Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB agenda 011018ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 AGENDA ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ORANGE COUNTY WEST CAMPUS OFFICE BUILDING 131 WEST MARGARET LANE – LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM (ROOM #004) HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Wednesday, January 10, 2018 Regular Meeting – 7:00 pm No. Page(s) Agenda Item 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2018 3. 3 – 4 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. Planning Calendar for January and February 4. 5 – 14 APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 18, 2017 Regular Meeting 5. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 6. 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 residents 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 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. 7. CHAIR COMMENTS 1 No. Page(s) Agenda Item 8. 15 – 227 CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP) - To review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on a Class A Special Use Permit application to develop a solar array/public utility station on 27.8 acres of a 52 acre parcel of property (PIN 9835-02-9137, no address assigned yet) which is accessed via an easement from 6519 U.S. Highway 70 West within the Cheeks Township. An SUP was approved in September 2016 but has expired, necessitating consideration of a new SUP. Presenter: Patrick Mallett, Planner II 9. 228 – 289 MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – SETTLER’S POINT - To review comments made at the November 14 quarterly public hearing, proposed revisions to conditions as a result of comments, and to make a recommendation on the proposed revisions concerning an application for an MPD-CZ (Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning). The proposed project encompasses approximately 195 acres in the Hillsborough Economic Development District (EDD) south of Interstate 40 on both sides of Old Highway 86. The public hearing for this item has been extended until January 23, 2018. Presenter: Craig Benedict, Planning Director, and Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 10. ADJOURNMENT IF AN EMERGENCY OCCURS, OR IF YOU ARE RUNNING LATE FOR THE MEETING, PLEASE LEAVE A VOICE MAIL FOR PERDITA HOLTZ (919-245-2578). 2 < December January 2018 February> Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 Holiday 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Planning Board meeting* 7:00 pm WCOB 004 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Holiday OUTBoard meeting @ 6:30 pm WCOB 004 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 BOCC Meeting @ 7:00pm Whitted Building BOCC Retreat 9a.m. – 4p.m. Maple View Ag Center 28 Notes: * Planning Board Member Attendance Required or Expected WCOB = West Campus Office Building (131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough) 3 < January February 2018 March> Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 Notes: * Planning Board Member Attendance Required or Expected WCOB = West Campus Office Building (131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BOCC Meeting Whitted Building 7:00pm Planning Board meeting* 7:00pm WCOB Room 004 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 BOCC Work Session Southern Human Services 7pm 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 BOCC Meeting Southern Human Services 7:00pm OUTBoard Meeting 6:30pm WCOB ROOM 004 Joint BOCC/Town Of Hillsborough Whitted Building 7pm 25 26 27 28 4 Minutes 1 Orange County Planning Board 2 December 18, 2017 3 Regular Meeting 4 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative; Tony Blake (Vice-Chair), 7 Bingham Township Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large 8 Chapel Hill Township; Kim Piracci, At-Large; Township; Alexander Gregory, Chapel Hill Township Representative; 9 David Blankfard, Hillsborough Township Representative; Randy Marshall, At-Large; Adam Beeman, Cedar Grove 10 Township; Hunter Spitzer, At-Large; 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township 13 Representative; 14 15 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Meredith Kern, 16 Administrative Assistant; 17 18 OTHERS PRESENT: Cheryl Sadgrove, Minutes Preparer; Jim Parker, Summit Engineering; Ariel Gamboa, Summit 19 Engineering; Ed Sirgany, Summit Engineering; 20 21 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 22 23 Lydia Wegman called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and noted new members were present. 24 25 Adam Beeman said he moved here in 2008 and lives in Cedar Grove. He is interested in making sure the county 26 moves forward in a nice, controlled manner rather than what he experienced up north. 27 28 Hunter Spitzer said he is a sophomore at UNC. He has lived in Hillsborough all his life, is interested in planning and 29 wanted to get involved. 30 31 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 32 a. a) Planning Calendar for December and January 33 • January 10 – Planning Board Meeting 34 • January 23 – BOCC public hearing on this matter 35 • January 26 – BOCC retreat. Planning Board members are not required to attend. 36 37 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 38 November 1, 2017 39 40 MOTION by Paul Guthrie to approve the November 1, 2017, Regular Meeting Minutes. Seconded by Tony Blake. 41 VOTE: Unanimous 42 43 AGENDA ITEM 4. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 44 No additions to the agenda. 45 46 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 47 48 Introduction to the Public Charge 49 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 50 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development laws 51 of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 52 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner, which considers the present and future 53 needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to 54 and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every 55 5 effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our 56 deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 57 58 59 Public Charge 60 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 61 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 62 fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 63 public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 64 regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until 65 such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 66 67 Lydia Wegman read the public charge aloud. 68 69 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 70 There were no comments. 71 72 AGENDA ITEM 7: MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – SETTLER’S POINT - To review comments made at the 73 November 14 quarterly public hearing, proposed revisions to conditions as a result of comments, and to make a 74 recommendation on the proposed revisions concerning an application for an MPD-CZ (Master Plan Development 75 Conditional Zoning). The proposed project encompasses approximately 195 acres in the Hillsborough Economic 76 Development District (EDD) south of Interstate 40 on both sides of Old Highway 86. The public hearing for this item 77 has been extended until January 23, 2018. Additional review of remaining aspects of the application and an 78 additional recommendation by the Planning Board is scheduled for the January 10, 2018, Planning Board meeting. 79 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 80 81 Michael Harvey directed the board to the abstract on Page 11. He reviewed that this item was heard at the November 13, 82 2017, quarterly public hearing. It was referred back to the Planning Board for additional review because there were 83 modifications to several conditions and there was additional information on the transportation impact analysis (TIA). It is not 84 staff’s intention to ask the Planning Board to make a final vote this evening. Staff is asking for votes on direction. The Planning 85 Board is not asked to provide a final decision at this meeting because additional discussion is expected on the Major 86 Transportation Corridor (MTC) buffer in January. Staff is continuing to work with the applicant to address the comments made 87 at the public hearing. He noted that the applicant is represented here this evening. 