Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5-a - Zoning Atlas Amendment - Conditional Zoning – Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZ) Settlers PointORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: January 23, 2018 Action Agenda Item No. 5-a SUBJECT: Zoning Atlas Amendment: Conditional Zoning – Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Excerpt of Approved October 4, 2017 Planning Board Minutes 2. Excerpt of Approved November 14, 2017 BOCC Quarterly Public Hearing Minutes 3. Summary of Comments from Public Hearing 4. Excerpt of Approved December 18, 2017 Planning Board Minutes 5. Summary of Comments from the January 10, 2018 Planning Board Meeting 6. Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Addendum with Roadmap(s) 7. Applicant Responses and Additional Documentation 8. Staff Comments Since November 14, 2017 Quarterly Public Hearing 9. Planning Board Approved Statement of Consistency 10. Statement of Consistency 11. An Ordinance Amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas with Condition(s) of Approval Craig Benedict, Director, (919) 245-2575 Michael D. Harvey, Planner III, (919) 245- 2597 PURPOSE: To continue review, and receive additional comments on, the Settlers Point Master Plan Development – Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) application. This item was heard at the November 14, 2017 Quarterly Public Hearing and was referred back to the Planning Board for additional review/discussion on the possible modification of several conditions. 1 BACKGROUND: As the BOCC is already aware, a request has been submitted from Old NC 86 Partners LLC 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); Rural Residential (R-1); Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. To: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. for the purpose of developing Settlers Point. During the Quarterly Public Hearing, the following items were referred back to the Planning Board for additional discussion: 1. Conditions: a. CONDITION 13 – LAND USES – BOCC members asked the Planning Board to review the proposed land uses within the project and determine if they were acceptable. STAFF COMMENT: At its December 18, 2017 and January 10, 2018 regular meetings, the Planning Board reiterated support for the proposed land uses indicating the applicant had proposed uses consistent with the provisions of Section 5.2.3 of the UDO as well as pending revisions as proposed by staff as part of the table of permitted use project. Staff’s response to the proposed land uses within Settlers Point is contained within Attachment 3. Minutes from the December 18, 2017 Planning Board meetings is contained within Attachment 4. A synopsis of comments from the January 10, 2018 Planning Board meeting is contained in Attachment 5. b. CONDITION 6 – The applicant objected to granting approval/denial authority to the Orange Rural Volunteer Fire Department and suggested modification of the recommended condition to allow review of development proposals while maintaining approval authority with the County and Town Fire Marshal. STAFF COMMENT: At its December 18, 2017 regular meeting, the Board voted unanimously to approve the revised condition as suggested by the applicant. The Orange Rural Volunteer Fire Department will offer review comment(s) on all site plans but will not have approval authority. For more information please refer to Attachment 11. c. CONDITION 13 (h) (vi) Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) BUFFER – the BOCC expressed concern over the proposed clearing of the MTC buffer and indicated their preference to restrict clearing to what is currently allowed within Section 6.6.4 (A) of the UDO (i.e. clearing only 50% of the MTC Buffer). STAFF COMMENT: The applicant supplied the requested schematic (Attachment 7) providing additional detail on the requested clearing. 2 There is approximately 2,800 feet of Interstate frontage for property located within District 1 and 3,082 feet for property located within District 2. The MTC buffer in District 1 shall remain undisturbed. With respect to District 2, the applicant is proposing the following: 1. Reduce the width of the MTC from 100 feet to 50 feet in width, specifically beginning at the intersection of Old NC Highway 86 with the Interstate 40 on-ramp, extending approximately 2,000 feet east. This will allow for development of necessary utility infrastructure, internal roadways, parking areas, stormwater features, etc. in support of the project. STAFF COMMENT: The total area encumbered by the MTC Buffer in District 2 is 308,200 square feet (3,082 feet of linear frontage along Interstate 40 multiplied by the standard MTC Buffer width of 100 feet). Approximately 154,100 square feet of MTC Buffer could be ‘cleared’ per Section 6.6.4 (A) of the UDO (i.e. 50% of the buffer). The applicant is proposing to reduce the MTC Buffer from 100 feet to 50 feet for approximately 2,000 linear feet, reducing the required buffer by 100,000 square feet (2,000 feet of linear frontage along Interstate 40 multiplied by the 50 feet MTC Buffer reduction). Further clearing, as discussed herein, is proposed within said areas to be re-vegetated. 2. The remaining 1,082 linear feet of Interstate frontage will have an MTC Buffer width of 100 feet STAFF COMMENT: This area includes property encumbered by an existing 150 feet wide utility easement (i.e. overhead power lines). Foliage within this easement has already been eliminated. 3. Within the 2,000 linear feet of reduced MTC Buffer area, the applicant is proposing to create 1,100 linear feet of visual breaks for the project. These areas would be re-landscaped with ‘low-growth landscaping’ to a width of 50 feet including shrubs achieving a height of 4 to 6 feet and canopy trees achieving a height of no more than 12 feet. 4. The applicant indicated during the December 18, 2017 Planning Board meeting that a 100 foot wide land use buffer shall be maintained along the southern boundary of District 2, exclusive of the utility easement, to provide additional noise and visual buffer(s) for the project. Discussion of this condition occurred at both the December 18, 2017 and January 10, 2018 Planning Board meetings resulting in the following recommendation: 3 i. A 100 foot wide land use buffer shall be established/preserved along the southern boundary of District 2. ii. Clearing of the MTC buffer be allowed as requested by the applicant and recommended for approval by Planning Department staff. iii. Re-vegetation of visual breaks shall be required as proposed by the applicant and recommended for approval by Planning Department staff. For more information please refer to Attachment(s) 4 and 5. Attachment 11 contains the revised condition language recommended for approval by the Planning Board. d. CONDITION 13 (k) SIGNAGE – Staff and BOCC members requested the submittal of a rendering of the landmark and entry portal signs for consideration. STAFF COMMENT: Renderings, and proposed location, of signage was submitted by the applicant for review at the Planning Board’s January 10, 2018 meeting. The Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed landmark and entry portal signage as depicted in the submitted rendering(s). For more information please refer to Attachment 5. The sign rendering is contained within Attachment 7. e. CONDITION 13 (k) (iii) (2) (e) ILLUMINATION OF SIGNAGE - A BOCC member requested clarification on the method that will be used to illuminate signage. A recommended condition indicated all signs shall be internally illuminated while language indicates external lighting would be allowed for entry portal signs. STAFF COMMENT: This was an error on staff’s part and has been corrected. For more information please refer to Attachment 4. f. LAND USE – SCHOOLS, Elementary, Middle, and Secondary: There was general discussion on allowing for the development of a school (i.e. elementary, middle, high school, etc.) within the project. STAFF COMMENT: Staff has reached out to the Superintendent and Chair of the Orange County School District to inquire on the need for a school south of Interstate 40. The applicant, after conferring with the Director, has removed the SCHOOLS, Elementary, Middle, and Secondary as an allowable land use within the project. The conditions of approval, as contained in Attachment 11, have been updated accordingly. g. UTILITY CONDITION(S): There was general discussion on the imposition of conditions associated with the extension of utilities to serve the project in general. A BOCC member asked staff to review the recommended condition(s) to ensure potential issues had been addressed. 4 STAFF COMMENT: At its January 10, 2018 meeting, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed utility conditions as contained in Attachment 11. 2. Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA): On December 4, 2017 the applicant submitted a revised TIA providing additional detail on anticipated traffic impacts/required improvements associated with the project. This was in response to staff requests for additional detail. A summary of recommended improvements as contained within the revised TIA (Attachment 6) is as follows: Recommended improvements for the 2020 Build Phase are: a. Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Old NC 86 & I-40 westbound, required for Certificate of Compliance of any square footage build. b. Construct the second lane of the I-40 East on ramp, and re-stripe the southbound lanes of Old NC 86 at the I-40 East ramp for dual left turns, at any level of build. c. Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Old NC 86 & I-40 eastbound, required for Certificate of Compliance of any square footage build. d. Install a continuous right turn lane on south bound Old NC 86 between the I-40 East off ramp and the Service Road, at any level of build. e. Construct a continuous right turn lane on north bound Old NC 86 between the Service Road and the I-40 East on ramp, at any level of build. Construct a right turn lane on the Service Road at Old NC 86 with 200 feet of storage and taper, for initial construction of facilities, at any level of build. f. Construct a left turn lane on northbound Old NC 86 at the Service Road with 150 feet of storage and taper, at any level of build. g. Construction of a left-in/right-in/right out access for the Service Road at Old NC 86 upon construction of greater than 900,000 square feet of warehouse facility. h. Construction of a super-street type U-Turn bulb intersection to be located approximately 1,000 feet south of the Service Road on Old NC 86, with 200 feet of storage and taper, upon construction of greater than 900,000 square feet of warehouse facility. i. Construction of a right turn lane on Old NC 86 southbound at Davis Road with 150 feet of storage and taper, upon construction of 900,000 square feet of warehouse facility. Recommended improvements for the 2022 Buildout Phase are: i. Construct a full access on Old NC 86 at the location of the U-Turn intersection installed under the 2020 Phase I Build, with two exiting lanes and one entering lane. Construct a right turn lane with 125 feet of storage and taper on the westbound approach, a thru-right turn lane on the northbound approach with 200 feet of storage and taper, and a second southbound left turn lane with 300 feet of storage and taper. ii. Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Old NC 86 new retail access/U- Turn intersection. 5 iii. Construct an additional lane on Old NC 86 southbound, continuous between the Service Road and the new Retail Dr. intersection. Re-stripe the inside lane for left turns at the signalized intersection. iv. Construct an additional lane on the Old NC 86 northbound, continuous between the new signalized Retail Drive and the Service Road. v. Construct a right-in/right out access for the retail/office/hotel parcels on Old NC 86 approximately 500 feet south of the Service Road. STAFF COMMENT: In consultation with the applicant, the Director has recommended the imposition of the following additional condition: Development of District 1 shall utilize Service Road to obtain access to Old NC Highway 86. At the time development exceeds allowable traffic trips, as defined within the Master Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), requiring a restriction/prohibition on left turn(s) off of Service Road onto Old NC Highway 86, an alternative traffic alignment/improvement shall be required to serve District 1 allowing for both left and right turn access onto Old NC Highway 86. This alternative shall be reviewed and approved by Orange County and the NC Department of Transportation and shall be installed prior to the approval of additional site plans in District 1 beyond the defined threshold in the original/amended TIA. Acquisition/dedication of additional right-of-way may be required to accommodate intersection designs as detailed in the supplemental/amended TIA contained within Attachment 6. Existing recommended conditions, already agreed to by the applicant, all right-of-way acquisition shall be in accordance with applicable NC Department of Transportation requirements. At its January 10, 2018 meeting, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed conditions associated with internal and external roadway development consistent with the supplemental TIA. For more information please refer to Attachment 5. 3. Revisions to project concept plan: a. The BOCC had requested a concept site plan denoting the anticipated location of parking areas, access roads, stormwater features, landscaping, building(s), etc. for District(s) 1 and 2. STAFF COMMENT: Please refer to Attachment 7. b. A tree survey shall be required denoting the location of ‘specimen trees’ in District(s) 1 and 2. The survey should provide the location of significant foliage (i.e. species, height, width, etc.) within the various development areas. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant has indicated they can provide a tree survey at the time of the Site Plan application submittal to Orange County following approval of the project. 6 c. A more detailed buffer plan denoting proposed/required project buffers (i.e. perimeter, MTC, stream AND floodplain, roadway, etc.) including widths, explanation of existing vegetation (i.e. pictures of the existing foliage being preserved) or more detail (i.e. cross section and rendering) on how required buffers would be replanted if necessary. STAFF COMMENT: Please refer to Attachment 7. 4. Other Consideration(s): a. A condition was recommended limiting the number of outdoor lighting features being left on after local business operations close for the evening. There were also additional suggestions the signs be required to be extinguished after hours as well. This was to address concerns over light pollution. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant agreed with the suggested condition to limit the number of outdoor lighting fixtures left on after normal business hours, with the understanding that projects within Settlers Point must follow the appropriate industry guideline standards including, but not limited to: IES/ANSI, OSHA, etc. in order to maintain safe lighting conditions for employees, business owners and the public. For more information please refer to Attachment 11. At its January 10, 2018 meeting, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed lighting conditions. For more information please refer to Attachment 5. b. Including of language within the conditions encouraging/promoting water reuse for landscaping. STAFF COMMENT: There is language in the narrative indicating the applicant would engage in same. This was added to the resolution of approval as contained in Attachment 11. c. A condition was recommended limiting the percentage of retail operation(s) allowed in District 2 to address Town of Hillsborough concerns over potential impacts of retail development within Settlers Point on existing re- development efforts within the Town. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant has suggested a condition be imposed on the project reading as follows: ‘Retail – limited to 30% of the allowable floor area of the District (i.e. District 2) not to exceed 78,540 square feet of total cumulative floor area’. The Town of Hillsborough has suggested/requested a limit of allowable retail area to 20,000 square feet or approximately 8% of total allowable floor area for District 2. At its December 18, 2017 and January 10, 2018 meetings, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed condition limiting retail to 30% of allowable floor area in District 2. For more information please refer to Attachment(s) 4 and 5. The 30% floor area limitation on retail development in District 2 has been included within the resolution of approval contained within Attachment 11. 7 d. A BOCC member suggested a condition on the potential to limit the hours of operations for non-residential land uses locating within the project. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant’s response to this condition read as follows: At this time the developer would like to remain flexible with the potential hours of operation and address this possible condition during the Site Plan approval process. An operational restriction of this type during the early stage of approvals would infringe on the marketing potential for the project. At its January 10, 2018 meeting, the Board voted unanimously to recommend against imposition of this condition. For more information please refer to Attachment 5. Staff is also not in favor of enacting such a condition on the project. e. At its January 10, 2018 regular meeting, the Planning Board recommended a condition requiring the reservation of 1% of required parking spaces, exclusive of any hotel development, within District 2 to support vehicle charging stations for electric cars. The applicant agreed to the imposition of the condition at the meeting, which is now contained within Attachment 11. As excerpt of the approved November 14, 2017 Quarterly Public Hearing minutes is contained within Attachment 2. A summary of issues discussed at the public hearing is contained within Attachment 3. Agenda materials from the public hearing can be accessed at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/document_center/BOCCAgendaMinutes/171114.pdf. The Planning Board originally reviewed the application at its October 4, 2017 regular meeting and recommended approval of the project with the imposition of additional condition(s). Agenda materials from this meeting can be accessed at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/10042017AgendaPacket.pdf. An excerpt of the approved minutes is contained within Attachment 1. The Planning Board reviewed suggested/recommended modifications to conditions at its December 18, 2017 and January 10, 2018 regular meetings. Agenda materials from the December 18, 2017 regular meeting can be accessed at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/DecemberPBAgendaPacket.pdf. An excerpt of the approved minutes is contained within Attachment 4. Planning Director’s Recommendation: The Planning Director continues to recommend approval of the application with the imposition of the new conditions referenced herein, as detailed in Attachment 11, summarized as follows: ‐ Fire Marshal approvals (Town and County). ‐ Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) buffer, pursuant to existing UDO which allows 50% clearing but with replanting/landscaping if for vehicular use. ‐ Signage - No ground lighting, architectural monument. ‐ Public School Land Use, not permitted in District 1 or 2. ‐ Utilities - Utility design to serve project and EDD area within industrial and retail design parameters. 8 ‐ Transportation - Various improvements as detailed in Attachment 7, summarized herein, for 2 build phases (2020 and 2022) which includes approximately 14 specific road development criteria (both roadway and signalization) ‐ Master Concept Plan - More detailed concept plan within the districts. ‐ Environmental - Preservation of floodplains and buffers consistent with FEMA and the UDO, as well as, a specimen tree. ‐ Lighting inventory - Adherence to County’s existing lighting ordinance as well as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) techniques. ‐ Land Use Non-Residential - Land uses are consistent with the Orange County and Town of Hillsborough joint land use plan which identifies the interstate interchange area as an employment center with supporting retail uses for daytime employees (to create internal pedestrian and traffic capture) and other interstate retail users to promote day and night business sustainability. Retail is suggested to be limited to 30% of total allowable square footage in District 2 or approximately 78,540 square feet. Note: this is relatively minor percentage of total proposed square footage (~5% of Industrial floor area) of the entire project (District 1 and 2). Planning Board Recommendation: At its January 10, 2018 regular meeting, the Board voted unanimously to again recommend approval of the project with a revised Statement of Consistency, as contained in Attachment 10, and the revised conditions as detailed in Attachment 11. The Planning Board’s signed Statement of Consistency is contained in Attachment 9. Agenda materials from the January 10, 2018 regular meeting can be accessed at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/JanuaryAgendaPacket2.pdf. 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. SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goal is applicable to this agenda item: • GOAL: ESTABLISH SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE LAND-USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes and educational levels with respect to the development and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, policies, and decisions. Fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board: 1. Receive the additional information on the application as detailed in this abstract and attachments; 2. Accept additional comments from the staff, Planning Board, and the general public; 9 3. Close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional comments at a later date are permitted.); and 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; or b. 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.) 10 Approved 11/01/2017 1 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; 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, Malinda 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 14th; the next Orange Unified Transportation (OUT) Board Meeting on October 18th; 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 Attachment 1 11 Approved 11/01/2017 2 MOTION by Tony Blake to approve the September 6, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes. Seconded by Kim Piracci. VOTE: UNANIMOUS AGENDA ITEM 4. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA No additions to agenda. However, item 8 will be deleted as it is not ready for discussion. AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE Introduction to the Public Charge The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner, which considers the present and future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. PUBLIC CHARGE The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. Lydia Wegman read the public charge aloud. AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS No comments 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 12 Approved 11/01/2017 3 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 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. Staff’s site plan review takes into consideration this assessment to ensure that environmental conditions are not 13 Approved 11/01/2017 4 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 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. 14 Approved 11/01/2017 5 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. 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 15 Approved 11/01/2017 6 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 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. 16 Approved 11/01/2017 7 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 Staff’s 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. 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. 17 Approved 11/01/2017 8 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 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. 18 Approved 11/01/2017 9 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 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 19 Approved 11/01/2017 10 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. 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 20 Approved 11/01/2017 11 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 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 21 Approved 11/01/2017 12 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. 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. 22 Approved 11/01/2017 13 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 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. 23 Approved 11/01/2017 14 Michael Harvey said that it sort of does. As a condition, the developer agrees to the list of permitted uses spelled-out in Staff’s 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 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. 24 Approved 11/01/2017 15 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. 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 25 Approved 11/01/2017 16 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, I-40 was not there. The impact of I-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. 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 I-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 26 Approved 11/01/2017 17 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, it 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. Staff’s 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. 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 there is potentially a capacity issue for water and sewer that still needs to be discussed. 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 27 Approved 11/01/2017 18 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. 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 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 scheduled 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?” 28 Approved 11/01/2017 19 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. Kim Piracci 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. 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 to have continued discussions on the environmental and transportation assessments; this 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. 29 Approved 11/01/2017 20 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 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. 30 Approved 11/01/2017 21 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 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) 31 1 APPROVED 12/4/2017 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING November 14, 2017 7:00 P.M. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Mark Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs, Barry Jacobs, Mark Marcoplos, Earl McKee, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: James Bryan (Staff Attorney) COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Dorosin read the charge below: The Board of Commissioners pledges to the residents of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its residents to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow residents. At any time should any member of the Board or any resident fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. All electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate. C. PUBLIC HEARING – QUASI JUDICIAL ITEMS NONE D. PUBLIC HEARING – LEGISLATIVE ITEMS 1. Zoning Atlas Amendment - To review an application for an MPD-CZ (Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning) district. The proposed project encompasses 195 acres in the Hillsborough Economic Development District (EDD) south of Interstate 40 on both sides of Old Highway 86. 