMOND,VA 232331782 3106 WILSHIRE DR GREENSBORO,NC 274083013 Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING ISABETH W DAVIS SALLY A ADDISON VIVIAN BEST 319 DAVIS RD W ALLEN ADDISON 4018 WRENN RD HILLSBOROUGH,NC 272788395 PO BOX 727 DURHAM,NC 27705 HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING JUANITA C DAVIS SLF II NC WATERSTONE LLC FRANKLIN E GARLAND 3319 OLD NC HWY 86 SUITE 1750 3020 ODE TURNER RD Hillsborough,NC 27278 5949 SHERRY LANE HILLSBOROUGH,NC 272789631 DALLAS,TX 75225 Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING LARRY B LEE JOEL K GILLIS MIGUEL G MUNOZ 3503 OLD NC 86 ROBIN A GILLIS DAWN C MUNOZ HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 6321 ANGUS DR 425 DAVIS RD RALEIGH,NC 27617 HILLSBOROUGH,NC 272789330 Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ISABETH W DAVIS ANGELA DENISE DAVIS BARNETT PO BOX 15580 319 DAVIS RD 549 DIXON RD DURHAM,NC 27704 HILLSBOROUGH,NC 272788395 WILLOW SPRING,NC 27592 Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING 116 ROBERT J AYERS ETAL HOSPITALS AT CHAPEL HILL#319 UNIVERSITY DERRICK B EADS LUCILLE AYERS OF NORTH CAROLINA 1608 SCARLETT MOUNTAIN RD 1031 JONES FERRY RD 211 FRIDAY CENTER DR HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 PITTSBORO,NC 27312 STE 2043 CHAPEL HILL,NC 27517 Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING PAUL C DODSON STEVEN L KAUFMANN CHERI MELCHIONE 3224 OLD NC 86 JESSE S KAUFMANN 1818 MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 2304 DAVIS RD CHAPEL HILL,NC 27514 HILLSBOROUGH,NC 272787321 Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING CYNTHIA L PETERSON WOODSEDGE PROPERTIES LLC MARC ANDREW CONNERY JEAN FRANCOIS PROVOST 4522 LITTLE RIVER CH RD SHARON K CONNERY 2425 ARBOR LN HURDLE MILLS,NC 27541 3820 OLD NC 86 HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING KAREN S JORDAN RANT B BARLOW JR REA LANDCOM INC 1622 SCARLETT MOUNTAIN RD 3315 OLD NC 86 PO BOX 52328 HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 DURHAM,NC 27717 Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING BEATRICE S BROOKS GERALD E SCARLETT JOE LJERNIGAN 3410 OLD NC 86 416 WEST SCARLETT MTN RD VICKIE R JERNIGAN HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 HILLSBOROUGH,NC 272788318 3333 CHAPEL HILL BLVD DURHAM,NC 27707 Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING JOSEPH S SHORE CHARLENE W HAMLETT ROWDY B WALKER SARAH C SHORE 3333 CHAPEL HILL BLVD 1877 FLYING W TRL 3501 OLD NC 86 STE C Hillsborough,NC 27278 HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 DURHAM,NC 27707 Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING BARBARA FONTENELLE JOHN BOXTER JR JEANINE L DUKE 116 OLLIE DR SHANNON MARTIN JAMES N POULOS BELLE CHASSE,LA 700374134 3423 OLD NC 86 4606 PACES FERRY DR HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 DURHAM,NC 27712 Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING LARRY B LEE CATHY W FUQUAY CHRISTY D ETAL BAILEY 3503 OLD NC 86 CYNTHIA W BESSOIR JOHN 0 CLAYTON HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 8519 HAW RIVER RD 7510 COUNTRY LANE OAK RIDGE,NC 27310 ROUGEMONT,NC 27572 Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING GERALD E SCARLETT JOE L JERNIGAN 416 W SCARLETT MOUNTAIN RD 3333 CHAPEL HILL BLVD HILLSBOROUGH,NC 272788318 STE C DURHAM,NC 27707 Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING DAN E WAY CALVIN R SCARLETT 3401 OLD NC 86 YVONNE SCARLETT HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 1600 E SCARLETT MT RD HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 Notice of PUBLIC HEARING Notice of PUBLIC HEARING