88 89 Michael Harvey reviewed that the transportation analysis addendum is located on Page 20. Staff comments begin on page 41. 90 The summary of major questions/responses from the November public hearing starts on Page 62. General information about 91 the Conditional Zoning District starts on Page 77. An excerpt of the October Planning Board minutes begins on Page 80. The 92 November public hearing minutes start on Page 101. The revised conditions of approval start on Page 123. 93 94 Michael Harvey said he planned to walk the board through the revised conditions. 95 96 Kim Piracci asked for an explanation of the MTC buffer. Michael Harvey answered it’s a 100-foot buffer for all nonresidential 97 development along major highways, so it applies along Interstate 40. A 50 percent break in the buffer is allowed but it is to be 98 otherwise undisturbed. 99 100 Lydia Wegman requested that any images that would help explain the buffer be displayed. Michael Harvey shared an image 101 provided by the applicant. 102 103 Paul Guthrie asked if the interstate adjacent to this property has the standard 300-foot right of way and does the North 104 Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) have control of it. Michael Harvey answered that to his knowledge it is under 105 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 106 through the federal government. 107 108 Michael Harvey showed an image provided by the applicant that indicates where the100-foot buffer is to be located. He 109 reviewed that the applicant is proposing no breaks in the buffer for District 1. He noted that District 3 had been removed from 110 6 the proposal completely. In District 2, the applicant is allowed to create visual breaks in the MTC buffer. The developers plan 111 to stick to the 50 percent breaks. The image indicated where the intermittent breaks would be located. 112 113 Patricia Roberts asked whether 50 percent breaks is an Orange County law. Michael Harvey answered yes. 114 115 Kim Piracci noted the breaks are 50 percent of width (along the border of the property) and not in depth. Michael Harvey 116 affirmed that. He said the Orange County Board of Commissioners has expressed some concern that the applicant is also 117 proposing to do some selective clearing within the MTC buffer for utility infrastructure and roadway networks. This will be 118 discussed more in this review. 119 120 Paul Guthrie asked whether there is any knowledge of long-term expansion of I-40 in that area. Michael Harvey said 121 expanding has to occur in the 300-foot right of way unless the federal government procures more land. There is talk of 122 expanding I-40 into three lanes as it is in Durham. He believes that can be accommodated with the existing right of way. 123 124 Michael Harvey said on Page 13, the first condition up for discussion is Condition 6, contained in Attachment 7, granting 125 Orange Rural Fire Department denial authority. The applicant has indicated they don’t mind the fire department being a review 126 party but they don’t think the fire department should have power to deny the application. Instead, the applicant suggests the 127 power to deny the application be left to the fire marshals from the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County. The Orange 128 County Board of Commissioners has requested this board’s opinion on whether Orange Rural Fire Department should have 129 denial authority. Typically, fire departments review such applications but do not have authority to deny them, Michael Harvey 130 said. 131 132 Tony Blake said the intent was they be included in the review but not have approval or denial. The main thing is they be 133 involved. Michael Harvey asked for a show of consensus to modify the condition to allow Orange Rural Fire Department to 134 have review but not denial authority. 135 136 MOTION by Randy Marshall that Orange Rural Fire Department have a review but not action to approve or deny the 137 application. Seconded by Hunter Spitzer. 138 VOTE: Unanimous 139 140 Michael Harvey continued with the presentation. He reviewed the next condition to be discussed involves the MTC 141 buffer. The applicant does not propose any disturbance breaks in District 1, which is the industrial district. The 142 applicant had asked for clearing 60 percent of the buffer instead of 50 percent in District 2. The Orange County Board 143 of Commissioners expressed reservation about allowing the additional clearing. The applicant has since submitted to 144 staff that they will abide by the ordinance allowing clearance of 50 percent of the buffer. They have delineated a 145 clearing limited to 50 percent. They are not limited due to the clearing associated with the utility easement. Regarding 146 additional allowances for modifications to the MTC buffer, the applicant has shown a 100-foot buffer going up to the 147 utility easement and then the applicant is asking for a variable width MTC buffer instead of 100 feet. Based on the 148 narrative reviewed at the Oct. 4, 2017, Planning Board meeting and the public hearing, the MTC buffer would be 149 cleared for accesses and stormwater feature construction. The Planning Board is asked to give feedback on the 150 proposed variable width of the MTC buffer, proposed to be 50 feet instead of 100 feet in some places. 151 152 Kim Piracci asked for clarification because she is unclear why it’s sometimes 50 feet and sometimes 100 feet. 153 Michael Harvey answered the variable width would be to accommodate an access road, parking and a stormwater 154 feature. 155 156 Paul Guthrie asked if the buffer is intended to be a sound buffer and a visual buffer. Michael Harvey answered right 157 now it serves as both but it borders a major highway and there are already significant breaks in the buffer, including 158 the interchange, which allows sound to travel. While the Orange County Board of Commissioners realized allowing 159 50 percent breaks in the buffer would have a sound impact, they also understood that it allowed marketing of the site. 160 161 David Blankfard asked for clarification about the parcel to the north. Michael Harvey answered that the applicant is 162 choosing to propose a solid buffer for District 1. 163 164 Hunter Spitzer asked why the developer is asking for more clearing. Michael Harvey reviewed that it is for an access 165 7 road, parking and a stormwater feature. 166 167 Tony Blake asked if the breaks are for signage. Michael Harvey answered no, there are signage regulations and they 168 are not permitted in the buffer. The breaks are for the purpose of drivers on the interstate being able to see the 169 development. No billboards are allowed. There are still signage limitations. 170 171 Lydia Wegman asked to hear from the developer on the variable buffer request. 172 173 Jim Parker spoke representing the developer. He said as much as we like to preserve buffers and trees, this is an 174 economic development parcel that needs visibility from the highway. The end users who will use this property will 175 want to be seen from the highway. If we can’t provide that, we’ll lose opportunity. The visibility would be one of the 176 key reasons businesses would want to locate here. 177 178 Lydia Wegman asked if stormwater accommodation and parking is secondary to visibility to the road. Jim Parker 179 confirmed that. 180 181 David Blankfard asked have you started developing what you plan to do in that area for signage. Jim Parker 182 answered no, we’ve laid out some building footprints to give us an idea of how the circulation could work. What we 183 anticipate is plausible in terms of parking. The hotel would be located where you would expect it to be on one of the 184 highest points with good visibility from both directions. This is an economic development area at an interchange. 