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. 32 2 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. 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. 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. 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 Michael Harvey, Current Planning, said there are hard copies of the PowerPoint at the Commissioners places, and an email from the NCDOT concerning this project, which staff has not had time to sufficiently digest this information. He made the following PowerPoint presentation: PUBLIC HEARING: Zoning Atlas Amendment – Settlers Point Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) District Orange County Board of Commissioners November 14, 2017 Modification of Proposal: • At October 4, 2017 Planning Board meeting applicant requested project be revised to exclude 10 parcels, totaling 76 acres of land area, comprising District 3. 33 3 • Applicant requested action on District 3 be deferred to address concerns from Town of Hillsborough on providing utility services to a residential development (i.e. age restricted housing) south of Interstate 40. • Applicant requested proposal to rezone 10 parcels (Districts 1 and 2) to move forward. Proposal: • Rezone Subject Properties: – 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. Conditional Zoning Process • Involves the approval of a rezoning petition and a master development plan allowing for the development of specific land use(s). o STAFF COMMENT: Action does not involve approval of site specific development plan(s). • Applications are processed in a legislative manner (i.e. does not require sworn testimony or competent material evidence). • Decisions are based on the BOCC’s determination that the project is consistent with the purpose/intent of Comprehensive Plan. • Schedule, and Action: o First Action – Planning staff schedules a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM). – DONE. Meeting was held on September 14, 2017. o Second Action – The Planning Board reviews the application at a regular meeting and makes a recommendation to the BOCC. – DONE. Reviewed at October 4, 2017 regular meeting. Recommended for approval. o Third Action – The BOCC receives the Planning Board recommendation and makes a decision at a previously advertised public hearing. • 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: o The compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding property, o Proposed support facilities (i.e. roadways and access points, parking, pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems, screening and buffer areas, etc.) and/or o All other matters the County may find appropriate or the petitioner may propose. • If approved, Zoning Atlas amended and property shall be changed to MPD-CZ (Settlers Point). Future Development • Development of individual land uses shall be in accordance with the newly created zoning district, including imposed conditions. • Development shall only be permitted through the review and approval of site plan application(s) in accordance within Section 2.5 of the UDO. – No additional Board review (i.e. Planning Board / BOCC) shall be required. SETTLERS POINT PROJECT: 34 4 • 10 parcels of property, • 195 acres of land south of Interstate 40, • FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: Economic Development Transition, • GROWTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: Urban Designated Orange County / Town of Hillsborough Joint Planning Land Use Plan Designates the area: • Employment: Light / general industrial, office, research/development, support services uses including restaurants, retail, etc. • Neighborhood: Retail (goods and services), high density residential, etc. • Suburban Office: Office / employment (do not necessarily rely on walk-in customers), etc. DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT(S): • District 1 - Industrial/Manufacturing and Research, • Located west of Old NC 86 and south of Interstate 40 , • Accessed via an existing road named Service Road • Intended to provide for light industrial/manufacturing and research operations. • Properties comprising district are Located in an Economic Development Transition land use category. • District 2 - Commercial, • Located east of Old NC Highway 86 and south of Interstate 40, • Accessed via Old NC Highway 86, • Intended to provide for light office, retail, service operations (i.e. hotel, restaurant, etc.) • Properties comprising district are located in an Economic Development Transition land use category. Conditions: • Applicant has recommended the imposition of several conditions controlling development within project; • Must be mutually agreed to by Applicant and Elected officials (as previously detailed). • Staff and Planning Board have recommended imposition of additional conditions on the project. o NOTE: Applicant has agreed to majority of conditions. Has identified some concerns and requested modification. Refer to Attachment 5. Conditions – Examples: • 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. • UTILITIES: o Comply with Section 6.20 of the UDO, o Development within the Project shall only be served by public water and sewer, o Utility connection(s) shall comply with applicable Town of Hillsborough standards. o Extension of utilities to District 2 shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Hillsborough prior to development. • Site Plan(s) o Site Plan Review per Section 2.5 of the UDO required for all projects, o All submittals will require completion of an Environmental Assessment and a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), o All submittals required to document existing and proposed impervious surface area as well as building/open space ratios within the Project. o Documentation denoting anticipated daily water and sewer needs for proposed land uses. 35 5 o Landscape plans are required to detail how vegetation will be cared for. • Landscaping: o District 1 has to maintain a 100 ft. buffer along western and southern property lines, o A 50 ft. buffer is proposed for Old NC Highway 86 – STAFF COMMENT – thinning will be allowed with a requirement for replanting. o Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay preserved along the Interstate (i.e. 100 ft. buffer) – STAFF COMMENT – thinning and breaks in this vegetation has been requested to allow for utility, stormwater, and parking development. After conferring with the Director, staff believes the request is reasonable as there is a replanting requirement associated with this provision. o Interior buffers proposed for parking lots, in front of buildings, etc. • Standards proposed for building architecture (i.e. materials buildings can be constructed of) including: Hardi-plank, Brick/Stucco, Concrete, etc. • Transportation: o Project shall comply with Section 6.10 Roadway Improvements and Multi- modal Transportation of the UDO. o External roadway improvements shall be constructed in accordance with NC Department of Transportation requirements. o Internal roads will be public roads. o Sidewalks and bicycle lanes will be developed. o Four (4) bus pullouts/transit shelters shall be constructed. • Land Uses: o District 1 includes manufacturing and research land uses (i.e. computers/electronics, pharmaceutical, metal products, furniture, food/beverage manufacturing, research facilities, etc.) o District 2 includes commercial/service uses (i.e. retail, professional offices, restaurants, recreational land uses, heath services such as doctors’ offices, hotel/motel, motor vehicle service station – gas station, etc.) • Signage: o Architectural Landmark – Providing the visual identifier for the development. The primary location will take advantage of the topography to give visual guidance for motorist along the interstate. This would appear to be more of an architectural feature than a sign. – STAFF COMMENT: Staff and Planning Board have requested an example. Proposal calls for 50 ft. tall structure with approximately 400 sq.ft. of sign area. o Entry Portal Marker – providing the name of the development and identifying the names of major tenants. These signs are primarily intended for location at the main entrances to the project. – STAFF COMMENT: Staff and Planning Board have requested an example. Proposal calls for 8 signs with 300 sq.ft. of sign area. Staff Comments: • The application deemed complete. • Proposal appears consistent with the various goals outlined within the Comprehensive Plan. • Applicant provided a basic environmental assessment as part of this submittal. Staff has reviewed and determined there ought to be no significant environmental impact(s) from this project. 36 6 o Staff recommended condition formal environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared for all site plan submittals. • Proposed development is consistent with existing and anticipated development within the area. • Land uses are compatible. Planning Board Comment(s): • Reviewed item at its October 4, 2017 regular meeting, • Voted to recommend approval with the imposition of conditions as recommended by the applicant, staff, and Board members, • Recommended conditions are contained in Attachment 11. Recommendation: The Administration recommends the Board: 1. Receive the proposal. 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept comments. 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 Statement of Consistency (Attachment 10), Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas and imposing conditions (Attachment 11); b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date; NOTE: This is the most prudent course of action to address modification of conditions to address Applicant comments/concerns, or to address new conditions as recommended by the BOCC. a. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose; or b. Deny the proposed amendments. Commissioner McKee made a statement to the Board of County Commissioners as related to his current employment with Summit Engineering. He said he sought direction from the County Attorney as whether he should recuse himself from this item, and received the following legal opinion below. He read North Carolina General Statute 153A-340(g), and said the Attorney concluded that he may not recuse himself from this matter. Commissioner McKee- You asked for an opinion on whether you need to recuse yourself from voting on this issue due to the fact that you work for Summit Engineering. You informed me you don’t have an interest in the properties underlying the Settler’s Point project, that in your employment you have not worked on or had involvement with the project, that your compensation from Summit is not related to or dependent on this project, that you will receive no bonuses related to this project, and that your employment is not dependent on or at risk from the fact that you may or may not vote on the project. Given these facts my analysis is as follows. The default position for determining whether you must vote on a particular agenda item is that you as a county commissioner have a duty to vote pursuant to G.S. 153A-44 which provides that the board may excuse a member from voting “only upon questions involving the member's own financial interest or official conduct or on matters on which the member is prohibited from voting under G.S. 14-234, 153A-340(g)...” This item is not a matter of your official conduct and G.S. 14- 234, which deals with contracts, is not applicable. The remaining consideration, that of your financial interest or G.S. 153A-340(g) is what must be analyzed. In this situation the question of your financial interest, which otherwise is a separate consideration, is directly addressed by G.S. 153A-340(g) and so there is only analysis to be made, whether you may be excused pursuant to G.S. 153A-340(g). 37 7 153A-340(g) states “A member of the board of county commissioners shall not vote on any zoning map or text amendment where the outcome of the matter being considered is reasonably likely to have a direct, substantial, and readily identifiable financial impact on the member” (emphasis added). Assuming the facts above to be true: • There appears to be no direct financial impact because you have had no involvement in this project through your employment with Summit and will experience neither a financial benefit or detriment regardless of the outcome of the vote on the project; • Even if there is an indirect financial impact to you from some positive or negative outcome experienced by Summit as a business this indirect impact is not at this time quantifiable and is certainly not so substantial that it is apparent to a neutral observer, so this may not be considered for purposes of whether you may be excused from voting; • Neither your compensation nor your continued employment are related in any way to this project and so I also cannot determine that there is a readily identifiable financial impact to you from the project. There is a North Carolina case that, although not directly on point, provides guidance in this situation on the question of what constitutes direct and substantial impact. City of Albemarle v. Security Bank & Trust Co., involved a council vote on the condemnation of property owned by Security Bank & Trust Co. Three members of the council voted on the condemnation, which directly impacted the bank’s business and property. The three were employed by another bank that was in direct competition with Security Bank & Trust Co. They held positions of Director, Assistant Vice President, and Branch Manager. The Court held that even though they may experience some indirect impact to their financial interest from something negative happening to Security Bank & Trust Co., the impact was “too remote and infinitesimal to give rise to a conflict of interest.” Similarly, you could have some positive or negative experience if the company that employs you has a positive or negative impact from the Board’s vote on the project, but your personal experience will not, pursuant to the facts you’ve provided, be direct, substantial, or readily identifiable. There is no provision in the law as it relates to county boards of commissioners that allows commissioners to recuse themselves from voting. The board itself must excuse, by vote, a member from voting and then only in the stated circumstances. The mere appearance of impropriety or appearance of a conflict of interest is not sufficient to warrant an excusal. To a person unfamiliar with the voting statutes it may appear that impropriety or a conflict exists based on your employment with Summit, however, the facts you’ve related to me suggest no actual impropriety or conflict of interest exists. My conclusion is that you may not be excused by the Board from voting and have a statutory duty to vote on this item. James Bryan will be at tonight’s quarterly public hearing and I’ve discussed this issue with him. I’ve also copied the Board and as you requested the manager and planning director. Let me know if you have any questions. John L. Roberts Orange County Attorney Commissioner Marcoplos said he noticed that schools are an allowable land use, and clarified that a school can be sited there, but there is no land designated for a school in this area. Michael Harvey said yes, there is no designated area. He said the Applicant did request that a school be an allowed use, but noted that staff’s recommendation is that any school developed in this project only be allowed subject to the review and approval of a class A Special 38 8 Use Permit (SUP) by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), which is consistent with the current standards of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there is currently a need for a school on this land. Michael Harvey said that is his understanding. Commissioner Marcoplos said asked if it is likely that the district could fill up with other commercial projects, and there would be no room for schools. Michael Harvey said yes. Commissioner Price referred to the water and sewer agreement with the Town of Hillsborough, and asked if the Town would be providing water and sewer at its discretion, regardless of the wishes of the BOCC. She asked if the Town has control. Michael Harvey said Craig Benedict, Planning Director, may be better able to answer that question. He referred to page 96 of the abstract packet, and said the first recommended condition is that approval of the project does not constitute the guarantee that utility services shall be provided and/or extended by the Town of Hillsborough. He reminded the BOCC that the County is involved in extending a sewer line under the interstate that could possibly serve District I, but with no guarantee to service District II. He said it is regularly repeated that any an all utility hook-ups have to be approved by the Town of Hillsborough for a project that is developed as a part of this overall project. He said it is conceivable the Town could say there is no capacity, and could not sign off on a particular site plan being approved allowing for connection to the system, and thus the County could not approve the site plan based on the conditions associated with this project. Craig Benedict said Michael Harvey is correct, with one clarification. He said there are two districts. He said District I is the SW corner, and the interlocal agreement with Hillsborough is just focused on this quadrant. He said anything that is within 108,000 gallons per day usage, consistent with the joint land use plan, would be consistent with Hillsborough signing a developer’s agreement for that quadrant. He said the same assurances do not exist in the SE quadrant, the retail area. He said this area is not part of the interlocal agreement, and the developer would have to independently get a utility extension agreement. He said this is the area where Hillsborough does have more authority. Commissioner Price asked if the Development Advisory Committee could be defined. Michael Harvey said this is an in-house staff committee that reviews site plans. Commissioner Price asked if the tax benefits of this project, to Orange County, could be identified. Michael Harvey said the applicant would be better to answer that question, and it is included in the application. Commissioner Jacobs referred to the school site, and said any information pertaining to this topic should be communicated to the Orange County Schools (OCS) system, and ask OCS to respond in writing regarding the need for schools. He said it is important to envelope OCS into this development process. Michael Harvey said it is denoted in the abstract that staff has concerns about a school in this project, but the Applicant has the ability to petition this as part of his application. Commissioner Burroughs asked if the Applicant was proposing a school in a specific District. Michael Harvey said District I. Commissioner Burroughs agreed with Commissioner Jacobs to engage the OCS to comment on this issue, but noted there is the SAPFO process in place. Commissioner Rich referred to the water situation, and asked if District II has an interlocal agreement. Michael Harvey said there is no agreement in District II, and the Town has not been asked to extend water and sewer to District II. Commissioner Rich asked if water and sewer would be needed in District II in order to have commercial property. Michael Harvey said that is the Applicant’s wish. 39 9 Commissioner Rich asked if there is any other example in Orange County where a developer has had to work directly with the utility to get an agreement. Michael Harvey said in the Buckhorn area, Ashwick subdivision, Durham Economic Development District (EDD). Commissioner Rich said she those are all projects on which the County is working. She said she is asking for examples where the Developer actually has to work directly with the Town. Craig Benedict said Mebane and Durham have agreed to provide service to uses consistent with the coordinated plan. He said in Hillsborough the only agreement is on the SW quadrant. He said a larger zone has not been identified, with which Hillsborough has been in agreement. He said in the other two districts, there is a utilities service map, and both Mebane and Durham have agreed to serve and maintain water and sewer utilities if the projects come forward. Chair Dorosin said asked to be shown where the access road is on the map, which Michael Harvey provided. Chair Dorosin asked what would happen, if there were future interest in developing District 3. He asked if this would have to start from scratch. Michael Harvey said the Applicant would bring it back, conduct another neighborhood meeting, and another public hearing. Chair Dorosin asked if such a proposal would be subject to a whole new set of conditions and review. Michael Harvey said that is correct, and none of the conditions contained in attachment 11 deal with District III. Chair Dorosin said for the purposes of this discussion, it is as though District III is severed. Michael Harvey said yes. A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner McKee to open the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS PUBLIC COMMENT: Mayor Tom Stevens said he is here with the perspective of the Board of the Town of Hillsborough, who adopted a vision and comprehensive plan as a guide for development about ten years ago. He said this plan has developed with input of citizens and County government, and recognizes increasing development pressure, and the constraints due to water and sewer. He said the plan can be summarized as avoiding sprawl in to the countryside; by making the best use of road infrastructure; and steering development towards live/work/play communities between the Eno River and Interstate 40. He said there are three important themes that continue to run through the development plan: • Retaining 40% commercial tax base • Emphasizing a built environment that is town-like • Emphasizing high levels of connectivity He said his desire tonight is to show how that plan reflects on this project. He said the Town fully supports the commercial development of the EDD; the Town is opposed to any residential development in this area; and the type of commercial use in the EDD matters, and how it gets approved matters. He said much of what is proposed in this application is in agreement with the Town’s coordinated area plan, but there are some significant parts that are not. He said the plan calls for employment uses on the west side of Old 86, and mixed use and suburban office on the east side. He said in Hillsborough’s definitions, the opportunity for retail is limited and somewhat small. He said District I is completely consistent with the Town’s coordinated area plan, but District II contains some items that are inconsistent with this plan. He said the retail component is much larger than the Town would envision, and the Town is concerned that the quick and easy green space for an extended amount of retail could damage the overall retail viability of other areas of Hillsborough. 40 10 Janet Marks lives in New Hope Springs off of Davis Road, and she has heard nothing of economic development over the years. She said she knows she cannot prevent the development. She said there will be little buffering to prevent light pollution, and asked if the Board would look at this issue closely. She asked the BOCC if it would look at the installation of water pipes in the District II area that is supposed to be for District I. Joan Kalnitsky said she is concerned with what will go into District 1. She said she hoped that the BOCC would wait until it is clear what is going to be in District I before voting on this project, and she has a signed petition supporting this concern. Matt Kostura reviewed the following comments: To the Orange County Board of Commissioners: I am writing to register my deep reservations regarding the planned development of the Settler's Point Master Planned Development Conditional Zoning (MPC-CZ) application My review of the narrative for the development and my concerns are based on three straightforward assertions: 1. The entire development is predicated on access to Interstate 40 with little integration into the surrounding community and because of that… 2. The rural residential look and feel of the area will be greatly compromised by certain types of development that are allowed by the current zoning permits and therefore…. 3. Inappropriate development will have a material impact on many more residents than those abutting the property and within the 1000 ft. spec for notification. Based on the narrative, District 1 will be the first tract developed for so-called light industrial, research or warehouse use. Of the three uses I list here I would hope that the county could concede the point that warehousing would be inappropriate. Certainly a light manufacturing facility; e.g.: the Morinaga facility or perhaps a local microbrewery or distillery that could use expansion. Even a food preparation facility to allow local farmers to process foods for local restaurants would be better than the standard warehouse. District 2 is yet another cookie cutter hotel, chain restaurants and high intensity retail/office complex. Perhaps there might be demand for a hotel in the area, but does the county want to become saddled with idle restaurant property in the near future? Casual dining as a category is doing poorly, with a change in drinking and eating habits. Local pubs with microbrews and restaurants with locally authentic food are in and corporate fast food is out. And frankly Hillsborough itself is establishing itself as something of a destination for both so would it not be reasonable to attract those types of clients or better still attempt to get some of the transit traffic on 40 into those same local restaurants? District 3 requires a rezoning of R1 land. The Settlers Ridge Properties have never sold and for good reason; they are too close to the highway and the noise in that area is fairly high. No one wants to build a $400K home next to a highway. So instead, a mixed use office high density housing complex (read apartments) and a lower density senior living complex are planned. I can see four major problems with this development that if not appropriately configured will absolutely wreck the surrounding area which is entirely rural residential in character. The concerns really come down to traffic, lights, noise and visual aesthetic. 1. Traffic would be a major problem on Old 86 and likely back on to Davis Rd, which would ultimately have a cut through to allow alternate access to the parcels. 2. Lighting is a concern with many homeowners in the area that appreciate dark skies. That is a quintessential part of the character of the area. Again, some types of developments (eg office or research) can mitigate these problems but others virtually demand intrusive lighting (gas stations, restaurants, warehousing). Standing lights are a concern. 3. Noise. More traffic, more noise and not much more needs to be said in that regard. Also the wooded areas provide a near complete buffer for traffic noise from Interstate 40 for 41 11 nearly all parcels on Davis Rd. Removal of that buffer will degrade the homeowner experience. 4. Visual aesthetic. The good news here is that most of this is completely under control of the developer and the county. But I would hope that the design criteria would strike the use of a 50ft 20x20 sign for District 2. Again, that would be wholly inappropriate for the area. Old 86 is a scenic drive and the northern most part of that highway should have as much protection as is possible from an aesthetic point of view. Likewise, Interstate 40 has a very clear and clean visual aesthetic. Driving east from Efland where Interstate 40 splits from Interstate 85, there is no signage of that size on the road until one arrives in Wake County. Much care has been taken to remove standing billboards of any type from intruding on the visual experience of the highway. The Interstate 40 corridor is, visually, one of the nicest highways in state in this regard. In Orange County it has many aspects of a boulevard and it should be kept that way. I think that it is fair to say that most homeowners on Davis Rd, and in this area of the county, view the exit at Interstate 40 and Old 86 as their entranceway to their homes. At present that entrance way is rural and quiet. The county now wants to allow the placement of three large developments literally right on our front steps. I cannot argue against development, but I would hope that the county and the developers respect the character of the area. One only has to drive west into Alamance County to visualize what I am most concerned with: another highway exit built to satisfy transit economics but completely disrupting the character of the surrounding local area. Best regards Matthew Kostura 4201 New Hope Springs Dr Hillsborough, NC 27278 Ronald Siebar reviewed the following comments: Dear County Commissioners: I strongly disagree with the actions taken so far in regard to the three parcels that make up the proposed Settlers Point Development. 1. I find it appalling that not all of the members of the Planning Board had adequate time to read the comprehensive proposal for this huge development before sending a recommendation to the County Commissioners. This appears to be a "rush job" and to whose benefit? 2. I object to any approval of District I tenants in the "warehouse district" until ALL members of both commissions have been able to read the report and vote on the proposed development. It doesn't make sense on such a big project to do otherwise. 3. I object to the proposed rezoning of Districts II and III because the described districts do not disclose what tenants or tenant mix is going to be present, nor do they adequately take into account the water resources that Hillsborough will be asked to supply. I understand that District III has been delayed until a later date; we need to delay the up- zoning for properties in the proposed District II as well. 4. The proposed development of the districts does not adequately anticipate, and therefore does not protect against, the adverse visual and aural impact of such a development on the rural and residential neighborhoods that immediately surround it. At the very least, the law of unintended (or overlooked) consequences will very likely change the ambiance of this semi-rural community. Drastically. The proposed development of District I will have a tremendously negative impact on the tree buffer that now exists for the benefit of rural and residential properties along Davis Dr. to the west of Old NC 86 because the proposed development abuts these properties. Clearing the tree buffer will assault these residents with noise from the I-40 corridor that this district will flank. A 42 12 vegetative buffer of bushes intermixed with trees (as proposed) may lessen the daytime visual impact of warehouses, but what about nighttime light pollution? In addition, a short vegetative buffer will in no way lessen the aural impact that this development and the now-exposed highway will have on these residents. In sum, it will permanently diminish the quality of life that our community currently enjoys. The proposed development of Districts II and III (albeit III has been delayed) will also assault the senses with a landscape stripped of trees and thus will increase the visual and aural pollution that will result from doing so. As previously mentioned, vegetative buffers do not a “sound-blocking forest” make, nor will they acceptably mitigate the unwanted sights and sounds from I-40 that will result from these actions. The proposals for Districts II and III make no mention of the privately-owned properties that have not yet been purchased by the proposed development. These properties, which can be clearly identified on the development maps, will become completely isolated, and they will either be orphaned as their surroundings are up-zoned and developed beyond recognition, or their owners will be forced to sell their homes and find residence elsewhere. Again, we have people whose lives are likely to be permanently changed for the sake of a developer's anticipated profit. The developers have not specified what exactly they will be bringing to our community. To me, professional offices that serve the nearby hospital and thus the town of Hillsborough complement our future needs. However, once the properties have been up-zoned, the possibilities are endless and not all positive. The town does not need more fast-food restaurants or businesses that serve only transient I-40 traffic. Hillsborough already has a corridor full of such businesses. And a large-capacity hotel to be placed in the middle of a rural buffer? These types of development provide only low-end jobs and big profits to the franchises that will swarm these properties if given the chance, as well as increased profit for the developers who will no doubt be tempted by them. This type of lease-out will not serve the immediate community and only harm its current ambiance. The commissioners have not fully determined what would be "defined and specific uses" of this proposed development. This seems to be the only way that our community can influence or control what goes into the development as it is leased. Therefore, I urge the commissioners to delay rezoning of Districts II and III until a comprehensive list of desired uses is completed and made public so that our community can be properly informed. The requested changes in zoning assume that adequate resources, specifically water, will be made available for the development. Although Hillsborough currently has adequate water resources for its residents and has made provisions for recently approved projects, how much water is left to provide for this proposal? And will its water needs stymie other better-planned needs for Hillsborough? We do not want to choke off wiser choices in development so that another fast-food restaurant or three can be erected along I-40. Many of us who live in the immediate community understand that development is a part of our future. However, we want wise development that will serve Hillsborough and enrich the quality of life that we enjoy in Orange County, wise development that complements our anticipated needs. I urge the commissioners to delay any further decisions concerning these properties until all commissioners have had the time to read and deliberate on the impact of this proposal. I also request that no action be taken regarding up-zoning of any property be made until more details are shared about the intended uses of the development. Finally, I ask that the commissioners respect the current quality of life that this community enjoys and seek no harm to befall it by their actions. 43 13 Respectfully submitted, Ronald D. Sieber, Ed.D. 4217 New Hope Springs Dr. Hillsborough, NC 27278 Kathleen Ferguson, Hillsborough Town Council Member-Mayor Pro Tem, echoed Mayor Stevens, and said if the Town requires and grants annexation, the development will need to conform to Hillsborough ordinances, not what is included in the application. She said the Town supports District I, but has strong reservations on District II. She said it is the Town’s intent to support Waterstone and Daniel Boone, and the retail component of this project may endanger these two locations significantly. Debra Markley said she is not supportive of this development. She said she is concerned about water quality; lack of buffers; Davis Road becoming a thoroughfare; safety of people of being able to walk around; effect on environment; traffic, etc. She noted there are other proposed developments, and wonders why this development is needed. She submitted a petition. Dorothy Snyder lives in Hillsborough, and said she is here to express her solidarity with her neighbors who live in the affected areas. She said she is concerned about pharmaceutical industries and the environmental impact; bike paths and lanes and their connection to the Town’s; and minorities in this area that may be displaced. Peter Leousis said he lives near this proposed development, and expressed the same concerns as his neighbors. He asked the Board of County Commissioners to defer a decision until a later date. Bob Bundschuh reviewed the following comments: I am writing with serious concern about the proposed Settlers Point Development up for discussion this week. As an Orange County resident, and living close to the proposed development, I have several questions: What criteria do you use when deciding approval or rejection of a proposed development? How long have the members of the council had to review the proposal? How do you take into consideration the effect on residents of Orange County in the area? What limitations or controls are available to control what types of businesses can operate, if approval is given? (which I hope it is not) I am concerned and ask that you reject the current proposal for many reasons. While I am not against growth, I am against growth that takes away from the area and growth that is not well controlled. There are several areas in Orange county, including some in Hillsborough, that have been cleared of trees, roads put in, etc. with no set plan or set tenants that sit empty. My fear is another 'island' will be created at the Settlers Point site while a speculative owner hopes that someone is interested. The area will be dramatically and permanently changed on a gamble that tenants will come. In contrast, there have been several stories lately of clear and well-planned developments in the Raleigh area where the known tenants are already on board. i.e.: Ikea, Wegmans. I feel speculative development is not the answer. Secondly, I am worried that if this plan is approved (which I hope it is not) the county will have little to no control over what tenants actually do move in. Light industrial could be a chicken processing plant as long as all the business is enclosed. Warehouses, 24hr manufacturing companies, etc. could be allowed to come in and affect the entire area with nothing to prevent them if they are within the very broad boundaries of 'light industrial'. Most of the residents in the surrounding area are on well water, (myself included) what assurances are there that incoming 44 14 businesses do not foul the water? i.e.: GenX contamination around Fayetteville that was not from dumping, but from leaching of the plant. If development does go forward, there must be very strict limits as to what can be and cannot be allowed. Lastly, the way that the zoning commission handles this project is most disturbing. One member admitted she had not read the 274-page plan, credit to her for abstaining. One member said he had received the plan only 8 days before. When asked to postpone the decision, the developer claimed it would hurt their plan. What about the consideration for those in the area? Many questions were raised, most did not have answers. A few stoplights are the only traffic improvements? - for a plan that adds a hotel, retail, restaurants, AND businesses? This is all a speculative gamble on almost 200 acres that borders miles of large lot residential, some going back generations. I ask that you reject this plan and take into consideration that this decision will forever impact all those who live close to this area. Once the approval is given, you can't take it back. Please reject on behalf of all of us that have to directly live with your decision. I appreciate your time on this issue and look forward to your response. Sincerely, Bob Bundschuh Orange County John Ackerley said he is a Hillsborough resident, and he signed the first petition due to concerns about the speed of this process, and the lack of transparency. He said he is concerned about toxic byproducts and run off if pharmaceutical development is established in District I. He said his main concern is District 2, and he opposes it as a commercial hub. He said the plan to build here would divert income from Hillsborough merchants, and deprive the Town of tax revenue. He said the Town has gone to great expense to revitalize the Churton Street downtown area, and permitting an alternate commercial hub would be a knife to the back of the downtown merchants, and the commercial corridor of Churton Street. Jeanette Vega said she lives in Northern Hillsborough, but commutes through this area every day. She said she is against this proposed development, and asked the BOCC to reject this project until it has more information, especially regarding traffic. She said she agreed with other speakers about other issues. Alyse Polly reviewed the following comments below: My name is Alyse Polly, and I’ve been a resident of Orange County for 11 years, and a resident of Cornwallis Hills in Hillsborough for nearly 8 months. I feel very lucky to live here—in Orange County, and specifically in Hillsborough. It is a great place to live and a great place to raise a family. One of the things I’ve really been struck by since moving to Hillsborough and learning more about this town is the amount of effort, thought, deliberation, and intention that the town has put towards planning for the future. The town has a carefully drafted vision, and a strategy map that directs the town towards this vision, and a very detailed Unified Development Ordinance that aligns with these as well. So, while development is coming—and we all know that it is—the town is trying to prepare for this while holding on to what’s special about Hillsborough. Given all of this, I’m feeling concerned about the Settler’s point proposal. The first thing I want to talk to about is District 1. I know economic development is important—jobs are good, tax revenue 45 15 is good, innovation is good. I know these things. Yet, I’m not sure what kind of businesses would be in district 1. The zone is described as “light industrial, manufacturing, and research”—this seems far too broad and could capture a huge range of businesses. So I ask that you please wait until it’s possible to get more detail about exactly what would be taking residency in our town, right next to I-40. Second, let’s talk about District 2. As mentioned before, I’ve only lived in Hillsborough for 8 months. I have always liked Hillsborough, I enjoy the sweet little downtown, and the parks, and of course Riverwalk. With that said, since moving here, I have been surprised by how much I’ve grown to LOVE this town. The people in Hillsborough are friendly—I know a lot of my neighbors are here tonight and look grumpy but don’t let them fool you—they are usually incredibly friendly. There are a lot of artists here, and a lot of art around town… a lot of open, beautiful natural spaces... a ton of history…. There is something special here, it’s hard to put your finger on it—the town’s vision has settled on referring to this as Hillsborough’s “unique heritage and small town character”. While there is so much I love about this town, there is one thing I really do not like… That is the space on old 86, right off 85. Have any of you ever heard the term “food swamp”? the space off 85, on old 86 is the perfect example of a food swamp---an area overrun with unhealthy fast food chain restaurants. Yesterday, I counted 15 just a mile down the road from proposed district 2. Now, the public health girl in me wants to highlight the fact that increased easy access to unhealthy foods, can increase consumption of unhealthy foods, which can contribute to an increased incidence of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and other chronic diseases BUT The Hillsborough-lover in me feels it’s even more important to say to you, that this is not what I want people’s first impression to be of my town, and of my county. Imagine with me for a moment that someone has never been to Hillsborough and, even better, has never been to Orange County. They’re driving up 40, preparing to exit on old 86 and they see a water tower—either a blue one on the right, or a white one on the left….. and they think “oh, this is Orange County, NC… it’s cute” and then they see it…. A food swamp. Right off the exit. Then they exit 40, drive north and a mile later they run into a second food swamp. Is this how we want people to experience Hillsborough? Is this how we want people to experience Orange County? We are sitting here today in a county building in Hillsborough. Most people who need to visit these county offices will be exiting on the very I-40 exit we’re speaking about, and be immediately greeted with the result of the decisions you make about this land. Do you want a food swamp to be people’s first impression of Orange County? I certainly don’t. Unfortunate decisions were made in the past that resulted in one food swamp off of 85…. Let’s not allow that to happen again off of I-40. Imagine with me for a moment that someone has never been to Hillsborough and, perhaps better, has never been to Orange County. They’re driving up 40, preparing to exit on old 86 and they see a water tower—either a blue one on the right, or a white one on the left….. and they think “oh, this is Orange County, NC… it’s cute” and then they see it…. A food swamp right off the exit. Then they exit 40, drive north and a mile later they run into a second food swamp. Is this how we want people to experience Hillsborough? Is this how we want people to experience Orange County? We are sitting here today in a county building in Hillsborough. Most people who need to visit these county offices where you spend so much time will be exiting on the very I-40 exit we’re speaking about, and will be immediately greeted by the result of the decisions you make about this land. Do you want a food swamp to be people’s first impression of Orange County? I certainly 46 16 don’t. Unfortunate decisions were made in the past that resulted in one food swamp off of 85…. Let’s not allow that to happen again off of I-40. Thank you. Franklin Garland said he has the largest truffle orchard in the country, and his property is adjacent to District 1, which will directly impact his business. He said his business brings a great deal of agritourism to the County. He said he received two different conflicting notices from the planning department; one stating he is impacted by the development, and the other stating he is not. He said this is a poor location, and he is against this project. Sherry Appel said she formerly worked on planning issues in Maryland. She said if done right, this may work; but if not, it may be a potential development disaster. She said it would be a far better project if the tenants were known, and piecemeal development is not a good idea. Simona Dunn said she is not supportive of any development at this time with this project, and agreed with many of the other speakers. Kevin Nicholson said he is against this project because it is within a mile of his family farm, and he is concerned how it will affect his farm status and his neighborhood. Bud Shelton said he served in the Navy in the 1950s, and moved to North Carolina thereafter. He said it is important to consider the pristine area in which we live, but to also consider the employment needs of future generations. He said to carve out the good and eliminate the bad. Dave Skanga said he is a homeowner in the Cornwallis Hills neighborhood. He said it is understood that development of some sort is going to happen, but this proposed project is a raw deal. He said he is against the project, and asked the BOCC not to act hastily. Commissioner Jacobs asked about the digging of the water and sewer at end of Davis Road. Michael Harvey said that is an emergency water line, and is independent of this project. Jim Parker, Developer, said he is representing Old 86 Partners, and he has heard from residents tonight, and at other meetings, about their concerns. He said he has lived in this area for 35 years, and has supported the desires and direction of both the Town and the County. He said they are here because of I-40, and because the County adopted the three EDDs years ago when this road was created. He commended the Planning Department for its thorough, fair and neutral efforts. Jim Parker said they have responded to what the EDD asked for, which are the same uses that were in the land use plan to begin with, or were added by the elected bodies. He said this is not a rushed project. His company became aware of one parcel of land four years ago, and since that time they have been working with landowners to assemble the 274 acres. He said they have put together the third part of the puzzle, which is site ready development. He said site ready development requires good transportation; utilities; and a mass of property that will attract tenants. Jim Parker said, if approved, this opportunity could attract some large economic development users, with an optimistic $6 million tax benefit to the County. He said $3 million would not be bad either, and property taxes may not go down, but would likely level out. He said there is no desire to compete with Daniel Boone or downtown Hillsborough. He said this is an interstate development. Jim Parker referred to the concerns about the buffer, and offered to mitigate their request specifically for the District 2 area along I-40, from the termini of the ramp up until the mid way point, which is about 1200 feet. He said there is over 4000 feet of MTC buffer in the proposed development. He said they do not need to thin on light industrial property on the west side. He said they do not intend for thinning in the southern part of the buffer either. He referred to the bike lanes, and connectivity. He said there is very little room on 86, under the I-40 bridges. He said in the near future, 3-5 years, I-40 will be widened, which will provide opportunity to work with the Department of Transportation (DOT) to provide some additional clearance under the bridges, and they would work towards making this happen. He said there 47 17 are extensive traffic improvements that have not been specifically reviewed this evening, but have been communicated to the BOCC via email. Jim Parker said he does not know how do insure that this does not end up as Oakdale or the area across from Wal-Mart. He said they will continue to work with the Town of Hillsborough, and the process does not end with BOCC approval. He said BOCC approval would, however, provide something to attract tenants. Commissioner Burroughs asked if he would address the flood plain issues. Jim Parker said there are flood plain issues in both districts, which cannot be developed. Commissioner Burroughs asked if the flood plains were removed, what would be the developable acreage. Jim Parker said 20% are flood plains. Commissioner Jacobs said about a year ago, staff and the BOCC reviewed an extensive list of permitted and unpermitted uses in the EDDs. He asked staff if there is an update on this list. Michael Harvey said staff and the County Attorney’s office are still working on this project. He said the Applicant used the Board’s comments on these uses, and incorporated only those uses that were identified as being plausible. He reminded the BOCC that the Applicant provided a detailed listing of land uses that would be proposed for District I and II, which can be found on page 103 of the packet. Commissioner Jacobs said he appreciates the inclusion of these concerns, but doubts that the BOCC raised all possible concerns at that time, and he assumes the residents may have some concerns about some of those uses, not knowing what they are. He asked if there is a timeline for this to come back to the BOCC. Michael Harvey said probably in January or February 2018. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the BOCC approves a plan for this area, could annexation by Hillsborough result in a change of the uses. Michael Harvey said yes, and annexation will be subject to compliance with the applicable Town zoning, as establish as part of that process. Commissioner Jacobs asked if it is possible to assure the community that what is approved by Orange County will be what is actually developed. Michael Harvey said he the County works closely with the Town Planning department, but he cannot offer any guarantees. He said the Town would take up the zoning of property consistent with its existing land use plan and Town code. Michael Harvey referred to questions about the flood plain concerns, and said the County has a fairly extensive flood plain management program. He said the County prohibits development in flood plains, and requires buffers. He said the Applicant would have to abide by those standards. He said the Applicant does not wish to deviate from the County’s stormwater or erosion control standards, and that is in addition to doing an environmental assessment on every site plan that is submitted. Chair Dorosin asked if this could be clarified, and if each structure has its own site plan. Michael Harvey said each individual structure will be subject to an individual site plan review and approval by County staff, consistent with the applicable provisions of the UDO, as well as any specified standards as detailed within this resolution of approval. Commissioner McKee said he heard that the entire site would be clear-cut and stripped, which he knew was inaccurate. He asked Michael Harvey if he would clarify the boundaries of clearing on a site with flood plains. Michael Harvey referred to a map, and said there will be a 100-foot buffer on the western and southern property that is required by the UDO, and the Applicant will honor this. He pointed out the stream and flood plain, both of which must have a 65-foot undisturbed, natural area buffer on each side. He said there are wetland pockets and other streams that will have to be buffered, and are not developable. He said there are utility lines in this area, which are not developable. Commissioner Rich asked if it is known who would provide emergency services to this area until annexation. 48 18 Michael Harvey said Orange County would offer Sheriff and EMS, with mutual aid agreements with the Town. He said there would be fire hydrants. Commissioner Rich referred to the bike lanes, and said the OUTBoard Chair expressed concerns about leaving enough easements on Old 86 frontage going forward. She suggested including this topic if this project moves forward. Commissioner Rich asked Michael Harvey if he could explain the Planning Board process, and whether the Planning Board had enough time to thoroughly review this item. Michael Harvey said the Planning Board gets its agenda one week in advance of a meeting, in accordance with its policies; and there were three neighborhood meetings. Jim Parker said the first neighborhood meeting was held in September 2016, with two more in August 2017, and in September 2017. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the lighting plans for this project could be explained, and if they are low casting lighting. Michael Harvey said the lighting will have to comply with the County’s current lighting code, which requires fully shielded lights. Commissioner Marcoplos asked to what extent energy and water efficiency can be controlled. He asked if incentives or requirements could be put in place. Jim Parker said the application did not have anything additional built in, but rather followed the requirements of building codes. He said they would consider any suggested additional provisions. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if they would entertain a suggestion to add a line of dense vegetative wall to help with sound and light in the south side of District I. Jim Parker said this can be added to their landscaping buffer, and would work with staff to create this. Commissioner Price referred to the west side of District I, and asked if there is an expected impact on the waters there, and all the other farmland. Jim Parker said the map shows blue water bodies, which represent storm water controls. He said these are non-specific, and meant as a placeholder. He said they may never exist. He said the area to the west is existing floodplain. Michael Harvey said these areas will have to be buffered and preserved, as required by the current code, and cannot be disturbed. Commissioner Price said she does not like the piecemeal approval process for these different zoning districts. She asked if a true, comprehensive master plan could be created to provide the BOCC and the community a fuller picture of information. Michael Harvey said the BOCC has that, as consistent with the ordinances currently adopted. Commissioner Price said she would like a diagram. Michael Harvey said the BOCC would have to revise the ordinance to require a site- specific development plan. Commissioner Price asked if is there any way to have a comprehensive plan to give a better sense of what is going to go in, and where. Michael Harvey said not under the way the ordinance is currently written. Michael Harvey said the staff will review a site specific development plan, which will not come before the BOCC. Commissioner Price said staff will review this in pieces. Michael Harvey said staff will review sites as they are developed. Commissioner Burroughs asked which EDD is largest, in terms of the tracts of land. Craig Benedict said under single ownership it is the 138 acres at the flea market site. He said inquiries often seek site ready sites, of which there are few. He said this project would become the largest site that the EDDs would be able to offer. Chair Dorosin clarified that the County owns none of this land, and a developer has to negotiate with a private landowner to purchase land. Craig Benedict said yes. 49 19 Commissioner Burroughs asked if it is known when the District I extension of water and sewer be completed. Craig Benedict said probably the middle of 2018. Commissioner Jacobs referred to signage, and said they are stipulated as being externally illuminated rather than internally illuminated in District II. He asked if there is a reason why this is preferable. Michael Harvey said he may have to gather that information, and answer this question later. Commissioner Jacobs referred to the issue of trees, and asked if there is any kind of tree preservation plan for the interior of these sites. Michael Harvey said there is no tree survey, but there are mandatory buffers, and the developer plans to preserve existing foliage within those buffers. Michael Harvey referred to page 110, which states, “unless otherwise specified herein, signs shall be composed of internally lit letters.” He said he will review all documents to make sure internally lit lights are included, as opposed to externally lit. Commissioner Jacobs asked if it can be required that sign lighting be extinguished when businesses closed. Michael Harvey said this question can be posed to the Applicant. Commissioner Jacobs said he would like to have a conversation about a tree survey for this project. Commissioner Jacobs referred to the buffers, and said it appears that thinning could leave 54 trees per acre. Michael Harvey said that is the Developer’s proposal to encourage the BOCC to approve thinning, but what he is hearing is that Jim Parker would like to revise this to address concerns raised by the community about clearing. Commissioner Jacobs said this is true except in one area, District III, and he would like to address this area too. He said the 54-tree per acre proposal only leads to one tree per 741 square feet. Commissioner Jacobs said he has concerns about the traffic plan, as there is no clarity about any internal circulation plans in either District I or II. He said this would be useful information for the BOCC to have before giving its approval, as it will have an effect on how Old 86 will operate. Michael Harvey said part of the confusion is that the TIA still references District III as being developed. He said right now, there is one central entrance proposed into District II, and District I would get access from the existing service road. Commissioner Jacobs asked if a light would not be proposed at Davis Road if there is no residential. Jim Parker said that is correct. He said the light at Davis Road would be specifically for District III. Commissioner Jacobs said Davis Road will become a de facto thoroughfare. He said whether a light is needed will not be determined by residential development, but by the change in traffic patterns. Commissioner Jacobs asked if Hillsborough has a water reuse system. Michael Harvey said he did not know. Commissioner Jacobs said he does not think Hillsborough has one, and suggested asking the Developer to have a rain collection system, as a way to do irrigation. Jim Parker said with the stormwater requirements, there is available water that can be used for the landscape irrigation. He said there are also drought resistant requirements for landscaping. Commissioner Jacobs said to see if there is adequate water from the storm water collection, which can dry up, or some kind of rain collection system. Commissioner Jacobs referred to District II, which is noted to be “neighborhood, mixed use, future land use.” 50 20 Michael Harvey said that is per the Town of Hillsborough-Orange County joint planning land use plan. Commissioner Jacobs asked Jim Parker if there was ever any consideration made to have this area contain residential units above the commercial units. Jim Parker said they are not opposed to this, but it would be determined by what the market would bare. He said the commercial area in District II is likely to be an interstate transportation market, catering to those who are passing through rather than residents of Hillsborough. Commissioner Jacobs asked if it is viable to ask the Developer to separate the two districts, and proceed with the western district first because it is less complicated. Jim Parker said that is not what they would like, and they believe that both districts go hand-in-hand. He said the light industrial and employment centers, which may go in District I, are going to want to see something adjacent to them in the way of services, food, hotels, etc. Jim Parker referred to the traffic improvements, and said there are a lot of lights along that section, but two of the lights were a part of the TIA that was prepared for Waterstone, and that requirement got left out. He said those signals are being put in to do the right thing. He said most of the trips in the traffic are generated by District I. He said the proximity of the service road to the ramps is not good. Commissioner Jacobs said DOT only recommends a stop sign for the service road, which he finds preposterous. Jim Parker said one would not be able to turn left out. Commissioner McKee referred to oil and water contaminants on this property, and said Orange County requirements exceed the State’s requirements much of the time. Michael Harvey agreed. Commissioner McKee asked if the number of buildable acres in this project is known. Jim Parker said 30% open space is required, so about 65-70% of 190 acres is buildable, including roads, buildings, etc. Commissioner McKee said one of the proposed uses was light manufacturing, and asked if the Morinaga candy factory is considered to be light manufacturing. Steve Brantley, Economic Development Director, said yes. Commissioner McKee asked if it is known on how many acres Morinaga sits. Steve Brantley said the company purchased a 21-acre site, and built on one third of the property. Commissioner McKee asked if the number of employees at Morinaga is known. Steve Brantley said approximately 100 full time employees with benefits, and salaries well above the living wage and beyond. Commissioner McKee said while the exact tenants for this project are not known, it can be expected that jobs will be created by this proposed project. Steve Brantley said yes. He said the asking price for this property is quite high, but not as high as the remaining properties at the Waterstone development. He said the Waterstone properties are priced at $250,000 per acre, and there is no industry that will pay this price. He said the probable asking price for Settlers’ Point would indicate that the type of buyer would be a higher caliber business. Commissioner McKee said a more focused enterprise would be attracted to this property. Steve Brantley said the Waterstone development has set a tone with its tenants, signage and landscaping, and the development and asking price at Settlers’ Point would indicate a continuation of this higher caliber tone. Commissioner McKee said the BOCC is committed to attracting lower impact businesses that do not require excessive amounts of water, and are in line with Orange County values. He said Orange County has one of the highest tax rates in the state, and it is unclear how much this project will generate in taxes; but if it could generate $4 million, that is 2% of the County’s budget. He said that is a significant shift in the industrial-residential tax base. He asked if the County is still at 20% on its business tax base. 51 21 Steve Brantley said the recent revaluation has changed these numbers a bit, but historically this is accurate. He said projects like this can help shift that dynamic. Commissioner Rich asked if the type of developments that will go into Waterstone and Daniel Boone area are known. Steve Brantley said he thought Waterstone was going to be a large science park, lined with white-collar operations, but in reality he found most of it is residential. He said the few remaining sites at Waterstone are too small. He said Hillsborough has no large tracts of land that could accommodate a corporate presence. He said the Settlers’ Point project could tie in well with the tone of Waterstone, attracting professional offices. Commissioner Marcoplos said he is trying to get a sense of how many jobs may be created by this project. Steve Brantley reviewed several potential tenants and the numbers of people they could employ, from a call canter to a warehouse, which are lower paying jobs. He said an automotive park facility would maximize the tax value, and provide higher paying jobs. He said life science companies are an option as well, which can have very high salaries. Chair Dorosin said it looks as if the Board of County Commissioners is going to defer this item to a later meeting. Commissioner Jacobs referred to page 110, which states, “external illumination shall be permitted...”. He asked Michael Harvey if he would clarify internal and external illumination in a future discussion. Commissioner Jacobs said the BOCC planned Watersone with Hillsborough, and it was the ideal economic development site in the County. He said Hillsborough changed some of the plans to make it more residential, and removed an agreed upon Senior Center. He said given that Hillsborough is asking the BOCC to do what it considers important for Hillsborough, he would like to ask the Town Board to write a letter to the BOCC stating its willingness to abide, to the best of its ability, by what the BOCC decides; as opposed to using water and sewer to prevent BOCC approved plans from happening. Commissioner Burroughs said given the limited amount of land for economic development in Orange County, she would strongly suggest that this site should be used just for economic development. She said it should not be used for a school, jail or waste transfer station. Chair Dorosin summarized the concerns. Commissioner McKee said if this item is delayed, he would like to know how long staff will need to get the necessary information, and to set a specific time to bring it back. Michael Harvey said a specific time frame will be needed. He said staff has a laundry list of comments from the BOCC and the Applicant, to which responses are needed. He said he anticipates modifications of existing or recommended conditions. Commissioner McKee said he would like to know if this can come back for a December meeting. Michael Harvey said if the BOCC votes to bring this item back in December, staff will be ready. Commissioner Price asked if this item will need to go back to the Planning Board. Michael Harvey said the BOCC has that option, but staff cannot accommodate bringing it back in December if it goes back to the Planning Board. Chair Dorosin said this item might need to come back in January, in which case the Planning Board could weigh in on that which was discussed today. Commissioner McKee reminded the BOCC that it does not meet until the very end of January. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to refer this item back to the Planning Board for discussion at its December regular meeting, so that staff, the Applicant and the Planning Board can finesse the conditions that have been discussed; with the public hearing to be adjourned to the BOCC regular meeting on January 23, 2018. 52 22 Chair Dorosin thanked the public and colleagues from Hillsborough for attending, and said all are acting in good faith and the BOCC will take all comments into account. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments and Zoning Atlas Amendments - To review government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO pertaining to flood regulations and to remove the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) from the Zoning Atlas. BACKGROUND: Orange County has been a member of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) since approximately 1976. The NFIP offers flood insurance to homeowners, renters, and business owners if their community participates, specifically through the adoption and enforcement of regulations designed to mitigate/reduce flood risk, in the program including adoption of flood maps denoting areas where flooding is a possibility. For more background information please refer to Attachment 1. 117 Recent changes by the State and Federal government in flood damage prevention standards, including development of new flood maps, require the County to modify existing regulation(s) in order to continue to be eligible for participation within the NFIP. On direction from the County’s Attorney in 2007, staff incorporated available flood mapping data directly onto the County Zoning Atlas creating the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) overlay district. As there are modifications/updates to FEMA flood map data, the County is required to initiate a Zoning Atlas amendment incorporating same. This requires the holding and advertising of both a Planning Board meeting and a BOCC public hearing where the maps amendment(s) are being reviewed (i.e. notification of impacted property owners, notification of property owners within 1,000 ft. of the zoning change, posting of impacted properties with signs advertising the meetings, and legal advertisements). Depending on the scope and timing of FEMA map change(s) there may be significant and unplanned budgetary impacts, as well as significant time commitments, to incorporate said modifications. In consultation with current Attorney’s staff, Planning staff is recommending the elimination of the SFHA overlay district and adoption of the flood maps by reference in the UDO. As there are future changes/updates in flood mapping data, staff would complete a UDO text amendment incorporating reference to this new data, but would not have to complete a corresponding zoning atlas amendment. The move would reduce required budgetary outlays to cover notification of an atlas amendment to affected, and adjacent (i.e. those within 1,000 ft.), property owners. Please note as part of our floodplain management program, the Planning Department engages in a public awareness campaign keeping local property owners informed of flood issues as well as the various services offered by the County. This includes an annual letter sent to approximately 1,900 property owners whose property is encumbered by floodplain. This is part of our comprehensive floodplain management outreach program for which the County receives credit under the Community Rating System (CRS) resulting in a reduction in flood insurance premiums for local property owners. The elimination of the SFHA overlay district will not impact or alter existing outreach efforts conducted by the Department to keep property owners aware of flood issues and the various services offered to address compliance with flood regulations. Michael Harvey made the following PowerPoint presentation: PUBLIC HEARING Zoning Atlas and UDO Text Amendments – Special Flood Hazard Area Overlay District Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing 53 SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS/RESPONSES ON SETTLERS POINT FROM NOVEMBER 14, 2017 PUBLIC HEARING 1. What are the benefits of developing a project through the MPD-CZ process? One of the primary benefits of the MPD-CZ process is that we are able to review/process the development of multiple parcels under a uniform set of development criteria where there are shared opportunities for infrastructure development (i.e. parking areas, preservation of existing landscaping, outdoor lighting, signage, etc.). If these parcels were developed independently under existing zoning regulations, each individual parcel would be developed as its own entity with little to no opportunity for the County to compel coordination of development activities. Each parcel would have to have its own parking area, stormwater feature, landscape buffers, allowable building area (i.e. floor area ratio), individual outdoor lighting fixtures, etc. From staff’s standpoint this translates into more development activity, more impervious surface area, and increased opportunities for impacts. 2. Why are the applicants not required to submit a site specific development plan? Applicable provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) do not require submittal of site specific development plans as part of the Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) process. As detailed in the abstracts for both the Planning Board and the BOCC, the MPD-CZ process involves the approval of a rezoning petition and a master development plan allowing for the proposed development of specific land use(s) on parcel(s) 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. The County is, essentially, being asked to allow for the creation of a new zoning district establishing mandatory development criteria as well as a list of permitted land uses. If approved, the Zoning Atlas will be amended and the zoning designation of the property shall be changed to MPD-CZ. Development 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. Typically with a general use rezoning, the County cannot make specific requests for information on ‘exactly’ what land use(s) will be developed if a rezoning Attachment 3 54 petition is approved or impose conditions on development. If the rezoning petition is approved, the property can be developed for any land use permitted within the applicable district consistent with the standards/permit processes embodied within the UDO. Through the MPD-CZ process, however, the County does have the opportunity to impose conditions on development activities to address potential impacts. Per Section 2.9.2 (F) (3) of the UDO, mutually agreed upon conditions can be imposed as part this process 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. 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. 3. What can the applicant do under current zoning regulations? As indicated during both the October 4, 2017 Planning Board and November 14, 2017 public hearing the properties associated with this rezoning are currently zoned to allow for non-residential land uses. Specifically the parcels in District(s) 1 and 2 as proposed within the Settlers Point Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) application are: a. Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2), the purpose of which is defined within Section 3.7 of the UDO as: ‘… to provide locations for low intensity office uses and supporting services in the designated Hillsborough Economic Development District. The district may contain limited commercial uses within employment centers or where vehicular access is provided internally to the development’. b. Economic Development Hillsborough Office/Retail (EDH-4), the purpose of which is defined within Section 3.7 of the UDO as: ‘ … to provide locations for high intensity office uses and supporting retail and service uses in the designated Hillsborough Economic Development District. The district is intended to be located on large areas as part of a cohesive development plan and may contain commercial uses within employment centers’. c. Economic Development Hillsborough Research and Manufacturing (EDH-5) the purpose of which is defined within Section 3.7 of the UDO as: 55 ‘ … to provide locations for a wide range of research, assembling, fabricating and light manufacturing activities, and such ancillary industrial activities as warehousing and distribution in the designated Hillsborough Economic Development District. Some commercial services are also permitted if they are part of a cohesive development plan that is predominantly comprised of permitted non-residential uses and provided all access is provided internally. The district is established to provide locations for research and industrial development which have little or no impact on adjoining properties’. Existing allowable land uses within these districts, as detailed in Section 5.2.2 Table of Permitted Uses – Economic Development Districts include: 56 District Uses Permitted By Right 1 Uses Permitted with Class B Special Use Permit 2 Uses Permitted with Class A Special Use Permit 3 EDH-2 • Finance and Insurance (i.e. banks/credit unions, security/commodity brokers/exchanges, insurance, investment services, mortgage brokers, etc.) • Government offices, • Government protective services (i.e. police, fire, etc.), • Parks, • Accommodation and Food Service (i.e. hotel/motel, boarding houses, special food services – catering -, restaurant, etc.) • Administrative and Support Services (i.e. general management, personnel administration, clerical activities, cleaning activities, travel agents, packaging and labeling services, etc.) • Health Care/Social Assistance (i.e. physician/health care practitioners, dentist, mental health, outpatient care, medical/diagnostic labs, hospitals, nursing homes, retirement communities, child daycare, etc. ) • Indoor theater, • Management of Companies/Enterprises • Professional/Scientific/Technical Services (i.e. lawyer, accounting/book keeping, architect/engineer, design services, computer system design, scientific research and development, advertising/public relations, etc.) None None 1 Reviewed and approved by planning staff with no board involvement (i.e. Board of Adjustment, Planning Board, BOCC). 2 Reviewed and acted upon by the Board of Adjustment with no other board involvement (i.e. Planning Board or BOCC) 3 Recommendation made by Planning Board with final action taken by BOCC. 57 District Uses Permitted By Right Uses Permitted with Class B Special Use Permit Uses Permitted with Class A Special Use Permit EDH-4 • Finance and Insurance (i.e. banks/credit unions, security/commodity brokers/exchanges, insurance, investment services, mortgage brokers, etc.) • Government offices, • Government protective services (i.e. police, fire, etc.) • Parks • Information (i.e. publishing Industries, motion picture and sound recording industries, software publishers, radio and tv broadcasting, data processing/hosting, libraries, internet publishing/broadcasting/web search portals, etc.) • Accommodation and Food Service (i.e. hotel/motel, boarding houses, special food services – catering -, restaurant, etc.) • Administrative and Support Services (i.e. general management, personnel administration, clerical activities, cleaning activities, travel agents, packaging and labeling services, etc.) • Health Care/Social Assistance (i.e. physician/health care practitioners, dentist, mental health, outpatient care, medical/diagnostic labs, hospitals, nursing homes, retirement communities, child daycare, etc. ) • Management of Companies/Enterprises • Professional/Scientific/Technical Services (i.e. lawyer, accounting/book keeping, architect/engineer, design services, computer system design, scientific research and development, advertising/public relations, etc.) None None 58 District Uses Permitted By Right Uses Permitted with Class B Special Use Permit Uses Permitted with Class A Special Use Permit EDH-5 • Construction (i.e. building contractors, heavy/civil engineering contractors, specialty trade, etc.), • Government offices, • Government protective services (i.e. police, fire, etc.), • Parks, • Public Administration (includes government offices as well as: government space flight operation offices/launching facilities, national security land uses, etc.) • Transportation and Warehousing (i.e. air – cargo and passengers, rail/water/bus, freight trucking, transportation of petroleum products, general/refrigerated storage, etc.) • Wholesale Trade – Durable Goods (i.e. motor vehicles/parts, furniture, lumber, professional/commercial equipment, household appliances, paper/paper product, apparel/piece goods, food, chemical/allied products, etc.) • Elevated water storage tank, • Public utility substations, • Water/sanitary sewer pumping stations. None None 59 In the summer of 2016 staff was directed to complete a review of allowable land uses within the Economic Development Hillsborough general use zoning districts (i.e. EDH 1 through 5). BOCC members wanted to expand/modify allowable uses within these districts to ensure consistency with: a. Other Economic Development general use zoning districts, and b. To ensure allowable land uses coincided within the overall purpose and intent of the district as currently defined within the UDO. These activities, which were reviewed and commented on by both the Planning Board and the BOCC, resulted in the following: i. Expand allowable research and manufacturing/light industrial land uses within the EDH-5 general use zoning district consistent with its existing intent and purpose. ii. Allow for retail land uses in the EDH-4 general use zoning district consistent with its existing intent and purpose. If this project is not approved, the applicant will have to wait for the final modification(s) of the table of permitted land uses to be adopted by the BOCC to propose manufacturing/research/light industrial development activities within the EDH-5 general use zoning district as well as retail within the EDH-4 general use zoning district. As a reminder these modification(s) are consistent with the direction and suggestion of both the Planning Board and BOCC members. Pertinent Links to materials associated with this topic include: • July 6, 2016 Ordinance Review Committee Meeting Notes: http://www.orangecountync.gov/7.6.16%20ORC%20Notes.pdf • August 3, 2016 Planning Board Minutes: http://www.orangecountync.gov/8.3.16PlanningBoardMinutes.pdf • September 7, 2016 Planning Board Minutes: http://www.orangecountync.gov/090716PlanningBoardMinutes.pdf • September 12, 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing Agenda Materials: http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/weblink8/0/doc/42565/Page1.aspx • September 12, 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing Minutes: http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/weblink8/0/doc/43289/Page1.aspx It was ultimately decided to incorporate these efforts into the table of permitted use project, which has been reviewed at several Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) and Planning Board meetings, which can be accessed at: 60 http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/planning_and_inspections/orange_ county_planning_board_(pb).php#. 