185 Again, we are supportive of trees and buffers that protect residential developments. Neither the motorists nor the 186 businesses that would locate there care about the buffer. The businesses want to be seen. 187 188 Paul Guthrie asked, from Jim Parker’s general perception, would this development fill out quickly. Jim Parker 189 answered if the economy stays as it is and sewer service is extended quickly, it will. Since we have made it public in 190 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 191 can count on it. But to answer your question, I think it will. 192 193 Kim Piracci asked if the two little restaurants would be fast food restaurants. Jim Parker answered affirmatively. He 194 said he was hoping for a sit-down restaurant but businesses in this type of development all work together. 195 196 Kim Piracci asked if there has been a feasibility study of the best use of this land. Jim Parker answered we have 197 done our own studies, which are nonscientific and I don’t know if any are. On our team, we have brokers who deal 198 with this day to day and know how to bring commercial users. They are excited about the property and opportunity. 199 200 Hunter Spitzer checked that the reduction of the depth of the buffer is also for visibility. Jim Parker answered yes, in 201 addition to parking and access drives. 202 203 Lydia Wegman asked if 100 or 75 feet would be problematic. Jim Parker said he’s not trying to be flippant but if they 204 thought they could get by with 75 feet of buffer, they would have asked for that. They are asking for what they need. 205 206 Craig Benedict said they have re-landscaped that parking lot with a tree every 10 parking spaces. Any encroachment 207 has to be re-landscaped in accordance to what use is going on in there. 208 209 Michael Harvey said in summary, regarding the MTC buffer issue for this project, the applicant had requested 60 210 percent breaks and county commissioners did not react with great comfort to that request. The applicant has said 211 they’ll stick with 50 percent breaks but they are asking for reducing the remaining buffer from 100 feet to 50 feet in 212 some places. Michael Harvey asked for the general reaction of the reduction of the buffer from 100 to 50 feet. 213 214 Kim Piracci said I’m remembering all the local residents at the public hearing were very concerned about the noise. I 215 don’t like the idea of cutting all those trees. The developer can come up with another way. Once a tree is cut down, 216 it’s gone. Planting a bush doesn’t make it better. 217 218 Hunter Spitzer said considering the board didn’t want the 60 percent break, the commissioners probably don’t want 219 the variable buffer. Michael Harvey said the board wanted to hear feedback from this board and didn’t take a 220 8 negative or positive reaction to the request. 221 222 Craig Benedict said District 1 has no breaks even though that would be allowed by code. The Master Plan zoning 223 brings forth the variability. Regarding the resident comments, there were some from Davis Road to the southwest 224 and some comments from the northwest. The northwest is on the north side of the interstate, so anything we remove 225 to the south of the interstate isn’t going to impact residents on the north side of the interstate, he said. 226 227 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 228 interstate, you get used to that noise. She would like to see as much development close to the interstate as possible 229 to keep the rural areas rural. Coming from Durham, there is no development at the interchanges in Orange County 230 and then there is when you reach Alamance County. Our taxes are too high because we don’t have a commercial tax 231 base. 232 233 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 234 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 9 235 and then have the 100-foot buffer up to the second wet area. It just seems to me like there is compromise here. I 236 agree with Patricia Roberts that this is the place you’re going to want development if you’re going to have any. And 237 Orange County really needs it. 238 239 Adam Beeman said there is nothing worse than driving up and down the interstate and not being able to see what’s 240 at the exit. He wants to be able to see where the hotel is. 241 242 Michael Harvey said the applicant has one clarification. There will be a 100-foot buffer along the property line that is 243 not along the interstate. The applicant offered additional buffer for the people who live on the other side of that 244 property line, following the District 3 boundary. He said the stream buffer is obviously required to remain in tact. 245 Obviously, there would not be a 100-foot buffer at the road access point. Kim Piracci checked that it would be written 246 down. Michael Harvey said he believes it already is. 247 248 Kim Piracci asked whether the trees are old growth. Craig Benedict answered the trees are mostly pines and are 60 249 to 80 years old. 250 251 Paul Guthrie asked if most utility corridors will be underground and will they follow transportation routes. Michael 252 Harvey answered obviously Orange County tries to work with utility partners for some semblance of rationality. In 253 some instances, the county is successful. Sometimes you have to take a path of least resistance (for sewer and gas). 254 Electric is dictated where it ties into substations. Utilities are more adept at dictating where they need to go than at 255 taking direction from government entities. 256 257 Paul Guthrie said some uses on these parcels could be heavy users of utilities and he wonders how far in advance 258 utilities are planned. Michael Harvey answered utility companies are involved in the reviews early on. Predominately, 259 underground utilities are used for these larger sites. Gas could be a potential issue here because the developer could 260 have to secure easements. Water is secured. The Town of Hillsborough has to sign off on every site plan that there is 261 adequate capacity for both water and sewer. 262 263 Paul Guthrie said from my experience, what you say regarding utilities dictating where they go is largely accurate. 264 But if you stand up to the utility, something will happen. Michael Harvey said he has been in Orange County 13 years 265 and he has stood up to a lot of people, but utility companies tend to not back down on where they need to locate 266 utilities. Tony Blake asked if Duke Energy owns the easement. Michael Harvey confirmed. 267 268 Kim Piracci said her taxes went up 27 percent this year so she is on board with development. In terms of the buffer, 269 she’d rather see 100 feet because she likes trees. 270 271 David Blankfard asked how often the MTC buffer has been reduced to 50 feet. Craig Benedict answered that the 272 county hasn’t had development to use it. Michael Harvey said the county came close to it with the proposed 273 Buckhorn Village development, which didn’t get developed. 274 275 9 Patricia Roberts if Buckhorn Village didn’t get built because the developers didn’t get the buffer reduction they 276 wanted. Michael Harvey answered no, it was approved but the downturn in the economy killed it. 277 278 Lydia Wegman said she is supportive of the plan. 279 280 Michael Harvey said the next condition is regarding architectural landmark and portal signs. That will be presented at 281 the January meeting. He clarified there will not be external illumination. 