4. What does the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) allow as ‘permitted land uses’ within the Master Planned Development (MPD) Conditional Zoning District? Per Section 5.2.3 Table of Permitted Uses – Conditional Zoning Districts of the UDO, the following land uses are considered to be ‘permitted’ within the MPD-CZ district 4: Use Types Proposed for development within Settlers Point Agricultural Uses Agricultural Processing Facility No Agricultural Services Uses No Cold Storage Facility No Community Farmers’ Market No Cooperative Farm Stand No Farm Supply Store No Feed Mill No Greenhouses with On Premises Sales No Stables, Commercial No Child Care & Educational Facilities Child Care Facilities Yes Libraries Yes Schools: Dance, Art & Music Yes Schools: Elementary, Middle & Secondary No 5 Schools: Vocational Yes Universities, Colleges & Institutes No Commercial Uses Banks & Financial Institutions Yes Beauty & Barber Shops Yes 4 Subject to the approval of an MPD-CZ application by the BOCC with the applicant specifically requesting said land use(s). 5 The applicant removed this land use from the project to allow staff to solicit additional input on the need for a school south of Interstate 40 from the Orange County School System. 61 Use Types Proposed for development within Settlers Point Commercial Uses (continued) Construction (offices) Yes Contractors, Building & Trade (offices) Yes Country Store No Finance & Insurance Yes Funeral Homes No Garden Center with On Premises Sales No Hotels & Motels Yes Insurance Carriers & Agents Yes Laundry & Dry Cleaning Services No Management of Companies & Enterprises Yes Massage, Business of No Microbrewery with Minor Events No Microbrewery with Major Events No Nightclubs, Bars, Pubs No Offices & Personal Services Yes Professional, Scientific & Technical Services Yes Real Estate Agents & Brokers Yes Repair Service Electronic & Appliance No Restaurants: Carry Out Yes Restaurants: Drive In Yes Restaurants: General Yes Retail Yes Rural Guest Establishment: Bed & Breakfast No Rural Guest Establishment: Bed & Breakfast Inn No Rural Guest Establishment: Country Inn No Storage of Goods, Outdoor No Storage or Warehousing: Inside Building Yes Studio (Art) Yes Theater, Indoor or Outdoor (including Drive- ins) Yes 6 Wholesale Trade Yes Winery with Minor Events No Winery with Major Events No 6 Applicant has proposed an indoor movie theater within the project. 62 Use Types Proposed for development within Settlers Point Government Uses Governmental Facilities & Office Buildings Yes Governmental Protective Services (Police & Fire Stations) Rescue Squads, Volunteer Fire Departments Yes MANUFACTURING, ASSEMBLY & PROCESSING Assembly and Packaging Operations Including Distribution and Mail Order Houses, But Excluding On-Premises Retail Outlets Yes Industrial, Heavy 7 Yes 8 Industrial, Light 9 Yes Industrial, Medium 10 Yes Manufacturing Yes Microbrewery, production only Yes 11 Pharmaceutical Products Yes Printing & Lithography Yes Winery, production only Yes 7 Defined within Article 10 Definitions of the UDO as: Manufacturing & processing operations with a greater potential to impact surrounding properties, where a majority or large component of the operation may occur in the open air. Such uses may include, but not be limited to, the following: asphalt mixing plants; cement manufacturing or processing; commercial food processing (packing and rendering) plants, including meat, poultry and fish; and, concrete mixing plants. 8 The applicant has listed several manufacturing land uses as being allowable within District 1. These uses fall into the various ‘industrial’ categories as defined within the UDO. 9 Defined within Article 10 Definitions of the UDO as: Manufacturing & processing operations that occur entirely indoors and have limited impacts on surrounding properties, including, but not limited to, production of the following: food products (i.e. commercial bakery, candy, and beverages, including bottling); surgical, medical and dental instruments; wood cabinets, furniture and upholstery; light machinery, including household appliances; toys, sporting and athletic equipment, excluding firearms and ammunition; and, paper products, such as bags, containers, and cardboard. 10 Defined within Article 10 Definitions of the UDO as: Manufacturing & processing operations that may occur indoors or outdoors and have limited impacts beyond the boundaries of the zoning district, including, but not limited to, the following: heavy household, commercial and industrial appliances; manufactured homes, recreational vehicles and related components; automotive, farm and construction machinery; and, commercial building components. 11 The applicant is proposing to allow for ‘food and beverage product manufacturing and bottling’ which would include a microbrewery and/or a winery as contained within this table. 63 Use Types Proposed for development within Settlers Point MEDICAL USES Health Services: Over 10,000 Sq. Ft. Yes Health Services: Under 10,000 Sq. Ft Yes Hospitals No Veterinary Clinic No Veterinary Clinic, mobile No RECREATIONAL USES Golf Driving and Practice Ranges No Parks, Public Yes Recreational Facilities Yes 12 Golf Course No RESIDENTIAL USES Dwelling; Multiple Family No Dwelling; Single-Family No Dwelling; Two-Family No Group Care Facility No Rehabilitative Care Facility No TRANSPORTATION Bus Passenger Shelter Yes Bus Terminals & Garages No Motor Freight Terminals No Motor Vehicle Maintenance & Repair (Body Shop) No Motor Vehicle Repair Garage No Motor Vehicle Sales Rental (New & Used) Yes 13 Motor Vehicle Services Stations14 Yes 12 The applicant is proposing to allow for indoor/outdoor swimming pool, arcades, and indoor gym/physical fitness center within the project. 13 This would fall under a ‘retail’ land use, which is proposed for location within the project. 14 This is the land use category currently utilized by the County to include a gas station. 64 Use Types Proposed for development within Settlers Point TRANSPORTATION (continued) Parking As Principal Use, Surface or Structure Yes Petroleum Products: Storage & Distribution No Postal & Parcel Delivery Services No UTILITIES Elevated Water Storage Tanks Yes Public Utility Stations & Sub-Stations, Switching Stations, Telephone Exchanges, Water & Sewage Treatment Plants Yes Electric, Gas, and Liquid Fuel Transmission Lines No Water & Sanitary Sewer Pumping Yes Solar Array – Large Facility No Solar Array – Public Utility No MISCELLANEOUS Accessory Uses Yes Assembly Facility Greater Than 300 15Occupants No Assembly Facility Less Than 300 Occupants No Church Yes Clubs or Lodges; Social; Fraternal or Union Clubhouses Yes Community Center No Crematoria No Historic Sites Non-Residential/Mixed Use No Information No Research Facility Yes Research Lands & Installations, Non-profit No Rural Special Events No 15 This facility is not specifically listed within the application package. There are, however, land uses proposed for location within Settlers Point that can be classified as an assembly operation. 65 Only those land uses proposed by the applicant, and approved by the BOCC as part of a MPD-CZ application, can be developed within the project consistent with all other applicable development standards. As detailed herein, the applicant has proposed numerous land uses the BOCC has determined are appropriate for location within an MPD-CZ project. 5. What do current Comprehensive Plan designations allow for development on these properties? As indicated during the October 4, 2017 Planning Board and November 14, 2017 public hearing, the properties associated with this rezoning are located within the Economic Development Transition Land Use category, as denoted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), defined as follows within the adopted Orange County Comprehensive Plan: Land in areas of the County which has been specifically targeted for economic development activity consisting of light industrial, distribution, office, service/retail uses, and flex space (typically one- story buildings designed, constructed, and marketed as suitable for use as offices but able to accommodate other uses such as a warehouse, showroom, manufacturing assembly, or similar operations.) Such areas are located adjacent to interstate and major arterial highways, and subject to special design criteria and performance standards. The land uses proposed as part of the Settlers Point application for District(s) 1 and 2 are consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County have elected to engage in a joint planning effort in this area resulting in the adoption of a Joint Planning Land Use Plan and agreement further detailing anticipated development activities on these properties as envisioned by the Town and the County. Staff provided this information as part of our presentation to the Planning Board at its October 4, 2017 regular meeting and to the BOCC at its November 14, 2017 public hearing. During the public hearing staff presented a power point presentation containing the following slide: 66 The Joint Planning Land Use Plan defines the properties associated with this request as follows: i. District 1 of Settlers Point: Defined within the adopted Joint Planning Land Use Plan as follows: Employment areas. These areas include a wide range of business, light industrial, office, research and development, along with related/support services uses including restaurants, small scale retail and convenience shopping/services. Buildings and uses will be sited to limit the visual impact of service and warehousing operations, while still providing convenience for business functionality. These areas are in prime locations with good access to major road networks (where capacity exists or is planned) and rail if needed and should be reserved for high return employment generating uses. Zoning Districts: High Intensity Commercial; Business Park; Economic Development District; Light Industrial, General Industrial; Entranceway Special Use; Special Design Special Use. 67 ii. Portion of District 2 along Old NC Highway 86: defined within the adopted Joint Planning Land Use Plan as follows: Neighborhood Mixed Use. These areas provide opportunities for goods and services that residents of the district and surrounding neighborhoods need on a daily basis. Lots with this designation will front on an arterial or collector street and back up to single family neighborhoods. Buildings and uses will generally be in scale with the surrounding neighborhoods and be walkable as well as providing vehicular access. Sites may be single use or, mixed use, may incorporate residential uses or may be solely residential at a higher density than the adjacent neighborhood. Zoning Districts: R-10; Multi-family; Neighborhood Business; Neighborhood Business Special Use; Central Commercial; Central Commercial Special Use; Multi-Family Special Use; Residential Special Use. iii. Portion of District 2 along Interstate 40: defined within the adopted Joint Planning Land Use Plan as follows: Suburban Office Complex. These areas provide opportunities to for office and employment enterprises which do not rely on walk-in customers or have a manufacturing component. Businesses may be large or small but will generally arrange themselves in a campus setting with limited walkability and supporting services. Developments of this type should be kept small in nature to limit the peak transportation impact and limited vitality. Zoning Districts: Limited Office; Office Institutional; Business Park; Economic Development District; Entranceway Special Use; Special Design Special Use. The Joint Planning Land Use Plan has identified acceptable levels of development activity, which would include retail in District 2 (i.e. provide opportunities for goods and services that residents of the district and surrounding neighborhoods need on a daily basis). The project is consistent with anticipated land uses based on the existing County Comprehensive Plan as well as the Joint Planning Land Use Plan adopted by the County and the Town of Hillsborough. 6. When did the Town of Hillsborough indicate they were concerned about allowing retail in this project? During the October 4, 2017 Planning Board meeting, staff identified correspondence contained within Attachment 4 of the meeting agenda packet from the Town of Hillsborough outlining their concerns over the project. This included concerns over District 3 (residential district) as well as allowing retail 68 within the project. The abstract presented to the Planning Board at its October 4, 2017 meeting references same. Ms. Margaret Hauth was at the October 4, 2017 Planning Board meeting and offered comment(s) on the proposal reiterating many of the same points articulated in the aforementioned letter. As indicated by Ms. Hauth, and reaffirmed by Mayor Tom Stevens at the November 14, 2017 public hearing, the Town is concerned retail development within this project will hinder marketing/redevelopment efforts within the Town, most notably in and around Daniel Boone Village. While the County understands the concern, retail land uses are envisioned in this area based on existing land use plan designations as previously identified herein. 7. What happens if the Town annexes properties within either District 1 or 2? How will the properties be developed? Will conditions associated with this application still be enforceable? If properties are annexed into the Town of Hillsborough corporate limits they will be zoned to an appropriate Town general use zoning designation in accordance with applicable land use plan guidelines. The properties will, therefore, loose the MPD-CZ zoning designation and will not be subject to County site plan review/approval procedures or any applicable condition(s) established as part of this process. Development will occur consistent with Town of Hillsborough guidelines and standards as embodied within its Unified Development Ordinance. 8. What erosion control and stormwater standards are being proposed for this development? Per the application narrative and recommended conditions, development within Settlers Point shall comply with the provision(s) of Section(s) 6.14 Stormwater Management and Section 6.15 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control of the UDO as currently written. 9. Will the project have to comply with County floodplain management and floodplain buffer requirements? Per the application narrative and recommended conditions, development within Settlers Point shall comply with all applicable floodplain management standards currently enforced within the County, including: a. Observance of floodplain buffers in accordance with Section 6.13 of the UDO; b. Prohibition of development/land disturbance activity within the floodplain. STAFF COMMENT: Please note utility and roadway/driveway development is permitted to occur within identified floodplain area based on current regulations. 69 c. Limitations on the use/depositing of fill material within the floodplain; and d. Prohibition on the storage of chemicals/hazardous materials within the floodplain. The applicant is not seeking modification of existing development constraints associated with identified floodplain located within the project. Further staff is not recommending allowances above or beyond currently enforceable standards. 10. What are the current allowances for clearing of the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District Buffer? 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) in each direction. Section 6.6.4 (A) (5) allows for breaks for property located adjacent to an interstate. The section reads as follows: Non-residential uses within Transition Areas, as designated by the Comprehensive Plan, may provide one break in the required 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. The applicant had proposed the following as part of this project: o Allow for a 60% break in the MTC Buffer (i.e. versus 50%) if 50% of the disturbed area was re-established. o Allow for 50 ft. of the required MTC buffer to be disturbed, specifically the area 50 ft. from the Interstate, 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. At the public hearing, BOCC members expressed a willingness to allow for breaks within the MTC buffer consistent with existing standards but were skeptical of making further allowances without additional detail(s). The applicant was directed to submit schematic illustrating how the project will comply with the provisions of Section 6.6.4 (A) as well as how much 70 ‘encroachment’ is being proposed, what would be allowed, and any proposal to re‐vegetate the area to address buffer requirements for vehicular use areas (i.e. roadway and parking). 11. What outdoor lighting standards would this project have to comply with? Per the application narrative and recommended conditions, development within Settlers Point shall comply with the provision(s) of Section(s) 6.11 of the UDO. The overall purpose/intent of the County’s light ordinance is articulated in Section 6.11.1 of the UDO, reading as follows: The purpose of outdoor lighting standards is to balance the public safety need for outdoor lighting fixtures that are used to enhance lawful, permitted, nighttime use and enjoyment of property while at the same time promote nighttime vision, natural resource conservation, community values, and aesthetics by establishing standards for the designing, application, and use of outdoor lighting resources and fixtures. Accordingly, the specific regulatory objectives of these standards are as follows: (A) Promote nighttime visibility by directing appropriate levels of illumination upon intended targets (B) Permit and promote the reasonable uses of outdoor lighting for nighttime safety, utility, security, productivity, enjoyment and commerce, (C) Conserve energy and resources to the greatest extent possible, (D) Minimize adverse offsite impacts generated by outdoor lighting including, but not limited to, light trespass and obtrusive lighting. (E) Curtail and limit light pollution and preserve the nighttime environment by: (1) Restoring the natural cycles of light and dark to the indigenous natural environment, and (2) Darken the night sky by reducing unnecessary transmission of upward light both directly from an unshielded light source and indirectly from ground-level reflections of excess downward light. Some of the general condition(s) development will have to adhere to include: a. Per Section 6.11.4 mercury and/or sodium vapor lighting fixtures are prohibited; b. Formal lighting plans shall be required for all project as detailed in Section 6.11.5; 71 c. The maximum light level permitted along common property lines shall be 0.5 foot-candles at any adjoining residential property line and/or 1.0 foot- candle at any adjoining non-residential property line as detailed in Section 6.11.6 (A); and d. All outdoor area and parking lot lights shall be full cut-off fixtures. Further no lamp surface may be visible from any residential area and/or roadway (public or private). STAFF COMMENT: As defined within Article 10 Definitions of the UDO a full cut-off fixture is defined as: A lighting fixture shielded or constructed and installed in such a manner that all light emitted, either directly from the lamp or a diffusing element or indirectly by reflection or refraction from any part of the fixture, is projected below the horizontal plane through the fixture's lowest light-emitting part. Put simply it is a type of fixture where no light dispersion or direct glare shine above a 90-degree, horizontal plane from the base of the fixture. A schematic has been provided detailing light dispersal from various fixtures to help illustrate the point. 72 12. Will these standards address concerns over potential ‘glowing’ emanating from the outdoor lights installed as part of this project? Unfortunately there will more than likely be a visible ‘glow’ in the general area created from the erection of outdoor lights if the properties are developed, either under existing allowances or if the rezoning petition is approved. 73 1 2 3 4 Minutes 5 Orange County Planning Board 6 December 18, 2017 7 Regular Meeting 8 9 10 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative; Tony Blake (Vice-Chair), 11 Bingham Township Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large 12 Chapel Hill Township; Kim Piracci, At-Large; Township; Alexander Gregory, Chapel Hill Township Representative; 13 David Blankfard, Hillsborough Township Representative; Randy Marshall, At-Large; Adam Beeman, Cedar Grove 14 Township; Hunter Spitzer, At-Large; 15 16 MEMBERS ABSENT: Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township 17 Representative; 18 19 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Meredith Kern, 20 Administrative Assistant; 21 22 OTHERS PRESENT: Cheryl Sadgrove, Minutes Preparer; Jim Parker, Summit Engineering; Ariel Gamboa, Summit 23 Engineering; Ed Sirgany, Summit Engineering; 24 25 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 26 27 Lydia Wegman called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and noted new members were present. 28 29 Adam Beeman said he moved here in 2008 and lives in Cedar Grove. He is interested in making sure the county 30 moves forward in a nice, controlled manner rather than what he experienced up north. 31 32 Hunter Spitzer said he is a sophomore at UNC. He has lived in Hillsborough all his life, is interested in planning and 33 wanted to get involved. 34 35 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 36 a. a) Planning Calendar for December and January 37 • January 10 – Planning Board Meeting 38 • January 23 – BOCC public hearing on this matter 39 • January 26 – BOCC retreat. Planning Board members are not required to attend. 40 41 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 42 November 1, 2017 43 44 MOTION by Paul Guthrie to approve the November 1, 2017, Regular Meeting Minutes. Seconded by Tony Blake. 45 VOTE: Unanimous 46 47 AGENDA ITEM 4. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 48 No additions to the agenda. 49 50 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 51 52 Introduction to the Public Charge 53 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 54 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development laws 55 Attachment 4 Excerpt of Approved December 18, 2017 Planning Board Minutes 74 of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 56 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner, which considers the present and future 57 needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to 58 and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every 59 effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our 60 deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 61 62 63 Public Charge 64 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 65 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 66 fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 67 public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 68 regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until 69 such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 70 71 Lydia Wegman read the public charge aloud. 72 73 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 74 There were no comments. 75 76 AGENDA ITEM 7: MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – SETTLER’S POINT - To review comments made at the 77 November 14 quarterly public hearing, proposed revisions to conditions as a result of comments, and to make a 78 recommendation on the proposed revisions concerning an application for an MPD-CZ (Master Plan Development 79 Conditional Zoning). The proposed project encompasses approximately 195 acres in the Hillsborough Economic 80 Development District (EDD) south of Interstate 40 on both sides of Old Highway 86. The public hearing for this item 81 has been extended until January 23, 2018. Additional review of remaining aspects of the application and an 82 additional recommendation by the Planning Board is scheduled for the January 10, 2018, Planning Board meeting. 83 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 84 85 Michael Harvey directed the board to the abstract on Page 11. He reviewed that this item was heard at the November 13, 86 2017, quarterly public hearing. It was referred back to the Planning Board for additional review because there were 87 modifications to several conditions and there was additional information on the transportation impact analysis (TIA). It is not 88 staff’s intention to ask the Planning Board to make a final vote this evening. Staff is asking for votes on direction. The Planning 89 Board is not asked to provide a final decision at this meeting because additional discussion is expected on the Major 90 Transportation Corridor (MTC) buffer in January. Staff is continuing to work with the applicant to address the comments made 91 at the public hearing. He noted that the applicant is represented here this evening. 92 93 Michael Harvey reviewed that the transportation analysis addendum is located on Page 20. Staff comments begin on page 41. 94 The summary of major questions/responses from the November public hearing starts on Page 62. General information about 95 the Conditional Zoning District starts on Page 77. An excerpt of the October Planning Board minutes begins on Page 80. The 96 November public hearing minutes start on Page 101. The revised conditions of approval start on Page 123. 97 98 Michael Harvey said he planned to walk the board through the revised conditions. 99 100 Kim Piracci asked for an explanation of the MTC buffer. Michael Harvey answered it’s a 100-foot buffer for all nonresidential 101 development along major highways, so it applies along Interstate 40. A 50 percent break in the buffer is allowed but it is to be 102 otherwise undisturbed. 103 104 Lydia Wegman requested that any images that would help explain the buffer be displayed. Michael Harvey shared an image 105 provided by the applicant. 106 107 Paul Guthrie asked if the interstate adjacent to this property has the standard 300-foot right of way and does the North 108 Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) have control of it. Michael Harvey answered that to his knowledge it is under 109 control of DOT and it is 300 feet wide. The buffer is obviously wider in areas that have off ramps. And it’s in control of the state 110 75 through the federal government. 111 112 Michael Harvey showed an image provided by the applicant that indicates where the100-foot buffer is to be located. He 113 reviewed that the applicant is proposing no breaks in the buffer for District 1. He noted that District 3 had been removed from 114 the proposal completely. In District 2, the applicant is allowed to create visual breaks in the MTC buffer. The developers plan 115 to stick to the 50 percent breaks. The image indicated where the intermittent breaks would be located. 116 117 Patricia Roberts asked whether 50 percent breaks is an Orange County law. Michael Harvey answered yes. 118 119 Kim Piracci noted the breaks are 50 percent of width (along the border of the property) and not in depth. Michael Harvey 120 affirmed that. He said the Orange County Board of Commissioners has expressed some concern that the applicant is also 121 proposing to do some selective clearing within the MTC buffer for utility infrastructure and roadway networks. This will be 122 discussed more in this review. 123 124 Paul Guthrie asked whether there is any knowledge of long-term expansion of I-40 in that area. Michael Harvey said 125 expanding has to occur in the 300-foot right of way unless the federal government procures more land. There is talk of 126 expanding I-40 into three lanes as it is in Durham. He believes that can be accommodated with the existing right of way. 127 128 Michael Harvey said on Page 13, the first condition up for discussion is Condition 6, contained in Attachment 7, granting 129 Orange Rural Fire Department denial authority. The applicant has indicated they don’t mind the fire department being a review 130 party but they don’t think the fire department should have power to deny the application. Instead, the applicant suggests the 131 power to deny the application be left to the fire marshals from the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County. The Orange 132 County Board of Commissioners has requested this board’s opinion on whether Orange Rural Fire Department should have 133 denial authority. Typically, fire departments review such applications but do not have authority to deny them, Michael Harvey 134 said. 135 136 Tony Blake said the intent was they be included in the review but not have approval or denial. The main thing is they be 137 involved. Michael Harvey asked for a show of consensus to modify the condition to allow Orange Rural Fire Department to 138 have review but not denial authority. 139 140 MOTION by Randy Marshall that Orange Rural Fire Department have a review but not action to approve or deny the 141 application. Seconded by Hunter Spitzer. 142 VOTE: Unanimous 143 144 Michael Harvey continued with the presentation. He reviewed the next condition to be discussed involves the MTC 145 buffer. The applicant does not propose any disturbance breaks in District 1, which is the industrial district. The 146 applicant had asked for clearing 60 percent of the buffer instead of 50 percent in District 2. The Orange County Board 147 of Commissioners expressed reservation about allowing the additional clearing. The applicant has since submitted to 148 staff that they will abide by the ordinance allowing clearance of 50 percent of the buffer. They have delineated a 149 clearing limited to 50 percent. They are not limited due to the clearing associated with the utility easement. Regarding 150 additional allowances for modifications to the MTC buffer, the applicant has shown a 100-foot buffer going up to the 151 utility easement and then the applicant is asking for a variable width MTC buffer instead of 100 feet. Based on the 152 narrative reviewed at the Oct. 4, 2017, Planning Board meeting and the public hearing, the MTC buffer would be 153 cleared for accesses and stormwater feature construction. The Planning Board is asked to give feedback on the 154 proposed variable width of the MTC buffer, proposed to be 50 feet instead of 100 feet in some places. 155 156 Kim Piracci asked for clarification because she is unclear why it’s sometimes 50 feet and sometimes 100 feet. 157 Michael Harvey answered the variable width would be to accommodate an access road, parking and a stormwater 158 feature. 159 160 Paul Guthrie asked if the buffer is intended to be a sound buffer and a visual buffer. Michael Harvey answered right 161 now it serves as both but it borders a major highway and there are already significant breaks in the buffer, including 162 the interchange, which allows sound to travel. While the Orange County Board of Commissioners realized allowing 163 50 percent breaks in the buffer would have a sound impact, they also understood that it allowed marketing of the site. 164 165 76 David Blankfard asked for clarification about the parcel to the north. Michael Harvey answered that the applicant is 166 choosing to propose a solid buffer for District 1. 167 168 Hunter Spitzer asked why the developer is asking for more clearing. Michael Harvey reviewed that it is for an access 169 road, parking and a stormwater feature. 170 171 Tony Blake asked if the breaks are for signage. Michael Harvey answered no, there are signage regulations and they 172 are not permitted in the buffer. The breaks are for the purpose of drivers on the interstate being able to see the 173 development. No billboards are allowed. There are still signage limitations. 174 175 Lydia Wegman asked to hear from the developer on the variable buffer request. 176 177 Jim Parker spoke representing the developer. He said as much as we like to preserve buffers and trees, this is an 178 economic development parcel that needs visibility from the highway. The end users who will use this property will 179 want to be seen from the highway. If we can’t provide that, we’ll lose opportunity. The visibility would be one of the 180 key reasons businesses would want to locate here. 181 182 Lydia Wegman asked if stormwater accommodation and parking is secondary to visibility to the road. Jim Parker 183 confirmed that. 184 185 David Blankfard asked have you started developing what you plan to do in that area for signage. Jim Parker 186 answered no, we’ve laid out some building footprints to give us an idea of how the circulation could work. What we 187 anticipate is plausible in terms of parking. The hotel would be located where you would expect it to be on one of the 188 highest points with good visibility from both directions. This is an economic development area at an interchange. 189 Again, we are supportive of trees and buffers that protect residential developments. Neither the motorists nor the 190 businesses that would locate there care about the buffer. The businesses want to be seen. 191 192 Paul Guthrie asked, from Jim Parker’s general perception, would this development fill out quickly. Jim Parker 193 answered if the economy stays as it is and sewer service is extended quickly, it will. Since we have made it public in 194 the last 2 or 3 months, we have had a lot of interest but no one is going to sign until they know it’s coming and they 195 can count on it. But to answer your question, I think it will. 196 197 Kim Piracci asked if the two little restaurants would be fast food restaurants. Jim Parker answered affirmatively. He 198 said he was hoping for a sit-down restaurant but businesses in this type of development all work together. 199 200 Kim Piracci asked if there has been a feasibility study of the best use of this land. Jim Parker answered we have 201 done our own studies, which are nonscientific and I don’t know if any are. On our team, we have brokers who deal 202 with this day to day and know how to bring commercial users. They are excited about the property and opportunity. 203 204 Hunter Spitzer checked that the reduction of the depth of the buffer is also for visibility. Jim Parker answered yes, in 205 addition to parking and access drives. 206 207 Lydia Wegman asked if 100 or 75 feet would be problematic. Jim Parker said he’s not trying to be flippant but if they 208 thought they could get by with 75 feet of buffer, they would have asked for that. They are asking for what they need. 209 210 Craig Benedict said they have re-landscaped that parking lot with a tree every 10 parking spaces. Any encroachment 211 has to be re-landscaped in accordance to what use is going on in there. 212 213 Michael Harvey said in summary, regarding the MTC buffer issue for this project, the applicant had requested 60 214 percent breaks and county commissioners did not react with great comfort to that request. The applicant has said 215 they’ll stick with 50 percent breaks but they are asking for reducing the remaining buffer from 100 feet to 50 feet in 216 some places. Michael Harvey asked for the general reaction of the reduction of the buffer from 100 to 50 feet. 217 218 Kim Piracci said I’m remembering all the local residents at the public hearing were very concerned about the noise. I 219 don’t like the idea of cutting all those trees. The developer can come up with another way. Once a tree is cut down, 220 77 it’s gone. Planting a bush doesn’t make it better. 221 222 Hunter Spitzer said considering the board didn’t want the 60 percent break, the commissioners probably don’t want 223 the variable buffer. Michael Harvey said the board wanted to hear feedback from this board and didn’t take a 224 negative or positive reaction to the request. 225 226 Craig Benedict said District 1 has no breaks even though that would be allowed by code. The Master Plan zoning 227 brings forth the variability. Regarding the resident comments, there were some from Davis Road to the southwest 228 and some comments from the northwest. The northwest is on the north side of the interstate, so anything we remove 229 to the south of the interstate isn’t going to impact residents on the north side of the interstate, he said. 230 231 Patricia Roberts said it’s interstate. It’s going to take a lot more than 100 feet to reduce that noise. If you live near the 232 interstate, you get used to that noise. She would like to see as much development close to the interstate as possible 233 to keep the rural areas rural. Coming from Durham, there is no development at the interchanges in Orange County 234 and then there is when you reach Alamance County. Our taxes are too high because we don’t have a commercial tax 235 base. 236 237 Tony Blake said when I look at the map, it looks like there is additional buffer along parcels 3, 5, 6 and part of Parcel 238 9. He’s inclined to say you could get away with 50-foot buffer on Parcels 3, 5, 6 and maybe the first part of Parcel 9 239 and then have the 100-foot buffer up to the second wet area. It just seems to me like there is compromise here. I 240 agree with Patricia Roberts that this is the place you’re going to want development if you’re going to have any. And 241 Orange County really needs it. 242 243 Adam Beeman said there is nothing worse than driving up and down the interstate and not being able to see what’s 244 at the exit. He wants to be able to see where the hotel is. 245 246 Michael Harvey said the applicant has one clarification. There will be a 100-foot buffer along the property line that is 247 not along the interstate. The applicant offered additional buffer for the people who live on the other side of that 248 property line, following the District 3 boundary. He said the stream buffer is obviously required to remain in tact. 249 Obviously, there would not be a 100-foot buffer at the road access point. Kim Piracci checked that it would be written 250 down. Michael Harvey said he believes it already is. 251 252 Kim Piracci asked whether the trees are old growth. Craig Benedict answered the trees are mostly pines and are 60 253 to 80 years old. 254 255 Paul Guthrie asked if most utility corridors will be underground and will they follow transportation routes. Michael 256 Harvey answered obviously Orange County tries to work with utility partners for some semblance of rationality. In 257 some instances, the county is successful. Sometimes you have to take a path of least resistance (for sewer and gas). 258 Electric is dictated where it ties into substations. Utilities are more adept at dictating where they need to go than at 259 taking direction from government entities. 260 261 Paul Guthrie said some uses on these parcels could be heavy users of utilities and he wonders how far in advance 262 utilities are planned. Michael Harvey answered utility companies are involved in the reviews early on. Predominately, 263 underground utilities are used for these larger sites. Gas could be a potential issue here because the developer could 264 have to secure easements. Water is secured. The Town of Hillsborough has to sign off on every site plan that there is 265 adequate capacity for both water and sewer. 266 267 Paul Guthrie said from my experience, what you say regarding utilities dictating where they go is largely accurate. 268 But if you stand up to the utility, something will happen. Michael Harvey said he has been in Orange County 13 years 269 and he has stood up to a lot of people, but utility companies tend to not back down on where they need to locate 270 utilities. Tony Blake asked if Duke Energy owns the easement. Michael Harvey confirmed. 271 272 Kim Piracci said her taxes went up 27 percent this year so she is on board with development. In terms of the buffer, 273 she’d rather see 100 feet because she likes trees. 274 275 78 David Blankfard asked how often the MTC buffer has been reduced to 50 feet. Craig Benedict answered that the 276 county hasn’t had development to use it. Michael Harvey said the county came close to it with the proposed 277 Buckhorn Village development, which didn’t get developed. 278 279 Patricia Roberts if Buckhorn Village didn’t get built because the developers didn’t get the buffer reduction they 280 wanted. Michael Harvey answered no, it was approved but the downturn in the economy killed it. 281 282 Lydia Wegman said she is supportive of the plan. 283 284 Michael Harvey said the next condition is regarding architectural landmark and portal signs. That will be presented at 285 the January meeting. He clarified there will not be external illumination. 286 287 Regarding land use for elementary, middle and secondary schools, the county has reached out to the Orange County 288 Schools Board of Education. The county had expressed concern about schools being located at an industrial site and 289 is waiting to hear from the school board. The concern is about allowing schools in District 1 near industrial sites. Tony 290 Blake asked would that preclude having a corporate training site. Michael Harvey answered no, just schools teaching 291 pre-K through 12th grade. 292 293 Paul Guthrie said there would be episodes of heavy traffic if schools were allowed. Will there be adequate access at 294 peak times? Michael Harvey said that has been asked and the developer is looking at that. 295 296 Patricia Roberts asked if there is a need for more schools right now. Michael Harvey answered there is not 297 anticipated need for a school according to the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) for 10 years. 298 He said there is thought that a school should be closer to Gravelly Hill Middle School or Efland Elementary School. 299 He thinks the developer was looking to the future. 300 301 Craig Benedict said we do have SAPFO. There is not a need for an elementary or middle school in the next 10 years. 302 Cedar Ridge High School is being expanded now. School land-banking opportunities are most likely needed in the 303 western area of the county due to the growth in Mebane. A school use was more pertinent when District 3 was being 304 considered. That would have been residential and even though it was proposed to be senior housing, a school in that 305 residential area would be more appropriate. He added that having a school in an area where you want tax base 306 would not be the best use. 307 308 Michael Harvey reviewed there is an additional condition that looped water systems would be required to provide 309 additional water flow and pressure in each district. The developer has tweaked alternate language saying looped 310 water systems may be required and are ultimately the responsibility of the developer. County staff will be meeting 311 with the applicant to further work on this language. 312 313 Tony Blake said if you’re going to make this a “could” or “may,” you should define what adequate flow pressure is. 314 Michael Harvey said he thinks Craig Benedict wanted something specific to address a concern he had about water 315 pressure. 316 317 Tony Blake said water pressure is a measurable thing. Craig Benedict said we’ll be moving toward saying it will meet 318 fire code and building code. We’re not going to mandate something that’s not necessary. We’ll put some sort of 319 standards in there. It will be based on occupancy code. If there is a multi-story hotel, the pressure may need to be 320 higher in that area. 321 322 Tony Blake said flow is critical for the rating of the insurance. 323 324 Lydia Wegman checked that staff and the developer will continue to discuss. Michael Harvey confirmed. 325 326 Michael Harvey continued his presentation. He said the developer had several conditions associated with the TIA 327 and external and internal traffic improvements. He reviewed the existing conditions map. He reviewed where 328 stoplights would be installed in Phase 1. He said the developer wanted everyone to know there was supposed to be 329 a stoplight at that intersection at Waterstone. The developer is planning to install it if it doesn’t get there first for 330 79 Waterstone. 331 332 David Blankfard asked for clarification about the lights, that it would be located at the exit. Michael Harvey said it was 333 supposed to be installed with Waterstone but they would be doing it as part of this project. 334 335 Michael Harvey reviewed where there would be an installation of a left turn lane on Service Road and on Old 336 Highway 86. 337 338 Michael Harvey then showed the 2022 buildout map. There would be two lanes of through traffic on Old Highway 86. 339 There would be a stoplight wherever the access to District 2 is built. He noted Davis Road remains unimproved. He 340 said two individuals raised concern that Davis Road would become a five-lane road. In his 13 years, he’s not seen 341 that plan. 342 343 Michael Harvey said Ed Sirgeny with Summit Engineering is present to answer questions. Michael Harvey said 344 District 1 is meant to be served by Service Road. Staff would like the developer to work on having another access. 345 Staff also needs additional time to review some of Jim Parker’s comments on the TIA. 346 347 Tony Blake asked about a super street. Michael Harvey answered I’m not going to say it’s totally abandoned because 348 it may have to happen. The developer has done its best to show we’re not going to get to the point to compel Service 349 Road to have to right turn and U-turn. Tony Blake said the concern was how to make a U-turn with a tractor trailer. 350 351 Craig Benedict said a memo was received the day of the public hearing from DOT saying there was no need for a U-352 turn. Now they’re saying you can have 900,000 square feet of warehousing or equivalent. After that would be the 353 trigger point in District 1 of having to come up with another connection farther to the south. It still allows the left turn 354 movement for a long period of time. Service Road was created when I-40 was built. DOT put it where they thought it 355 could be signalized. Now they want more space between a signal and the interstate ramp. That much can be built 356 without the need for the U-turn. 357 358 Michael Harvey said the applicant was required by staff to provide the breakdown, which he shared. It included land 359 use, size, units, adjacent street traffic volumes weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. 360 361 Jim Parker said Tony Blake, if your question is if other accesses have been explored beside Service Road, yes. 362 363 Tony Blake asked if anyone has approached DOT about combining the exit ramp and Service Road. Jim Parker 364 answered no, DOT used to do that but they don’t like that anymore. We understand there is a limit to this working 365 fluidly. Level of service is going to dictate the service road functioning. DOT is not going to allow level of service to 366 decline beyond a certain point. We will continue to try to look for alternatives to make the whole thing work. 367 368 Tony Blake said with this zoning, it doesn’t come back before the Planning Board or Orange County Board of 369 Commissioners so I want to make sure we hash it out as much as we can. 370 371 Michael Harvey said that’s not quite accurate. Right now there is access from Service Road. Any access to Old 372 Highway 86 would come back for a modification. If Jim Parker and his cohorts can find a way to get an alternative 373 access, there is going to be tweaking of the application. Every site plan application has to have a TIA. This 374 assessment is required in Orange County when the traffic trips is expected to exceed 800 trips a day but for this 375 project it is for every project regardless of the expected trips per day. 376 377 Tony Blake spoke in favor of aligning the access along the power easement. Jim Parker said we have looked at a lot 378 of options. At this point, none of them are 100 percent viable. 379 380 Kim Piracci said I’m assuming that if traffic circles were appropriate, you would consider that. 381 382 Michael Harvey said any viable traffic alternative would be studied but may not be appropriate here because tractor 383 trailers would be using this road. Traffic circles aren’t a bad thing but it’s not as viable here as in other locations in 384 Orange County. 385 80 386 Michael Harvey asked for other comments on the TIA. He said it sounds like the board is comfortable with the revised 387 condition, eliminating the U-Turn, revising the catch points on travel trips with the understanding that every project 388 gets a TIA, and let the developer look for a long-term second access. Lydia Wegman said she concurred with that 389 statement. 390 391 Craig Benedict said he would be meeting on Thursday with the two new board members on this project. He will talk 392 about the traffic impact analysis with them. There are about 14 improvements. It’s going to be important for the 393 general public and elected officials to understand them. 394 395 Michael Harvey said in conclusion, there were requested revisions of the concept plan. He reminded everyone they 396 don’t have a project yet. This is to provide an idea of where buildings and stormwater features would go. The county 397 commissioners suggested a tree survey be done. A detailed tree survey is not possible in the timeframe given to the 398 applicant. Staff will work with the developers. 399 400 Michael Harvey said the developer has provided a better buffer plan. He thinks there is a greater comfort level and 401 the Planning Board will look at this again in January. Orange County has one of the most restrictive buffer programs 402 in the state for streams and wetlands. These developers have said they will comply with all those requirements. For 403 us, the buffer program is very established. 404 405 Michael Harvey reviewed there was some concern about outdoor lighting and on Page 16, staff has provided 406 information on the county’s current outdoor lighting standards. Because we are a community that requires full cut-off 407 fixtures, you are not going to see some of the light pollution you see in other communities, especially as seen at 408 Hampton Pointe. There were still be some glow. The applicant has looked into the viability of turning off some lights 409 at night but the developer has said some lights have to be left on to secure the property. There will be some 410 measures to buffer the lighting. He said the ordinance addresses light glare and light overpass. 411 412 Kim Piracci wanted confirmation that Michael Harvey did say in Orange County the lights have to be full cut-off. Craig 413 Benedict confirmed and answered that change was made about 10 or 12 years ago. You want some lighting out 414 there for the safety and comfort of the business and the patrons. 415 416 Lydia Wegman asked if this would be coming back in January. Michael Harvey said he will have a more formal 417 response from the applicant in January. He noted this does not seem to be a concern of the board. 418 419 Michael Harvey said on Page 17, there is the condition addressing retail space. The Town of Hillsborough has 420 expressed concern about retail and its effect on redevelopment in town and recommended limiting retail to 20 421 percent. He said the applicant has suggested limiting retail to 30 percent, not to exceed 78,540 square feet. He 422 shared the staff response, which includes that staff believes Orange County is blessed to have two interstates in the 423 general area. The county doesn’t think retail should be limited. Michael Harvey said there is sufficient travel trips 424 above the Interstate 40 and Interstate 85 areas to support two distinct travel nodes in this area. The joint planning 425 land use plan as adopted by the town and county agrees that retail is viable in this area. The county staff encourages 426 the town to support the 30 percent limit on retail. 427 428 David Blankfard asked if the developer wants more than 30 percent. Jim Parker said no, 78,540 square feet is 429 reasonable for this area. He said it is aggressive but doable. He said as Michael Harvey said, this is an interstate 430 market. There is another interstate market closer to town that may or may not end up being an interstate market. It 431 may end up being more conducive to something else. This is a drop in the bucket compared with that one. 432 433 Craig Benedict said Walmart’s and Targets are 130,000 square feet, so we’re not talking about big-box retail. He said 434 if we get to 900,000 square feet of office and warehouse and industrial, you want supportive retail so people can 435 shop and eat in that area. The market for this retail is two-fold. One is the interstate market, plus the internal capture 436 of the development of the other employment whether it’s warehouse or hotel. 437 438 Hunter Spitzer asked if combined retail is stores and restaurants. Craig Benedict answered affirmatively, adding there 439 is potential for maybe dry cleaning, barbers, hair salons, and restaurants. 440 81 441 Lydia Wegman said 30 percent makes sense. Tony Blake agreed. 442 443 Michael Harvey said a county commissioner suggested a condition to limit business hours. The applicant has 444 indicated that such a condition is incredibly problematic. Staff has not pursued a condition on that. Lydia Wegman 445 said that makes sense. 446 447 Michael Harvey reviewed the applicant has addressed the concern of overall buffer impacts of the project and there 448 will be more discussion in January. 449 450 Paul Guthrie asked what the terrain would be around the stormwater ponds. Will they be empty and full depending on 451 the rainfall, he asked. Michael Harvey answered as the stormwater facilities haven’t necessarily been submitted for 452 review, he doesn’t know if they will be full constantly or only full as there is inundation. Typically, there is landscaping 453 around the feature. A stormwater facility doesn’t necessarily mean a big pond. It can be a rain garden. It can be a 454 subterranean facility. Since there will be a push for capturing stormwater, he thinks the facility will be minimal. There 455 are some limitations we’ll have to live with within state law. He thinks the developer will avoid big mosquito pits 456 because it’s bad for development. 457 458 Paul Guthrie said he wanted more specifics. Michael Harvey said any time a stormwater feature is developed, the 459 county requires the developer secure a maintenance agreement and submit documentation. Development in Orange 460 County is held to a stormwater standard. It will be addressed on every feature. Developers are required to post bonds 461 to maintain the stormwater features. 462 463 Craig Benedict reminded the board the next meeting is not Jan. 3 but instead Jan. 10. 464 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township 7 Representative; Tony Blake (Vice-Chair), Bingham Township Representative; Patricia 8 Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill 9 Township; Kim Piracci, At-Large; Township; Alexander Gregory, Chapel Hill Township 10 Representative; David Blankfard, Hillsborough Township Representative; Randy 11 Marshall, At-Large; Adam Beeman, Cedar Grove Township; Hunter Spitzer, At-Large; 12 Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; 13 14 MEMBERS ABSENT: Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; 15 16 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning 17 Supervisor; Patrick Mallett, Planner II; Meredith Kern, Administrative Assistant; 18 19 OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Parker, Summit Engineering; Timothy Smith, Summit 20 Engineering; Ed Sirgany, Summit Engineering; Brian Quintan, Calvert Energy; 21 22 23 AGENDA ITEM 9: MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – SETTLER’S POINT - To 24 continue review and discussion of comments made at the November 14 quarterly public 25 hearing, proposed revisions to conditions as a result of comments, and to make a 26 recommendation on the proposed revisions concerning an application for an MPD-CZ 27 (Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning). The proposed project encompasses 28 approximately 195 acres in the Hillsborough Economic Development District (EDD) 29 south of Interstate 40 on both sides of Old Highway 86. The public hearing for this item 30 has been extended until January 23, 2018. 