282 283 Regarding land use for elementary, middle and secondary schools, the county has reached out to the Orange County 284 Schools Board of Education. The county had expressed concern about schools being located at an industrial site and 285 is waiting to hear from the school board. The concern is about allowing schools in District 1 near industrial sites. Tony 286 Blake asked would that preclude having a corporate training site. Michael Harvey answered no, just schools teaching 287 pre-K through 12th grade. 288 289 Paul Guthrie said there would be episodes of heavy traffic if schools were allowed. Will there be adequate access at 290 peak times? Michael Harvey said that has been asked and the developer is looking at that. 291 292 Patricia Roberts asked if there is a need for more schools right now. Michael Harvey answered there is not 293 anticipated need for a school according to the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) for 10 years. 294 He said there is thought that a school should be closer to Gravelly Hill Middle School or Efland Elementary School. 295 He thinks the developer was looking to the future. 296 297 Craig Benedict said we do have SAPFO. There is not a need for an elementary or middle school in the next 10 years. 298 Cedar Ridge High School is being expanded now. School land-banking opportunities are most likely needed in the 299 western area of the county due to the growth in Mebane. A school use was more pertinent when District 3 was being 300 considered. That would have been residential and even though it was proposed to be senior housing, a school in that 301 residential area would be more appropriate. He added that having a school in an area where you want tax base 302 would not be the best use. 303 304 Michael Harvey reviewed there is an additional condition that looped water systems would be required to provide 305 additional water flow and pressure in each district. The developer has tweaked alternate language saying looped 306 water systems may be required and are ultimately the responsibility of the developer. County staff will be meeting 307 with the applicant to further work on this language. 308 309 Tony Blake said if you’re going to make this a “could” or “may,” you should define what adequate flow pressure is. 310 Michael Harvey said he thinks Craig Benedict wanted something specific to address a concern he had about water 311 pressure. 312 313 Tony Blake said water pressure is a measurable thing. Craig Benedict said we’ll be moving toward saying it will meet 314 fire code and building code. We’re not going to mandate something that’s not necessary. We’ll put some sort of 315 standards in there. It will be based on occupancy code. If there is a multi-story hotel, the pressure may need to be 316 higher in that area. 317 318 Tony Blake said flow is critical for the rating of the insurance. 319 320 Lydia Wegman checked that staff and the developer will continue to discuss. Michael Harvey confirmed. 321 322 Michael Harvey continued his presentation. He said the developer had several conditions associated with the TIA 323 and external and internal traffic improvements. He reviewed the existing conditions map. He reviewed where 324 stoplights would be installed in Phase 1. He said the developer wanted everyone to know there was supposed to be 325 a stoplight at that intersection at Waterstone. The developer is planning to install it if it doesn’t get there first for 326 Waterstone. 327 328 David Blankfard asked for clarification about the lights, that it would be located at the exit. Michael Harvey said it was 329 supposed to be installed with Waterstone but they would be doing it as part of this project. 330 10 331 Michael Harvey reviewed where there would be an installation of a left turn lane on Service Road and on Old 332 Highway 86. 333 334 Michael Harvey then showed the 2022 buildout map. There would be two lanes of through traffic on Old Highway 86. 335 There would be a stoplight wherever the access to District 2 is built. He noted Davis Road remains unimproved. He 336 said two individuals raised concern that Davis Road would become a five-lane road. In his 13 years, he’s not seen 337 that plan. 338 339 Michael Harvey said Ed Sirgeny with Summit Engineering is present to answer questions. Michael Harvey said 340 District 1 is meant to be served by Service Road. Staff would like the developer to work on having another access. 341 Staff also needs additional time to review some of Jim Parker’s comments on the TIA. 342 343 Tony Blake asked about a super street. Michael Harvey answered I’m not going to say it’s totally abandoned because 344 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 345 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. 346 347 Craig Benedict said a memo was received the day of the public hearing from DOT saying there was no need for a U-348 turn. Now they’re saying you can have 900,000 square feet of warehousing or equivalent. After that would be the 349 trigger point in District 1 of having to come up with another connection farther to the south. It still allows the left turn 350 movement for a long period of time. Service Road was created when I-40 was built. DOT put it where they thought it 351 could be signalized. Now they want more space between a signal and the interstate ramp. That much can be built 352 without the need for the U-turn. 353 354 Michael Harvey said the applicant was required by staff to provide the breakdown, which he shared. It included land 355 use, size, units, adjacent street traffic volumes weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. 356 357 Jim Parker said Tony Blake, if your question is if other accesses have been explored beside Service Road, yes. 358 359 Tony Blake asked if anyone has approached DOT about combining the exit ramp and Service Road. Jim Parker 360 answered no, DOT used to do that but they don’t like that anymore. We understand there is a limit to this working 361 fluidly. Level of service is going to dictate the service road functioning. DOT is not going to allow level of service to 362 decline beyond a certain point. We will continue to try to look for alternatives to make the whole thing work. 363 364 Tony Blake said with this zoning, it doesn’t come back before the Planning Board or Orange County Board of 365 Commissioners so I want to make sure we hash it out as much as we can. 366 367 Michael Harvey said that’s not quite accurate. Right now there is access from Service Road. Any access to Old 368 Highway 86 would come back for a modification. If Jim Parker and his cohorts can find a way to get an alternative 369 access, there is going to be tweaking of the application. Every site plan application has to have a TIA. This 370 assessment is required in Orange County when the traffic trips is expected to exceed 800 trips a day but for this 371 project it is for every project regardless of the expected trips per day. 372 373 Tony Blake spoke in favor of aligning the access along the power easement. Jim Parker said we have looked at a lot 374 of options. At this point, none of them are 100 percent viable. 375 376 Kim Piracci said I’m assuming that if traffic circles were appropriate, you would consider that. 377 378 Michael Harvey said any viable traffic alternative would be studied but may not be appropriate here because tractor 379 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 380 Orange County. 381 382 Michael Harvey asked for other comments on the TIA. He said it sounds like the board is comfortable with the revised 383 condition, eliminating the U-Turn, revising the catch points on travel trips with the understanding that every project 384 gets a TIA, and let the developer look for a long-term second access. Lydia Wegman said she concurred with that 385 11 statement. 386 387 Craig Benedict said he would be meeting on Thursday with the two new board members on this project. He will talk 388 about the traffic impact analysis with them. There are about 14 improvements. It’s going to be important for the 389 general public and elected officials to understand them. 390 391 Michael Harvey said in conclusion, there were requested revisions of the concept plan. He reminded everyone they 392 don’t have a project yet. This is to provide an idea of where buildings and stormwater features would go. The county 393 commissioners suggested a tree survey be done. A detailed tree survey is not possible in the timeframe given to the 394 applicant. Staff will work with the developers. 