31 SYNOPSIS OF DISCUSSION POINTS: 32 1. CONDITION 13 – LAND USES – The Planning Board was asked to review the 33 proposed land uses within the project and determine if they were acceptable. 34 Board members reiterated support for the proposed land uses indicating the 35 applicant had proposed uses consistent with the provisions of Section 5.2.3 of 36 the UDO (i.e. the table of permitted land uses for Conditional Zoning Districts) as 37 well as pending revisions as proposed by staff as part of the table of permitted 38 use project. 39 Staff reminded the Board at its December 18, 2017 regular meeting there was an 40 attachment to the agenda outlining the questions posed at the November 14, 41 2017 public hearing as well as responses to same. This includes an analysis of 42 the proposed uses for the project. 43 2. CONDITION 6 – At the November 14, 2017 public hearing, the applicant 44 objected to the imposition of a condition granting approval/denial authority to the 45 Orange Rural Volunteer Fire Department. They suggested the condition be 46 modified to require the review of development proposals by the Orange Rural 47 Volunteer Fire Department while maintaining ‘approval authority’ on fire code 48 issues with the County and Town Fire Marshal. 49 Attachment 5 Summary of Comments from the January 10, 2018 Planning Board Meeting 83 At its December 18, 2017 regular meeting, the Board voted unanimously to 50 approve the revised condition as suggested by the applicant. 51 At its January 10, 2018 regular meeting, the Board reiterated its support for a 52 revised condition indicating the Orange Rural Volunteer Fire Department will offer 53 review comment(s) on all site plans but will not have approval authority. 54 3. CONDITION 13 (h) (vi) Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) BUFFER – During 55 the November 14, 2017 public hearing, concern was expressed over the 56 proposed clearing of the MTC buffer as allowed within Section 6.6.4 (A) of the 57 UDO (i.e. clearing only 50% of the MTC Buffer). The applicant was requested to 58 provide additional details/ a development schematic on the requested clearing to 59 assist in reviewing the viability of the recommended condition. 60 During the meeting staff informed the Board there is approximately 2,800 ft. of 61 Interstate frontage for property located within District 1 and 3,082 ft. for property 62 located within District 2. The MTC buffer in District 1 shall remain undisturbed. 63 With respect to District 2, the applicant is proposing the following: 64 a. Reduce the width of the MTC from 100 ft. to 50 ft. in width, beginning at the 65 intersection of Old NC Highway 86 with the Interstate 40 on-ramp, extending 66 approximately 2,000 ft. east. 67 Staff informed the Board the total area encumbered by the MTC Buffer in 68 District 2 is 308,200 sq.ft. (3,082 ft. of linear frontage along Interstate 40 69 multiplied by the standard MTC Buffer width of 100 ft.). 70 Approximately 154,100 sq.ft. of MTC Buffer could be ‘cleared’ per Section 71 6.6.4 (A) of the UDO (i.e. 50% of the buffer). 72 The applicant is proposing to reduce the MTC Buffer from 100 ft. to 50 ft. for 73 approximately 2,000 linear ft., reducing the required buffer by 100,000 sq.ft. 74 (2,000 ft. of linear frontage along Interstate 40 multiplied by the 50 ft. MTC 75 Buffer reduction). 76 b. The remaining 1,082 linear ft. of Interstate frontage will have an MTC Buffer 77 width of 100 ft. Note this area includes property encumbered by an existing 78 150 ft. wide utility easement (i.e. overhead power lines). Foliage within this 79 easement has already been eliminated. 80 c. Within the 2,000 linear feet of reduced MTC Buffer area, the applicant is 81 proposing to create 1,100 linear feet of visual breaks for the project. These 82 areas would be re-landscaped with ‘low-growth landscaping’ to a width of 50 83 ft. including shrubs achieving a height of 4 to 6 ft. and canopy trees 84 achieving a height of no more than 12 ft. 85 d. Both the staff and the applicant indicated a 100 ft. wide land use buffer shall 86 be maintained along the southern boundary of District 2, exclusive of the 87 utility easement, to provide additional noise and visual buffer(s) for the 88 project. 89 The Planning Board recommended the following condition(s): 90 i. A 100 ft. wide land use buffer shall be established/preserved 91 along the southern boundary of District 2. 92 84 ii. Clearing of the MTC buffer be allowed as requested by the 93 applicant and recommended for approval by Planning 94 Department staff. 95 iii. Re-vegetation of visual breaks shall be required as proposed by 96 the applicant and recommended for approval by Planning 97 Department staff. 98 4. CONDITION 13 (k) SIGNAGE – Renderings, and proposed location, of signage 99 was submitted by the applicant for review at the Planning Board’s January 10, 100 2018 meeting. 101 Board members reviewed the renderings, and the location of the proposed signage, 102 and verified permits would be required to erect the sign(s) even if the master plan 103 was approved. Staff reminded the Board all the approval of the rezoning petition 104 allows is for the property to be rezoned to a new designation. All applicable 105 provisions of the UDO, and all imposed conditions, will have to be observed for the 106 project. This includes site plan review and approval prior to earth disturbing activities. 107 The Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed landmark 108 and entry portal signage as depicted in the submitted rendering(s). 109 5. CONDITION 13 (k) (iii) (2) (e) ILLUMINATION OF SIGNAGE - A BOCC member 110 requested clarification on the method that will be used to illuminate signage. A 111 recommended condition indicated all signs shall be internally illuminated while 112 language indicates external lighting would be allowed for entry portal signs. 113 Staff reminded the Board this was our error in completing the recommended 114 conditions. All signage is required to be internally illuminated. Planning Board 115 members indicated they did not have any further concerns on this item. 116 6. LAND USE – SCHOOLS, Elementary, Middle, and Secondary: There was 117 general discussion on allowing for the development of a school (i.e. elementary, 118 middle, high school, etc.) within the project. 119 The applicant, after conferring with the Director, has requested the SCHOOLS, 120 Elementary, Middle, and Secondary land use be removed as an allowable land 121 use within the project. The conditions of approval have been updated 122 accordingly. 123 There was no further discussion and the Planning Board indicated their 124 agreement with respect to the elimination of the land use by consensus. 125 7. UTILITY CONDITION(S): There was general discussion on the imposition of 126 conditions associated with the extension of utilities to serve the project in 127 general. 128 The Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed utility 129 conditions as recommended by staff and agreed to by the applicant. 130 8. Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA): Staff informed the Board on December 4, 131 2017 the applicant submitted a revised TIA providing additional detail on anticipated 132 traffic impacts/required improvements associated with the project. This was in 133 response to staff requests for additional detail. A summary of recommended 134 improvements as contained within the revised TIA are as follows: 135 Recommended improvements for the 2020 Build Phase are: 136 85 a. Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Old NC 86 & I-40 137 westbound, required for Certificate of Compliance of any square 138 footage build. 139 b. Construct the second lane of the I-40 East on ramp, and re-stripe 140 the southbound lanes of Old NC 86 at the I-40 East ramp for dual 141 left turns, at any level of build. 142 c. Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Old NC 86 & I-40 143 eastbound, required for Certificate of Compliance of any square 144 footage build. 145 d. Install a continuous right turn lane on south bound Old NC 86 146 between the I-40 East off ramp and the Service Road, at any level 147 of build. 148 e. Construct a continuous right turn lane on north bound Old NC 86 149 between the Service Road and the I-40 East on ramp, at any level 150 of build. Construct a right turn lane on the Service Road at Old NC 151 86 with 200 feet of storage and taper, for initial construction of 152 facilities, at any level of build. 153 f. Construct a left turn lane on northbound Old NC 86 at the Service 154 Road with 150 feet of storage and taper, at any level of build. 155 g. Construction of a left-in/right-in/right out access for the Service 156 Road at Old NC 86 upon construction of greater than 900,000 157 square feet of warehouse facility. 158 h. Construction of a super-street type U-Turn bulb intersection to be 159 located approximately 1,000 feet south of the Service Road on Old 160 NC 86, with 200 feet of storage and taper, upon construction of 161 greater than 900,000 square feet of warehouse facility. 162 i. Construction of a right turn lane on Old NC 86 southbound at Davis 163 Road with 150 feet of storage and taper, upon construction of 164 900,000 square feet of warehouse facility. 165 Recommended improvements for the 2022 Buildout Phase are: 166 i. Construct a full access on Old NC 86 at the location of the U-Turn 167 intersection installed under the 2020 Phase I Build, with two exiting 168 lanes and one entering lane. Construct a right turn lane with 125 169 feet of storage and taper on the westbound approach, a thru-right 170 turn lane on the northbound approach with 200 feet of storage and 171 taper, and a second southbound left turn lane with 300 feet of 172 storage and taper. 173 ii. Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Old NC 86 new retail 174 access/U-Turn intersection. 175 iii. Construct an additional lane on Old NC 86 southbound, continuous 176 between the Service Road and the new Retail Dr. intersection. Re-177 stripe the inside lane for left turns at the signalized intersection. 178 iv. Construct an additional lane on the Old NC 86 northbound, 179 continuous between the new signalized Retail Dr. and the Service 180 Road. 181 86 v. Construct a right-in/right out access for the retail/office/hotel parcels 182 on Old NC 86 approximately 500 feet south of the Service Road. 183 Staff informed the Board that, in consultation with the applicant, the Director 184 recommended the imposition of the following additional condition: 185 Development of District 1 shall utilize Service Road to obtain access to Old 186 NC Highway 86. 187 At the time development exceeds allowable traffic trips, as defined within the 188 Master Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), requiring a restriction/prohibition on left 189 turn(s) off of Service Road onto Old NC Highway 86, an alternative traffic 190 alignment/improvement shall be required to serve District 1 allowing for both 191 left and right turn access onto Old NC Highway 86. 192 This alternative shall be reviewed and approved by Orange County and the 193 NC Department of Transportation and shall be installed prior to the approval 194 of additional site plans in District 1 beyond the defined threshold in the 195 original/amended TIA. 196 The Board verified that acquisition/dedication of additional right-of-way to 197 accommodate intersection designs as detailed in the amended TIA shall be in 198 accordance with applicable NC Department of Transportation requirements. Staff 199 reminded the Board this was already a recommended condition. 200 The Board verified there would be no impacts to the Davis Road intersection. Staff 201 indicated the revised TIA shows a right-turn lane off of Old NC Highway 86 allowing 202 traffic to access Davis Road but that there were no other modification(s) anticipated 203 for this intersection. 204 The Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed 205 conditions associated with internal and external roadway development consistent 206 with the supplemental TIA. 207 9. The Planning Board reviewed the concept site plans for District 1 and 2 denoting 208 the anticipated location of parking areas, access roads, stormwater features, 209 landscaping, building(s), etc. offering no additional comment. 210 10. The Planning Board reviewed the detailed buffer plan denoting 211 proposed/required project buffers (i.e. perimeter, MTC, stream AND floodplain, 212 roadway, etc.) offering no additional comment. 213 11. The Planning Board agreed with an applicant suggestion that a tree survey 214 should be required denoting the location of ‘specimen trees’ in District(s) 1 and 2 215 at the time of site plan application submittal and not prior to action on the 216 rezoning petition. 217 12. A condition was recommended by the Planning Board limiting the number of 218 outdoor lighting features being left on after local business operations close for the 219 evening. The recommended condition reads as follows: 220 The number of outdoor lighting fixtures left on after normal business 221 hours shall be the minimum necessary to ensure compliance with 222 applicable industry guidelines and standards including, but not 223 limited to: IES/ANSI, OSHA, etc. in order to maintain safe lighting 224 conditions for employees, business owners and the public. 225 87 The applicant indicated support for the condition, which was unanimously 226 recommended by the Planning Board. 227 13. The Board reviewed the applicant’s proposal, as contained in the narrative, 228 concerning water capture and reuse. The Board agreed with the self-imposed 229 condition proposed by the applicant. 230 14. The Board reviewed the imposition of a condition limiting the percentage of retail 231 operation(s) allowed in District 2. The condition was intended to address Town 232 of Hillsborough concerns over potential impacts of retail development within 233 Settlers Point on existing re-development efforts within the Town. The Town has 234 suggested/requested a limit of allowable retail in District 2 to 8% or 20,000 sq.ft. 235 The applicant recommended the imposition of a condition relating to a limit on 236 retail in District 2 as follows: ‘Retail – limited to 30% of the allowable floor area of 237 the District (i.e. District 2) not to exceed 78,540 sq.ft. of total cumulative floor 238 area’. 239 The Board indicated that while they have sympathy for the Town’s concerns this 240 area was designated to be an economic development zone and was anticipated 241 by the County to develop at an ‘urban’ level. 242 An 8% limit on retail operations would not be prudent given the County’s overall 243 interest in allowing for services in this area to satisfy local resident and interstate 244 travelers needs. 245 The Board indicated they believed the 8% limit recommended by the Town was 246 inconsistent with the provisions of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan adopted by 247 the County and the Town for the area in question. 248 The Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed condition 249 limiting retail to 30% of allowable floor area in District 2 as suggested by the 250 applicant and recommended by the staff. 251 15. There was general discussion on a recommended condition limiting the hours of 252 operation for uses developed within Settlers Point. 253 The applicant’s response to this condition was as follows: At this time the 254 developer would like to remain flexible with the potential hours of operation and 255 address this possible condition during the Site Plan approval process. An operational 256 restriction of this type during the early stage of approvals would infringe on the 257 marketing potential for the project. 258 The Board expressed concern such a condition could overlay restrict 259 development opportunities in the project and voted unanimously to reject the 260 imposition of such a condition. 261 16. A Planning Board member recommended a condition requiring the reservation of 262 1% of required parking spaces, exclusive of any hotel development, within District 2 263 to support vehicle charging stations for electric cars. 264 Several concerns were expressed, namely: 265 a. There was no need for the condition and the free market should dictate the 266 development of vehicle charging stations within this project, 267 88 b. The recommended condition was too limiting, specifically there was no 268 wiggle room to allow for other alternative energy vehicles to have access 269 to facilities for fueling purposes within the project. 270 The applicant indicated a preference not to have natural gas or other 271 similar fueling points due to the potential safety hazards and liability issues 272 for tenants. 273 c. With respect to excluding hotels from the condition, the argument was the 274 District as a whole should provide for a minimum of electric charging 275 stations. The belief was that a hotel would provide their own to serve the 276 needs of its clients. 277 Further, Board members indicated they wanted the spaces spread 278 throughout the project and not clustered in one specific area serving a 279 single user. The concern was a hotel use would dominate/monopolize 280 electric charging stations limiting their use by other travelers accessing 281 District 2. 282 d. There were concerns expressed on how such a condition would be 283 monitored/enforced by the staff. 284 The applicant indicated they could agree to a condition requiring 1% of the total 285 parking spaces required for District 2 be reserved/developed to promote vehicle 286 charging station(s). This reservation would be exclusive of any hotel client locating 287 within the district. 288 The Board voted 6 to 5 to recommend approval of the condition as agreed to by the 289 applicant. 290 A local resident expressed concern over the approval of the project indicating it was not 291 appropriate for the area given adjoining rural single-family residential developments and 292 that there was not sufficient detail on what land uses would be developed if the project 293 was approved. The individual expressed concern(s) existing traffic congestion would be 294 exacerbated and that the project would allow for the development of undesirable land 295 uses including a truck stop. This individual suggested the County model this project 296 after Timberline in Chapel Hill as a reasonable development adjacent to an interstate 297 surrounded by residential land uses. 298 Staff informed the Board the Timberline project was, in essence, a strip mall with 299 several outparcels housing professional offices, a movie theater, banks, and 300 restaurants. Development occupied approximately 60% of the land area associated 301 with the project and there was little land use buffers/landscaping present within the 302 project. Settlers Point had mandatory open space requirements, had a much more 303 restrictive limit on the total allowable floor area that could be developed within either 304 district, and had mandatory 100 ft. perimeter buffers separating adjacent land uses. 305 From staff’s standpoint this project, as currently presented, offered the preservation of 306 more open space and preservation of the natural environment that the suggested 307 model. 308 The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project with the 309 imposition of several conditions included within the resolution of approval. 310 89 December 2017 Traffic Impact Analysis Settler’s Pointe Development Hillsborough, NC Supplemental Revision Prepared by Summit Design and Engineering Services Prepared for Old NC 86 Partners, LLC Attachment6 90 Settler’s Pointe Development Hillsborough, North Carolina Traffic Impact Analysis Supplemental Revision Prepared For: Old NC 86 Partners,LLC 504 Meadowlands Drive Hillsborough,NorthCarolina 28278 December2017 Prepared By: Summit Design and Engineering Services, PLLC (NC Firm License: P-0339) 504 Meadowlands Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 p 91 Settler’s Pointe Development Hillsborough, NC Traffic Impact Study a Executive Summary – Supplemental Revision A Traffic Impact Analysis was performed and submitted for a development in Orange County, N.C. near Hillsborough for multiple land use types as part of a re-zoning for a master plan for the development. The original proposal has since been modified to remove from consideration at this time, all the residential uses that were proposed. Subsequently, the TIA has been revised to reflect these changes, and recommendations made that are appropriate for the level of development proposed. Additionally, a request was made to review the analysis for the Phase I Build options, to provide additional detail as to what stages of Build scenarios will create the need for roadway improvements. The trip generation for the proposed site has been reduced by all of the residential components only. All internal capture trips remain as they were since the submitted TIA did not capture internal trips from the residential parcels. Also, residential trips in a TIA do not get reduced for pass-by trips, so all pass-by trips have been included as proposed in the submitted TIA. Table 1 below summarizes the trip generation for this revision. The development is being proposed on parcels on both sides of Old NC 86, will be constructed in two phases, a light industrial/warehouse parcel west of Old NC 86 completed by 2020, and a retail/office/hotel parcel on the east side of Old NC 86 completed by 2022. 92 Settler’s Pointe Development Hillsborough, NC Traffic Impact Study b The revised development is proposing to use an existing service road on the west side of Old NC 86 for access to the Phase I parcel, and two access points on the east side of Old NC 86 to access the Buildout parcels. The north most entrance to the retail/office/hotel parcel will be restricted to a right-in/right-out driveway only. The main access is proposed to be approximately 1,000 feet south of the existing Service Road, where the developer has control of properties that provide a street entrance into the retail/office/hotel parcels. The trip distributions were not modified from the submitted TIA, although as a result of the access types, the driveway distribution for the retail/office/hotel parcel is different since there are now two access points proposed for this area. In order to provide recommendations for the thresholds for development in Build Phase I, an additional scenarios were needed to make that determination. Therefore, subject intersections were analyzed for the following scenarios: x 2016 Existing Conditions x 2020 Future No Build Conditions x 2020 Build Conditions, Thresholds x 2020 Build Conditions x 2022 Future No Build Conditions x 2022 Buildout Conditions The development was analyzed under the various traffic conditions using Synchro 9.1 software and the NCDOT Policy on Street and Driveway Access. North Carolina Department of Transportation Congestion Management guidelines were followed in configuring the software for the analysis. Table 2A and Table 2B below indicate the trips generated for each of the threshold scenarios that determined the roadway improvement levels of construction. 93 Settler’s Pointe Development Hillsborough, NC Traffic Impact Study c This revision also includes drawings that were revised from the original submittal, and maintain similar Figure numbers, so that reference back to the TIA can be made relatively simply. A list of the drawings revised is included at the end of this report, as are the drawings themselves. The results of the study are presented as follows, listed by Build Phases: 2020 Build Phase I The 2020 Build analyses was conducted with the assumption that two new traffic signals would be installed at the I-40 ramp interchanges as part of the recommended improvements, at any level of build. Both of these intersections were recommended for signalization as part of the Waterstone development when they met warrants, however the documents requiring those improvements were not secured. Both of these intersections meet the warrants for signalization under No Build, growth only conditions, as well as existing traffic in 2016. The development of the light industrial/warehouse parcel was analyzed in stages to determine at what point of build level roadway improvements would be needed in the corridor. After many iterations of build levels, it was determined that 900,000 square feet of warehouse will generate trips that will provide adequate level of service along the corridor on Old NC 86, as well as the Service Road itself, with minimal improvements. The installation of a right turn lane on the Service Road is recommended for the Build Phase for an amount up to 900,000 square feet. Beyond that level of build, any additional construction will require additional improvements. The recommended improvements for the full build of the warehouse land use restrict left turn movements out of the Service Road, by constructing the intersection as left-in, right-in and right-out with a separation island. The resulting right turn movement will also require construction of a Super-street type U-turn bulb, recommended to be located approximately 1,000 feet south of the Service Road intersection, and controlled by a stop sign for the U-Turn movement. The lane for the U-Turn movement is recommended to provide 200 feet of storage with a taper. The recommended improvements for the 2020 Build Phase are: x Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Old NC 86 & I-40 WB, required for CO of any SF build. x Construct the 2nd lane of the I-40 East on ramp, and re-stripe the south bound lanes of Old NC 86 at the I-40 East ramp for dual left turns, at any level of build. x Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Old NC 86 & I-40 EB, required for CO of any SF build. x Install a continuous right turn lane on southbound Old NC 86 between the I-40 East off ramp and the Service Road, at any level of build. x Construct a continuous right turn lane on northbound Old NC 86 between the Service Road and the I-40 East on ramp, at any level of build. 94 Settler’s Pointe Development Hillsborough, NC Traffic Impact Study d x Constructa right turn lane on the Service Road at Old NC 86 with 200 feet of storage and taper, for initial construction of facilities, at any level of build. x Construct a left turn lane on northbound Old NC 86 at the Service Road with 150 feet of storage and taper, at any level of build. x Construction of a left-in/right-in/right out access for the Service Road at Old NC 86 upon construction of greater than 900,000 SF of warehouse facility. x Construction of a super-street type U-Turn bulb intersection to be located approximately 1,000 feet south of the Service Road on Old NC 86, with 200 feet of storage and taper, upon construction of greater than 900,000 SF of warehouse facility. x Construction of a right turn lane on Old NC 86 southbound at Davis Road with 150 feet of storage and taper, upon construction of 900,000 SF of warehouse facility. 