395 396 Michael Harvey said the developer has provided a better buffer plan. He thinks there is a greater comfort level and 397 the Planning Board will look at this again in January. Orange County has one of the most restrictive buffer programs 398 in the state for streams and wetlands. These developers have said they will comply with all those requirements. For 399 us, the buffer program is very established. 400 401 Michael Harvey reviewed there was some concern about outdoor lighting and on Page 16, staff has provided 402 information on the county’s current outdoor lighting standards. Because we are a community that requires full cut-off 403 fixtures, you are not going to see some of the light pollution you see in other communities, especially as seen at 404 Hampton Pointe. There were still be some glow. The applicant has looked into the viability of turning off some lights 405 at night but the developer has said some lights have to be left on to secure the property. There will be some 406 measures to buffer the lighting. He said the ordinance addresses light glare and light overpass. 407 408 Kim Piracci wanted confirmation that Michael Harvey did say in Orange County the lights have to be full cut-off. Craig 409 Benedict confirmed and answered that change was made about 10 or 12 years ago. You want some lighting out 410 there for the safety and comfort of the business and the patrons. 411 412 Lydia Wegman asked if this would be coming back in January. Michael Harvey said he will have a more formal 413 response from the applicant in January. He noted this does not seem to be a concern of the board. 414 415 Michael Harvey said on Page 17, there is the condition addressing retail space. The Town of Hillsborough has 416 expressed concern about retail and its effect on redevelopment in town and recommended limiting retail to 20 417 percent. He said the applicant has suggested limiting retail to 30 percent, not to exceed 78,540 square feet. He 418 shared the staff response, which includes that staff believes Orange County is blessed to have two interstates in the 419 general area. The county doesn’t think retail should be limited. Michael Harvey said there is sufficient travel trips 420 above the Interstate 40 and Interstate 85 areas to support two distinct travel nodes in this area. The joint planning 421 land use plan as adopted by the town and county agrees that retail is viable in this area. The county staff encourages 422 the town to support the 30 percent limit on retail. 423 424 David Blankfard asked if the developer wants more than 30 percent. Jim Parker said no, 78,540 square feet is 425 reasonable for this area. He said it is aggressive but doable. He said as Michael Harvey said, this is an interstate 426 market. There is another interstate market closer to town that may or may not end up being an interstate market. It 427 may end up being more conducive to something else. This is a drop in the bucket compared with that one. 428 429 Craig Benedict said Walmart’s and Targets are 130,000 square feet, so we’re not talking about big-box retail. He said 430 if we get to 900,000 square feet of office and warehouse and industrial, you want supportive retail so people can 431 shop and eat in that area. The market for this retail is two-fold. One is the interstate market, plus the internal capture 432 of the development of the other employment whether it’s warehouse or hotel. 433 434 Hunter Spitzer asked if combined retail is stores and restaurants. Craig Benedict answered affirmatively, adding there 435 is potential for maybe dry cleaning, barbers, hair salons, and restaurants. 436 437 Lydia Wegman said 30 percent makes sense. Tony Blake agreed. 438 439 Michael Harvey said a county commissioner suggested a condition to limit business hours. The applicant has 440 12 indicated that such a condition is incredibly problematic. Staff has not pursued a condition on that. Lydia Wegman 441 said that makes sense. 442 443 Michael Harvey reviewed the applicant has addressed the concern of overall buffer impacts of the project and there 444 will be more discussion in January. 445 446 Paul Guthrie asked what the terrain would be around the stormwater ponds. Will they be empty and full depending on 447 the rainfall, he asked. Michael Harvey answered as the stormwater facilities haven’t necessarily been submitted for 448 review, he doesn’t know if they will be full constantly or only full as there is inundation. Typically, there is landscaping 449 around the feature. A stormwater facility doesn’t necessarily mean a big pond. It can be a rain garden. It can be a 450 subterranean facility. Since there will be a push for capturing stormwater, he thinks the facility will be minimal. There 451 are some limitations we’ll have to live with within state law. He thinks the developer will avoid big mosquito pits 452 because it’s bad for development. 453 454 Paul Guthrie said he wanted more specifics. Michael Harvey said any time a stormwater feature is developed, the 455 county requires the developer secure a maintenance agreement and submit documentation. Development in Orange 456 County is held to a stormwater standard. It will be addressed on every feature. Developers are required to post bonds 457 to maintain the stormwater features. 458 459 Craig Benedict reminded the board the next meeting is not Jan. 3 but instead Jan. 10. 460 461 AGENDA ITEM 8: POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS - To receive information on population 462 and employment projections for Orange County. 463 464 Presenter: Craig Benedict, Planning Director 465 466 Craig Benedict reviewed the abstract. He reviewed that comments can go straight to the Metropolitan Planning 467 Organization. Every four or five years, the MPO puts together projections. This is the 2045 Metropolitan 468 Transportation Plan Preferred Option. He reviewed that Orange County is also a participant in the Burlington 469 Metropolitan Planning Organization. He reviewed that commissioners Barry Jacobs and Penny Rich are on the policy 470 board that meets in Durham. He reviewed the MPO has a 20-year plan. And there is also a 10-year State 471 Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). This includes MPTO’s TIPS plus rural projects. 472 473 Craig Benedict reviewed that a statistical poll company estimates the populations. He said we still question some of 474 that analysis. He shared the slide that lists all the goals and objectives. There are state, regional and local funding 475 priorities. He explained our input into local projects has to score well. 476 477 Craig Benedict shared the slide with the population projections. The projection was 200,000 in 2040 but now the 478 projection is for 195,000 in 2045. That’s important for us to gauge where our service needs are, he said. 479 480 Craig Benedict said from 2005 to 2015 there has been some loss of employment. He said this was due to the 481 recession and hasn’t recovered. Tony Blake asked if there are more retired people. Mr. Benedict answered the 482 projections are taking land use into consideration. Also, previous years people thought we could compete with Wake 483 and Durham counties. But from the land use side and ability to develop, the “ground truth” is different. 484 485 Craig Benedict noted Chapel Hill and Carrboro will have more multi-family homes but in the rest of the county more 486 single-family homes. Hunter Spitzer asked why not single-family development in Chapel Hill. Craig Benedict 487 answered there isn’t much green space left and so developers are developing what is left with multi-family units and 488 it’s been noted that families are moving into three-bedroom, multi-family units. 489 490 Craig Benedict shared the employment projection slides. He summarized that the projection would call for two of the 491 former Blue Cross/Blue Shield buildings every year for a total of more than 13 million additional square feet by 2045. 492 Craig Benedict said those are aggressive employment projections. Kim Piracci asked where the standards of space 493 per employee comes from. Craig Benedict answered it is a blended industry standard. 494 495 13 Craig Benedict reviewed that light rail is still being pursued between the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and 496 North Carolina Central University. Nodes are being identified. 497 498 Craig Benedict shared a slide of projected rural sprawl called Household Distribution. He noted Orange County’s 499 rural buffer was created in 1987. 500 501 Craig Benedict reviewed the employment distribution slide. Tony Blake asked if walkability is being considered 502 because that would be only a quarter mile from the light rail stop. Craig Benedict said a quarter mile to a job and 503 upwards of a half mile to home. 504 505 Craig Benedict noted the projects of the MPO are in the agenda packet as well. 506 507 Lydia Wegman asked if these are projects that have been approved. Craig Benedict said of the 10 projects, some of 508 those are in the first five years. 509 510 Craig Benedict noted this is the public comment period for this plan. Comments can be made directly to the MPO 511 staff. 512 513 Lydia Wegman asked if there is a website for comments and if the Orange County Planning Board can submit 514 comments collectively. Craig Benedict said members can say, “I am a member of the Orange County Planning Board 515 and I think X.” Or members can speak with himself or Tom Altieri to fashion comments in a more constructive way 516 and staff can send them on to commissioners Jacobs and Rich. 517 518 Randy Marshall asked if OUTBoard and Planning Board should consolidate comments on this. OUTBoard worked on 519 transportation plans and he thinks it would be informative. Craig Benedict said the Planning Board could have a 520 hybrid meeting with the OUTBoard. 521 522 Lydia Wegman asked when comments are due. Craig Benedict answered Jan. 10. Lydia Wegman noted the 523 Planning Board does not have time to coordinate comments with other boards. Craig Benedict said he would 524 communicate with the Planning Board and OUTBoard on how their comments can be submitted in time. 525 526 AGENDA ITEM 9: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORT 527 a. Board of Adjustment 528 b. Orange Unified Transportation 529 530 No report provided. 531 532 AGENDA ITEM 10: ADJOURNMENT 533 MOTION by Paul Guthrie to adjourn the December 18th Planning Board Meeting at 9:27 p.m. Seconded by David 534 Blankfard. 535 VOTE: Unanimous 536 537 ____________________________________ 538 Lydia Wegman, Chair 539 540 14 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: January 10, 2018 Action Agenda Item No. 8 SUBJECT: Class A Special Use Permit – Solar Array off US Highway 70 in Cheeks Township DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Application 2. Site Plan 3. Site Assessment 4. Special Use Permit Findings of Fact and Staff Recommendation Patrick Mallett, Planner II (919) 245-2577 Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597 Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2592 5. Staff Review Comments 6. Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) Materials Under Separate Cover – Full Scale Copy of Site Plan PURPOSE: To review and make a recommendation on a Class A Special Use Permit (hereafter ‘SUP’) application proposing the development of a solar array in accordance with Section 2.7 Special Use Permits and Section 5.9.6 (C) Solar Array-Public Utility of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). As a reminder, the review of this item by the BOCC is carried out in a quasi-judicial format. Decisions relating to the ultimate approval or denial of SUP applications are based solely on the sworn testimony of all parties involved with the case, both those for and against, as well as the review of competent material and substantial evidence submitted during the public hearing. Hearsay or unsubstantiated opinions are not sufficient testimony. STAFF COMMENT: This application was previously reviewed by the Planning Board at its August 3, 2016 regular meeting and approved by the BOCC on September 12, 2016. This approval expired on September 12, 2017, and therefore needs to be re-approved. According to the applicant, market changes and Federal and State regulatory changes prevented them from proceeding with the development prior to the expiration of the original approval. These issues have since been resolved, and the applicant has resubmitted the project for consideration. CADENCE OF REVIEW: The review of a SUP is as follows: 15 • STEP ONE – NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The first step in the review of a SUP application is a holding of a NIM to allow the applicant to meet with local property owners to review the project. STAFF COMMENT: The required NIM was held on December 13, 2017, from 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. in accordance with the UDO. Please refer to Attachment 6 for additional information. • STEP TWO – PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: The Planning Board reviews the request and makes a recommendation to the BOCC on the project’s compliance with specific development standards (Section 5.9.6) and the general standards (Section 5.3.2 Special Uses) of the UDO. Staff prepares a script to aid the Board in making a recommendation. STAFF COMMENT: This review will begin at the January 10, 2018 regular meeting where the Board will be asked to make a recommendation. Please refer to Attachment 4 for additional information. • STEP THREE – PUBLIC HEARING: The BOCC holds a public hearing to allow the applicant and other parties with legal standing to provide sworn testimony related to the proposal. STAFF COMMENT: At this time, staff anticipates the required public hearing will be held at the February 6, 2018 BOCC regular meeting. • STEP FOUR – DECISION: The BOCC will review the Planning Board recommendation as well as any other evidence presented at the hearing, deliberate as necessary, certify the record, close the public hearing, and then render a final decision. BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to develop a solar facility on a 27.3 acre leased portion of the 52.1 acre subject property with the remaining 24.8 acres being undeveloped. Please refer to Attachment(s) 2 and 3 for additional information. Proposed individual arrays shall be approximately 7 to 9 feet in height, with approximately 2 to 3 feet of ground clearance, and approximately 50 feet in length. A gated 6 foot high chain link security fence, topped with 3 feet of strand barbed wire, shall enclose the perimeter of the array to prevent access. This fenced area shall be further surrounded by a Type D 50 foot wide landscaped buffer. There shall be no business or other occupied office located on the property. Vehicular access is proposed via a 30 to 50 foot wide access easement through Orange County PIN 9835-10-3858 to an existing driveway onto US Highway 70. This parcel is also owned by the family leasing the subject areas to Oakwood Solar Farm LLC / ESA Renewables. The site contains floodplain, numerous stream buffers, and connected water body features in the northeastern and eastern portions of the subject parcel. With the exception of installing allowed public and/or private utilities (e.g. water and sewer), these areas will remain undisturbed and provide the required 65 and 80 foot wide stream buffers along the floodplain and top of bank. The area in the northeastern corner of the site will contain a Natural Buffer Area along the 100-year floodplain and stream buffers. Analysis: As required under