2022 Buildout The development proposes to construct one new entrance driveway to the retail/office/hotel site at the location of the U-Turn intersection constructed for Phase I, and a second new entrance approximately 500 feet south of the Service Road on Old NC 86 on the east side. The northern most access will be restricted to right-in/right-out only, and the primary access will allow left turns into and out of the retail/office/hotel parcel. As a result of removing the residential land use from consideration in the development at this time, there is land available to construct an access roadway at the U-Turn intersection that connects to the retail/office/hotel parcels closer to the interstate. The restricted access farther north will primarily serve the traffic exiting the site making right turns, while most of the left turning and right turning traffic entering the site will use the southern-most access. With the addition of the left turning traffic into the retail/office/hotel site, and using the same intersection that was constructed in the 2020 Build for U-Turns, it will be necessary to signalize that intersection. The distance from this intersection to the right-in/right-out access should be adequate to allow the U-Turning traffic to make their turn, and adjust to lane of choice with minimal interruption from the exiting right turn traffic. Additionally, modification of the left turn storage lanes between the two interstate ramps is necessary to allow adequate storage for the associated left turn traffic at the ramps. The existing infrastructure includes a concrete median island between the ramps, and this island will need to be reconstructed. The recommended improvements for the 2022 Buildout Phase are: x Construct a full access on Old NC 86 at the location of the U-Turn intersection installed under the 2020 Phase I Build, with two exiting lanes and one entering lane. Construct a right turn lane with 125 feet of storage and taper on the westbound approach, a thru-right turn lane on the northbound approach with 200 feet of storage and taper, and a second southbound left turn lane with 300 feet of storage and taper. 95 Settler’s Pointe Development Hillsborough, NC Traffic Impact Study e x Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Old NC 86 new retail access/U-Turn intersection. x Construct an additional lane on Old NC 86 southbound, continuous between the Service Road and the new Retail Dr. intersection. Re-stripe the inside lane for left turns at the signalized intersection. x Construct an additional lane on the Old NC 86 northbound, continuous between the new signalized Retail Dr. and the Service Road. x Construct a right-in/right out access for the retail/office/hotel parcels on Old NC 86 approximately 500 feet south of the Service Road. A summary of the existing, No Build conditions and Build conditions is provided on the following page in Table 3 indicating the capability of the roadway network to handle the new trips generated by this site, and the Build Phase associated with the Level of Service. 96 Settler’s Pointe Development Hillsborough, NC Traffic Impact Study f TABLE 3 97 Settler’s Pointe Development Hillsborough, NC Traffic Impact Study g List of Revised Figures: Figure 11A Warehouse Site Trip Volumes at 850,000 SF Figure 11B Warehouse Site Trip Volumes at 900,000 SF Figure 11C Warehouse Site Trip Volumes at 1,248,000 SF Figure 12A 2020 Build Volumes at 850,000 SF Warehouse Figure 12B 2020 Build Volumes at 900,000 SF Warehouse Figure 12C 2020 Build Volumes at 1,248,000 SF Warehouse Figure 21R 2022 Buildout Site Trip Volumes Figure 22R 2022 Buildout Site + Background Volumes Figure 25A 2020 Proposed Operations at 850,000 SF Warehouse Figure 25B 2020 Proposed Operations at 900,000 SF Warehouse Figure 25C 2020 Proposed Operations at 1,248,000 SF Warehouse Figure 27R 2022 Proposed Operations at Buildout 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 Settler's Point 2016 Existing Existing Lane Configurationa m p s 0 EB ramps Ol d NC 86 S e r v i c e R d ©2014 Microsoft Corporation AND ©2013 Nokia A A 111 Settler's Point 2020 Phase I BuildProposed Lane Configurationm p s ramps Rd S e rv ic e R d Old NC 86 ©2014 Microsoft Corporation AND ©2013 Nokia D D A A 112 Settler's Point 2022 Buildout Proposed Lane Configurationpp Retai Old NC 86 S e r vic e R d ©2014 Microsoft Corporation AND ©2013 Nokia D D C C B B A A 113 1 Michael Harvey From:jim parker <jimparker16@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, December 09, 2017 6:53 AM To:Michael Harvey Cc:Ed Sirgany (ed.sirgany@summitde.net); Ariel Gamboa (ariel.gamboa@summitde.net); Craig Benedict; Tom Altieri; Nishith Trivedi Subject:Re: Additional or revised condtions for Settlers Point mychanges,didthisonphonesoreadallofthemcarefully JimParker  OnDec8,2017,at4:11PM,MichaelHarvey<mharvey@orangecountync.gov>wrote: Pertoday’smeetingthefollowingadditional/modifiedconditionstotheSettlersPointMPDͲCZ applicationshouldbeproposed/suggestedbytheapplicant:  1.CONDITION3(Utilities)–Addanewsubsection(e)readingasfollows:  (e)Loopedwatersystemsmayberequiredtoprovidenecessarywaterflowandpressurewithin eachdevelopmentdistrict.Theserequirementsandultimateimprovementsaretheresponsibility ofthedeveloper.  2.CONDITION5(Transportation)–Anewsubsection(c)toreadasfollows:  (c)DevelopmentofDistrict1shallutilizetheexistingServiceRoadtoobtainaccesstoOldNC Highway86.AtthetimedevelopmentinDistrict1exceedsallowabletraffictrips,asdefined withintheMasterTrafficImpactAnalysis(TIA),requiringarestriction/prohibitiononleftturn(s) offofServiceRoadontoOldNCHighway86(otherthanatrafficsignalatthisintersection)an alternativetrafficalignment/improvementshallberequiredtoserveDistrict1whichwillallow forbothleftandrightturnaccessontoOldNCHighway86.Thisalternative,withsubstantiating TIA,shallbereviewedandapprovedbyOrangeCountyandtheNCDepartmentof Transportationandshallbeinstalledinconjunctionwiththesitedevelopmentthatgeneratesthe trafficthatexceedstheabovedefinedthreshold.Theseimprovementsaretheresponsibilityof thedeveloper.  3.CONDITION5(Transportation)–Anewsubsection(d)toreadasfollows:  (d)InternalroadwayswithinDistrict1shallhavededicatedrightͲofͲwaysextendedtoproperty linestoserveadjacentpropertyatnomorethantwolocations.  4.CONDITION13(LandUse)–underSubsection(ii)addressingdevelopmentinDistrict2the followingnewlanguageshallbeaddedrelatedtothepermittingofretaillanduses:  RetailͲlimitedto30%oftheallowablefloorareaofDistrict2nottoexceed78,500sq.ft.oftotal cumulativefloorarea.   MichaelD.HarveyAICP,CFM,CZO maybe These requirements and ultimate improvements are the responsibility of the developer. These improvements are the responsibility of the developer. 6 (other than a traffic signal at this intersection) with substantiating TIA, d in conjunction with the site development that generates the traffic that exceeds the above defined threshold. y at no more than two locations. STAFFCOMMENT: Yellowhighlightsdenote languageaddedbythe applicant. Parker CONDITION Attachment7 114 From: Michael Harvey [mailto:mharvey@orangecountync.gov] Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 3:56 PM To: Jim Parker (jimparker16@gmail.com) <jimparker16@gmail.com>; Ariel Gamboa <ariel.gamboa@summitde.net>; Edward W Sirgany <ed.sirgany@summitde.net> Cc: Travis Myren <tmyren@orangecountync.gov>; Craig Benedict <cbenedict@orangecountync.gov> Subject: Additional documentation on Settlers Point Based on comment(s) received from the Planning Board at its December 18, 2017 meeting, the following shall be required for submittal/re-submittal to staff for review and comment. This information will be presented for discussion at the January 10, 2017 continued review of Settlers Point. (Applicant comment responses: 12/28/2017) 1.Supplemental detail submitted by Mr. Ed Sirgany (maps attached for reference purposes) on the TIA map(s) addresses part of staff’s request for more information on internal/external roadway improvement needs with respect to this project. We are pleased the u-turn option appears to no longer be a ‘foregone conclusion’. Having said that the Director is requesting the following additional detail: a.On the maps provide a table of contents outlining what improvement is proposed per the TIA. For example if the TIA makes reference to a condition as Install traffic light at Old NC Highway 86 and I-40 add a note to the map denoting same (i.e. reference the conditions in a table/matrix on the maps). (Response: The referenced table/matrix has been added to cross reference the improvements noted in the TIA.) 2.A revised master landscape/buffer plan denoting a 100 ft. buffer along the southern portion of District 2. Please note the Planning Board agreed the anticipated access roadway location, north of the overhead power line utility easement, would not have to be buffered. (Response: A revised master landscape/buffer plan is provided to denote the addition of the 100-ft. along the southern portion of District 2.) 3.Denote the required floodplain buffer per Section 6.13 of the UDO on property located within District 1. (Response: The referenced floodplain buffer has been added to the master landscape/buffer plan.) 115 4.Provide a similar concept plan schematic for District 1 that was provided for District 2. (Response: A schematic concept plan for District 1 is included with this submittal.) 5.A schematic of the proposed additional MTC buffer clearing (i.e. applicant’s request to allow for additional clearing of the MTC buffer – reduction of width from 100 ft. to 50 ft. to accommodate parking, access roads, utilities, stormwater features, etc.), specifically: a.Detail on anticipated location of development activity, b.Re-landscaping of area (as currently proposed in narrative), c.Allowable encroachments (i.e. parking lot, access roads, utilities, stormwater facilities, etc.) A sample of the desired schematic (i.e. minimum detail required) is provided for illustrative purposes only: (Response: A schematic of the proposed MTC buffer clearing is included with this submittal.) Please note comments from the public hearing have lead staff to believe the BOCC was interested in discussing the viability of allowing for ‘requested activity’ within portions of the MTC buffer cleared in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.6.5 (A) of the UDO (i.e. the 50% MTC buffer ‘break’ where parking lots and stormwater features could be located) versus allowing for a reduction in the width of the remaining MTC buffer, in addition to allowing for clearing per the aforementioned UDO section. 6.In this same vein please provide a table detailing how much MTC buffer you would be allowed to clear in District 1 and 2 per Section 6.6.5 (A) of the UDO. (Response: A table outlining the referenced data is included with this submittal.) 7.Renderings/detail on requested signage (i.e. architectural landmark feature and entry portal signs). Items to consider: 116 a.From our standpoint the architectural landmark feature would only advertise ‘Settlers Point’ as a project and not have customer signage. We envisioned this, based on the narrative, to be a structure (i.e. bell tower, etc.) with letter advertising the project. Please note per the narrative and previous staff comment signage would have to be internally illuminated with no external light source or the full cabinet face being illuminated (i.e. words/letter illuminated only). (Response: We proposed to incorporate our signage exactly as noted in your comment. We proposed to have a landmark feature sign only out near the I- 40 interchange access to advertise the development name only and then a portal sign at the entrance to the development off Old NC86. Lighting of the signage would be internal letter lighting only as noted per staff comment. Sample renderings of these signs are included with this submittal.) 8.Anticipated timeframe to complete a comprehensive tree survey. (Response: We anticipate our comprehensive tree survey to be completed at the time of the Site Plan application submittal to Orange County, following approval of the project by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners.) 9.Response (if any you wish to offer) with respect to the possible elimination of a School, Elementary, Secondary, Middle as an allowable land use within the project. There was consensus that the use be eliminated. Future development/additional of new parcels may allow for continued discussion on viability of use being included. (Response: At this time the developer agrees with the consensus to eliminate the referenced school use within the project, but that it be kept as an item for consideration in the future as the project is developed and expanded.) 10.Response to suggested conditions on limiting the number of outdoor light fixtures left on after normal business hours. (Response: We agree with the suggested condition to limit the number of outdoor lighting fixtures left on after normal business hours, with the understanding that we must follow the appropriate industry guideline 117 standards; IES/ANSI, OSHA, etc. to maintain safe lighting conditions for employees, business owners and the public.) 11.Response to suggested condition on limiting the hours of operation for land uses developed within the project. (Response: At this time the developer would like to remain flexible with the potential hours of operation and address this possible condition during the Site Plan approval process. An operational restriction of this type during the early stage of approvals would infringe on the marketing potential for the project.) 12.With respect to utilities, staff will compose a new condition incorporating applicant and Planning Board comments and send in a separate e-mail for comment. (Acknowledged) This information needs to be submitted by noon December 28, 2017 for initial staff review/comment. Please remember packets for the Planning Board meeting need to be finalized/printed by December 29, 2017 due to the New Year’s day holiday. This means staff’s abstract detailing our review of the submitted information has to be completed by noon on Friday December 29, 2017. The applicant should anticipate/be prepared to formally present responses to these various items at both the January Planning Board meeting (January 10) and Public Hearing (January 23). Necessary exhibits should be available to provide a detailed assessment to aid in responding to questions. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Michael D. Harvey AICP, CFM, CZO Current Planning Supervisor – Planner III Orange County Planning Department 131 West Margaret Lane PO Box 8181 (919) 245-2597 (phone) (919) 644-3002 (fax) 118 EXAMPLES OF PROPOSED LANDMARK FEATURE SIGN (AT I-40/OLD NC86 INTERSECTION) TEXT WOULD BE: "SETTLER'S POINT" 119 EXAMPLES OF PROPOSED PORTAL SIGN AT ENTRANCE (AT PROJECT ENTRANCE OFF OLD NC86) TEXT WOULD BE: "SETTLER'S POINT" 120 PR O P O S E D LA N D M A R K S I G N LO C A T I O N PR O P O S E D PO R T A L S I G N LO C A T I O N 121 SE T T L E R ' S P O I N T AL L O W A B L E B R E A K I N T H E M T C B U F F ER P E R U D O S E C T I O N 6 . 6 . 5 ( A ) Di s t r i c t 1 Di s t r i c t 2 I- 4 0 F r o n t a g e L e n g t h 50 % A l l o w e d B r e a k L e n g t h 3, 0 5 2 f t . 1, 5 2 6 f t . 2, 8 5 6 f t . 1, 4 2 8 f t . 122 Fo r R e v i e w 12 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 7 1 1 : 1 2 : 3 3 A M Preliminary12/29/2017 11:12:40 AM123 EXHIBITCOMPREHENSIVE BUFFER PLAN PROJECT NO.SHEET NO.DRAWING NAME:16-0243 IN T E R S T A T E 4 0 EN V I R O N M E N T A L B U F F E R EX I S T I N G S T R E A M EX I S T I N G S T R E A M 15 0 ' P O W E R L I N E E A S E M E N T 10 0 Y E A R F L O O D PL A I N L I M I T ( T Y P ) SE R V I C E R O A D I-4 0 E B . R A M P I- 4 0 W B . R A M P I-4 0 E B . R A M P I-40 W B . R A M P O L D N C 8 6 10 0 ' BU F F E R 100' BUFFER 10 0 ' BU F F E R 100' BUFFER 50' B U F F E R (A L T E R N A T E ) 1 0 0 ' B U F F E R PR O P O S E D B U F F E R BR E A K S ( T Y P I C A L ) 100'BUFFE R ST R E E T F R O N T A G E AR E A S T O B E P L A N T E D 80' STREA M BUFFER 80' STREA M BUFFER 80' STR E A M BUFFE R 80' S T R E A M BUF F E R 80' S T R E A M BUF F E R 80' S T R E A M BUF F E R 50 ' M I N . F L O O D PL A I N B U F F E R FE M A 1 0 0 - Y R . F L O O D P L A I N F E M A 1 0 0 - Y R . F L O O D P L A I N F E M A F L O O D W A Y F E M A F L O O D W A Y 50' MIN. FLOO D PLAIN BUF F E R 50' MIN . F L O O D PLA I N B U F F E R PR O P O S E D B U F F E R BR E A K ( T Y P . ) 10 0 ' BU F F E R K:\2016\16-0243\Civil\Current Drawings\16-0243_BASE 2017-12-07.dwg, BUFFER PLAN, 12/28/2017 10:31:21 AM, coatsj, 1:1 For Review 12/28/2017 11:06:34 AM Preliminary12/28/2017 11:06:42 AM124 For Review 12/28/2017 10:55:22 AM Preliminary12/28/2017 10:55:35 AM BU I L D I N G 1 BU I L D I N G 2 BU I L D I N G 3 BU I L D I N G 4 BU I L D I N G 5 BU I L D I N G 6 125 12 6 12 7 128 129 13 0 13 1 13 2 13 3 13 4 13 5 13 6 13 7 13 8 13 9 14 0 141 142 14 3 14 4 14 5 14 6 14 7 14 8 14 9 15 0 151 152 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., Attachment 10 153 water and sewer, high-speed internet 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 154 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 Attachment 11 Ordinance #: ORD-2017-023 155 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. 156 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. d.e. Water systems and water pressure shall comply with all applicable Town of Hillsborough utility standards, building, and fire codes based on the proposed land use. 1 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,2 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. e. 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 1 Added by staff in response to a meeting with the applicant on December 8, 2017. The applicant has requested the condition be modified. The language contained in this last version of the resolution of approval was approved by the applicant and has been recommended for approval by the Planning Board at its January 10, 2018 regular meeting. 2 Language added by Planning Board at its October 4, 2017 regular meeting. The applicant has expressed no objections to the revision. Formatte Formatte 157 and/or sewer capacity shall result in the denial of the site plan application by the County.3 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. 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. g.h. For all site plans submitted for the Project the Orange Rural Volunteer Fire Department shall be considered a member of the County Development Advisory Committee (DAC) as outlined in Section 1.9 of the UDO.4 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. Development of District 1 shall utilize Service Road to obtain access to Old NC Highway 86. At the time development exceeds allowable traffic trips, as defined within the Master Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), requiring a restriction/prohibition on left turn(s) off of Service Road onto Old NC Highway 86, an alternative traffic alignment/improvement shall be required to serve District 1 allowing for both left and right turn access onto Old NC Highway 86. This alternative shall be reviewed and approved by Orange County and 3 Condition added by Planning Board at its October 4, 2017 regular meeting. The applicant has expressed no objections to the revision. 4 Language added clarifying the Orange Rural Volunteer Fire Department will be considered a member of the County Development Advisory Committee (DAC) and be allowed an opportunity to review and offer comment on all site plans submitted within Settlers Point. Formatte 158 the NC Department of Transportation and shall be installed in conjunction with the proposed development project generating the need for said alternative traffic alignment/improvement. 5 c.d. Internal roadways within District 1 shall have right-of- way/roadways extended to serve adjacent property. 6 d.e. Internal roadways shall be developed in accordance with Section 6.10 (A) of the UDO. e.f. All streets, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, etc. shall be designated for public access/use. f.g. Driveway permit(s) shall be issued by the North Carolina Department of Transportation prior to the commencement of any earth disturbing activity. g.h. 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. 7 h.i. 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. i.j. All street signals shall be erected on metal poles. j.k. 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. k.l. Segregated entrances and exists for pedestrian, construction vehicle, and non-construction vehicular traffic shall be developed to avoid conflict during construction activities. 5 Added by staff in response to a meeting with the applicant on December 8, 2017 and modified to include comments from the applicant. The Planning Board voted at its December 18, 2017 regular meeting to recommend approval of the revised language. 6 Added by staff in response to a meeting with the applicant on December 8, 2017. The applicant has requested the condition be modified to include language limiting the extension to serve no more than 2 properties. The Planning Board did not perceive an issue with adding the language requested by the applicant. For more information please refer to Attachment 7. 7 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. Formatte 159 l.m. 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. m.n. 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. n.o. 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. o.p. 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: 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. p.q. 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. 160 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. q.r. 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 District8 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, 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. 8 Language originally added by Planning Board at its October 4, 2017 regular meeting. The applicant had expressed concern over the revision suggesting Orange Rural Volunteer Fire department staff be involved in the site plan review process but that they would not have review/approval authority. The Planning Board agreed to strike the highlighted language. Orange Rural Volunteer Fire department staff would review and comment on project’s as part of the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) review process as detailed within the UDO. A specific condition reflecting same has been added under Condition 4. Formatte 161 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: i. Front façade(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. 162 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, 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, 163 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, 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, 164 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 – limited to 30% of the allowable floor area of the District not to exceed 78,500 sq.ft. of total cumulative floor area. 9 15. Restaurant, 16. Movie theater,10 17.16. Indoor gym/physical fitness center, 18.17. Arcade, 19.18. 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. 11 b. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS: All development shall abide by the performance standards as articulated in Section 6.4 of the UDO inclusive. 9 Added at the suggestion of the applicant to address Town of Hillsborough comment(s) on limited overall retail development within District 2. 10 Planning Board recommended the deletion of a duplicate reference to a previously identified land use. 11 Use eliminated per staff recommendation and the applicant’s request. For more information please refer to Attachment 7. 165 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: Setback from internal property Freestanding Buildings In-line Shops and Buildings Vehicular use areas Storage areas Signs 166 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 or other similar means. On-site wells may be permissible in the event that stormwater is unavailable. Proposed irrigation well(s) shall be permitted by Orange County Environmental Health.12 ii. Capturing and reuse of stormwater runoff for watering landscaping shall be required. Methodologies for same shall be included on all site plans submitted for processing. 13 ii.iii. A 100-ft. undisturbed land use buffer shall be installed and/or maintained along the western and southern boundaries of District 1 and the southern boundary of District 2. No thinning shall be permitted within this area. iii.iv. 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. 12 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. 13 This language is already listed within the application narrative and has been added to address comments from the BOCC made at the November 14, 2017 public hearing. Formatte Formatte Formatte 167 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.v. A 25ft. land use buffer shall be installed along Service Road within District 1. v.vi. Internal streets shall have one (1) tree, installed at a minimum three-inch (3”) caliper, every sixty (60). vi.vii. Modification of the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District.14 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 6.6.4 (A) of the UDO. 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, 14 The original condition has been revised by the applicant as denoted in Red Underlined Text. For more information please refer to Attachment 1. 168 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. 1. There is approximately 2,800 ft. of Interstate frontage for property located within District 1 and 3,082 ft. for property located within District 2. 2. The MTC buffer in District 1 shall remain undisturbed. 3. 50% of the MTC Buffer in District 2 can be cleared in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.6.4 (A) of the UDO, subject to the following additional allowances: a. Only 2,000 linear ft. of the MTC Buffer in District shall be impacted, specifically the area extending east from the intersection of Old NC Highway 86 and the on-ramp of Interstate 40. b. Within this 2,000 linear foot area, the MTC Buffer shall be reduced from 100 to 50 ft. in width. c. A limit of 1,100 ft. of additional clearing for visual breaks shall be allowed. These areas shall be re-vegetated with low-growth landscaping with a mixtures of shrubs achieving a height at maturity of 4 to 6 ft. and canopy trees achieving a height at maturity of 12 ft. Re-vegetation plans shall be submitted and approved by staff as part of the site plan review process. The number of required plants shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.8.7 of the UDO for a Type B land use buffer. vii.viii. 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. 169 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.ix. Required landscaping along structures: 1. Thirty percent (30%) of a buildings perimeter shall be landscaped, while maintaining space for required sidewalk area, composed of: 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. 170 The overall maximum amount of surface parking permitted for the entire development combined, shall be one (1) space for every three hundred (300) 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. ix. A minimum of 1% of all required parking in District 2, exclusive of required parking for a hotel/motel land use, shall be designed to accommodate electrical charging stations. 15 x. 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). 15 Condition recommended by the Planning Board at its January 10, 2018 regular meeting on a 6 to 5 vote. The applicant agreed to the condition. 171 j. LIGHTING: All proposed lighting shall comply with the standards detailed in Section 6.11 Outdoor Lighting of the UDO. Outdoor lighting shall be extinguished after normal business hours to eliminate the potential for glare and light pollution consistent with appropriate industry guideline standards including, but not limited to: IES/ANSI, OSHA, etc. in order to maintain safe lighting conditions for employees, business owners and the public. 16 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.17 f.e. 60% of the sign area shall contain the name of the Project. 3. Signage for theater shall abide by the following standards: 16 A condition recommended for addition by the Planning Board to address concerns over light pollution. The wording of the condition was suggested by the applicant. At its January 10, 2018 regular meeting, the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the applicant’s proposed language. 17 This language was improperly added by staff. The narrative for the Project indicates all signs shall be internally illuminated. 172 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. 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. 173 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. l. 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 174