Section 2.7.4 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to: ‘cause an analysis to be made of the application’ and pass that analysis on to the reviewing body. In analyzing this request, the Planning Director offers the following: 16 a. Application submittal requirements detailed within Section 2.7 of the UDO have been satisfied. b. The applicant has demonstrated compliance with respect to landscaping and buffering requirements as detailed within Section 6.8 of the UDO. c. Staff has made the determination that a formal Environmental Impact Statement would not be required per Section 6.16 of the UDO. d. The applicant has complied with specific development standards associated with the development of a solar facility as detailed within Section 5.9.6 (C) of the UDO. e. Comments received from various County agencies (e.g. Sheriff, Fire Marshal, DEAPR, Orange County Health) indicate there are no concerns associated with the request. f. When this project was first acted upon, staff recommended the imposition of a condition requiring a conservation easement be placed on the portion of the property encumbered by floodplain. The applicant agreed to the imposition of this condition and began moving forward with compliance. Unfortunately issues arose relating to the imposition of this conservation easement. Specifically, the applicant faced difficulty in establishing the easement and complying with applicable local and State regulations/guidelines. After lengthy discussion and review of this matter, it was determined that the easement would be difficult to establish while maintaining compliance with applicable provisions of State law. Also, the granting of the easement would not necessarily be within the interests of the County, property owners, or the applicant. The new application proposes to preserve the same area via a natural buffer that would be recorded on the plat and stipulated as a Condition of Approval for this Class A SUP. Staff supports the revised condition as detailed herein. g. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the various goals outlined within the Comprehensive Plan concerning development, including: 1. Natural and Cultural Systems Goal 1: Energy conservation, sustainable use of non-polluting renewable energy resources, efficient use of non-renewable energy resources and clean air. 2. Objective AE-15: Foster participation in green energy programs such as installation incentives for solar hot water/solar generation/solar tempering in residential or commercial construction. The County should develop programs that will link citizens and businesses with options for alternative and sustainable energy sources. 3. Objective AG-8: Encourage the use and production of natural fuel alternatives to petroleum based products and pursue new types of energy sources. Planning Director’s Recommendation: In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7.4 of the UDO, the Planning Director recommends approval of the application subject to: • Approval of the recommended Findings of Fact as detailed within Attachment 4; • The imposition of the recommended conditions detailed within Attachment 4; and • The Planning Board’s and BOCC’s ability to make an affirmative finding on the general standards outlined within Section 5.3.2 of the UDO. 17 FINANCIAL IMPACT: Staff has determined the project would not require augmentation of County budgetary outlays to support services and that anticipated revenues from property taxes should supplement increases in cost. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board: 1. Deliberate as necessary; 2. Review the Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval as contained in Attachment 4; 3. If deemed necessary, suggest additional conditions or modifications to the site plan; 4. Consider the Planning Director’s recommendation for approval; and 5. Make a recommendation to the BOCC regarding the Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval as detailed within Attachment 4 in time for the BOCC’s February 6, 2018 regular meeting. 18 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 39 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 6 5 7 5 8 5 9 6 0 6 1 6 2 6 3 6 4 6 5 6 6 6 7 6 8 6 9 7 0 7 1 7 2 7 3 7 4 7 5 7 6 7 7 7 8 7 9 8 0 8 1 8 2 8 3 8 4 8 5 8 6 8 7 8 8 8 9 9 0 9 1 9 2 9 3 9 4 9 5 9 6 9 7 9 8 9 9 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 3 1 0 4 1 0 5 1 0 6 1 0 7 1 0 8 1 0 9 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 1 5 1 1 6 1 1 7 1 1 8 1 1 9 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 4 1 2 5 1 2 6 1 2 7 1 2 8 1 2 9 1 3 0 1 3 1 1 3 2 1 3 3 1 3 4 1 3 5 1 3 6 1 3 7 1 3 8 1 3 9 1 4 0 1 4 1 1 4 2 1 4 3 1 4 4 1 4 5 1 4 6 1 4 7 1 4 8 1 4 9 1 5 0 1 5 1 152 69 2 67 0 66 8 66 6 6 9 4 6 6 4 692 6 9 4 6 9 6 67 2 6 7 4 67 6 67 8 68 0 6 8 2 684 68 6 71 671 4 712 7 1 0 7 0 8 7 0 6 7 0 4 7 0 2 6 8 0 6 8 2 68 4 686688 6 9 0 666 6 6 8 670672 6 7 4 6 7 6 6 7 8 710 7 0 8 706 70 4 70 2 716 70 8 7 0 6 7 0 4 70 4 7 0 6 7 0 8 7 1 0 712 71 0 6 7 4 67 2 6 9 0 692694 696 6 6 6 6 6 8 670 654 6 5 6 658 7 2 0 718 714 716 714 7 1 2 6 8 8 69 0 722720 718 70 0 6 6 0 664696 70 0 660 66 2 66 4 7 0 0 718 71 6 6 9 6 716 6 9 6 6 9 8 702 704702 720 718 66 2 69 8 700 7 0 4 70 2 19 8 ' 100' 108' 13 3 ' 15 6 ' 15 9 ' 158' 159 ' 357' 160' 301' 164' 167' 168' 168' 4 3 7 ' 177' 181' 18 3 ' 18 4 ' 18 4 ' 18 4 ' 18 5 ' 1 8 9 ' 191' 448' 1 9 2 ' 1 9 3 ' 1 9 4 ' 19 5 ' 195' 19 6 ' 19 6 ' 198' 301' 198' 20 0 ' 20 0 '20 0 ' 200' 201' 20 1 ' 2 0 1 ' 201' 2 0 2 ' 20 2 ' 2 0 2 ' 20 3 ' 20 4 ' 20 5 ' 205' 20 5 ' 210' 210' 212' 214' 301' 21 6 ' 218' 219' 22 4 ' 2 2 5 ' 2 2 5 ' 22 8 ' 230' 231' 301' 236' 13 8 6 ' 238' 239'240' 241' 24 1 ' 24 4 ' 2 4 7 ' 247' 247 ' 250' 302' 252' 299'409'419 ' 265' 302' 274' 2 7 5 ' 2 7 5 ' 282' 282' 283' 285' 286' 288' 291' 292 ' 297' 2 9 8 ' 3 0 0 ' 301' 30 1 ' 301'301' 301' 301'302'302'302'302'302'302' 302' 302' 307' 309' 311' 31 3 ' 31 8 ' 319' 322' 324' 327' 328' 329' 593' 341' 357'357' 357' 357' 358' 358' 358' 359' 359' 359' 359' 359' 359' 359' 359' 3 6 1 ' 380' 4 1 2 ' 40 4 ' 392' 39 8 ' 40 3 ' 40 3 ' 40 4 ' 40 4 ' 40 7 ' 421' 431' 441' 442' 44 5 ' 6 7 9 ' 466' 864' 50 0 ' 5 2 3 ' 53 6 ' 5 4 3 ' 552' 56 0 ' 58 0 ' 6 1 0 ' 79 5 ' 80 6 ' 655' 697' 699 ' 702' 72 1 ' 741' 751' 775' 79 3 ' 95 9 ' 811' 848' 88 1 ' 883' 956' 12 0 4 ' EC5 NC2 E C 5 EC5EC 5 EC 5 ME R1 ME S H A M B L E Y R D M A C E R D WOODLANDDR HOOVER RD SCARLETT ST E WASHINGTON ST EXT US 70 W 672 658 674 676 654 663 678 694 660 669 667 656 680 686 682 692 684 688 665 690 663 66 4 BackCreekProtected Watershed Haw CreekUnprotectedWatershed Soil: GeB Soil: GeB Soil: GeC Soil: HrB Soil: EnC Soil: GeC Soil: TaD Soil: TaD Soil: HrC Soil: W Soil: HrB Soil: W Soil: W Soil: HrB Soil: W Soil: HrB Soil: GhC USGS Stream Soils Survey Stream Floodplain Buffer 80ft Stream Buffer 80ft Water Body Buffer 65ft 2' Contours (NCDOT) Parcels Zoning Water Body Watershed City Limits ETJ Soils 100 YR Floodplain (Effective 02/02/07) Floodway (Effective 02/02/07) 500 Year Floodplains (Effective 02/02/07) Base Flood Elevation (Symbol) FIRM · 0 150 300Feet 1 inch = 600 feet Data shown on this map is obtained from Orange County GIS and is for reference only. Exact locations and boundaries should be verified. Map prepared by Orange County Planning & Inspections. 06/02/2016 - rmccook PIN#: 9835029137 HELEN ETAL MACE CARL JERRY MACE 6517 US HIGHWAY 70 MEBANE, NC 273027598 Environmental Features:Streams located on lot. Stream buffer for stream to the east:80 ft. (Method A). Stream buffer for stream to the west: 65 ft.(Method A). Six water bodies located to the west. Water bodybuffers: 65 ft. (Method A). Slope: Slope of stream to the east: 8.8%. Slope of stream to thewest: 6.4%. Slopes of water bodies to the west: ranging from2.4% to 6.4% 100 and 500 year Floodplains Base Flood Elevation (BFE) based on FIRM Map: 663County Freeboard: 665Minimum Finished Floor Elevation (FFE): 665Flood Panel: 9835J Impervious Surface Limits: 12% based on UDO (Sec. 4.2.6) -272,337.12 sq. ft. of allowable impervious surface areaNote: On-site infiltration of the first inch of stormwater runoff, perUDO, Sec. 4.2.6 for non-residential use Land Disturbance Thresholds (Erosion Control)1) Erosion Control Application/Permit required if disturbing morethan 20,000 sq. ft.2) Stormwater Management Application/Permit required if morethan 21,780 sq. ft. (1/2 an acre) for commercial structures.***Call OC Erosion Control at (919) 245-2586 for moreinformation. Date Site Assessment Completed: Updated 05/26/2016 Site Assessment for PIN: 9835-02-9137 for proposed Solar ArrayPublic Utility (Class A Special Use Permit), non-residential Site DataZoning: Rural Residential (R1) and designated 10 YearTransitional Area on Future Land Use MapAcreage: 52.1 acres Overlay Districts: Back Creek Protected Watershed OverlayDistrict and Efland-Cheeks Hwy 70 Overlay DistrictDeed: No deed reference found. Legal Reference: 10-E-451.Plat/Legal Description: N/O Hwy 70 (no plat found) Building Setbacks for Special Use Permit (Class A)100 ft. from all property lines50 ft. Type D Land Use Buffer shall be provided along any portionof the perimeter of the parcel and easements(see UDO, 5.10.3 C (2) (f)Maximum height: 40' Notes:(1) Private Road Justifications, Recorded Declarations,Restrictive Covenants, Bona Fide Farm status, use and buildingtype (e.g. duplex units) will change subdivision and developmentrequirements. (2) 80 ft. stream buffer graphically shown. (3) FloorArea Ratio (FAR) maximum for residential conditional use = 0.58.FAR maximum for non-residential use = 0.088. FAR maximum fornon-residential conditional use = 0.100. Required minimum openspace ratio = 0.84. Required minimum livability space ratio =0.75. Required pedestrian/landscape ratio = 0.21.(2) BMP may be required 153 FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD PERTAINING TO A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY OAKWOOD SOLAR FARM SOLAR LLC / ESA RENEWABLES AND MR. CARL AND HELEN MACE, ETAL REQUESTING A CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A SOLAR ARRAY-PUBLIC UTILITY ON A PARCEL OF PROPERTY OFF OF US HIGHWAY 70 FURTHER IDENTIFIED UTILIZING ORANGE COUNTY PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (PIN) 9835-02-9137. As required under Section 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), a Class A Special Use Permit is required for the development of a solar facility. Such permits shall comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Section(s) 5.3.2 and 5.9.6 of the UDO. Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the UDO requires written findings certifying compliance with the following: (1) The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted; (2) The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property); and (3) The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners; In addition, the Board shall make findings certifying that the application is compliant with the following specific standards: (1) Specific standards for the submission of Special Use Permit applications as outlined within Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7 of the UDO, (2) Section 5.3.2 (B) relating to the method and adequacy of the provision of: a. Sewage disposal facilities, b. The adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection, and c. The adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site (3) Specific regulations governing the development of school as set forth in Section 5.9.6 of the UDO, (4) The general findings outlined within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2). Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning staff regarding the application in question. The findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Planning Board in its deliberations. Attachment 4 154 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning Board Recommen dation APPLICATION COMPONENTS Proper forms 2.2 Application and supporting documents (Attachment 1) Yes Fees paid 2.2.4(D) Staff Testimony/Receipt Yes Full description of use  Location  Appearance  Operational characteristics 2.7.3(B)(1) Application and supporting documents (Attachment 1) Yes Owner Information 2.7.3(B)(2) Application (Attachment 1) Yes Information Needed for Use Standards 2.7.3(B)(3) Application and supporting documents (Attachment 1) Yes Site Plans 2.7.3(B)(4) Site Plan (Attachment 2) Yes Preliminary Subdivision Plat (if necessary) 2.7.3(B)(5) No subdivision proposed: Survey of access easement was provided. N/A List of Parcels within 1,000 feet 2.7.3(B)(6) Application and supporting documents (Attachment 1) Yes Elevations of all Structures 2.7.3(B)(7) No structures (i.e. buildings) are being proposed. Elevation of solar arrays and fence provided with site plan (Attachments 1 and 2) Yes Environmental Assessment (or EIS)  Topography  Drainage issues  Natural or Cultural resources  Mining  Hazardous Wastes  Wastewater treatment  Water usage 2.7.3(B)(8) Application and supporting documents – including EA and Phase I Environmental Assessment (Attachment 1) Yes Method of Debris Disposal 2.7.3(B)(9) Application and site plan (Attachments 1 and 2) Yes Development Schedule 2.7.3(B)(10) Application – Narrative (Attachment 1) Yes Extended Vesting Request 2.7.3(B)(11) Not requested by applicant N/A 155 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning Board Recommen dation NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS Public Notice  Date  Time  Place 2.7.5(a) Staff comment(s) that Planning Board meeting was properly advertised as required by the UDO. Notice for Public Hearing shall be sent in accordance with UDO with documentation denoting compliance with same provided as part of the agenda packet. Yes Published in Newspaper  Two successive weeks  First notice at least ten days prior but no more than twenty-five days prior 2.7.5(b) Staff comment(s) that Planning Board meeting was properly advertised as required by the UDO. Advertisement for Public Hearing shall be in accordance with UDO with documentation denoting compliance with same as part of the agenda packet. Yes Sign Posting on Property (at least 10 days prior) 2.7.5(c) Staff posted sign for NIM on December 1, 2017; and on December 22, 2017 for the Planning Board meeting. Yes Mailed Notice  First Class Mail  All adjacent property owners (within 1,000 ft.)  Not less than fifteen days prior 2.7.5(d) Staff mailed NIM notices on November 27, 2017, and Planning Board notices on December 22, 2017. Staff to mail Quarterly Public Hearing no later than January 26, 2018. Yes 156 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning Board Recommen dation SPECIFIC STANDARDS Waste Disposal Method and adequacy of provision for sewage disposal facilities, solid waste and water service. 5.3.2(B)(1) Both Environmental Health and Solid Waste have indicated they have no concerns. As there are no structures (i.e. office) there will be no septic system on the property. Conditions are recommended to require Solid Waste Permit as part of development process. Yes Safety Method and adequacy of police, fire and rescue squad protection. 5.3.2(B)(2) Orange County Emergency Service staff and the Sheriff’s office have indicated the project can be served. Yes Vehicle Access Method and adequacy of vehicle access to the site and traffic conditions around the site. 5.3.2(B)(3) There will not be an appreciable traffic increase in the area associated with the development of the solar array. The applicant obtained a new driveway permit through NC DOT on May 3, 2017. The proposed access easement to US Highway 70 will be recorded prior to development. Yes 157 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning Board Recomm endation STANDARDS for Solar Array – Public Utility Site Plan A site plan prepared in accordance with Section 2.5 of and 5.9.6 (C) (1) inclusive of UDO 5.9.6 (C) (1) (a) through (d) Application, Applicant Testimony, Staff Testimony, and Site Plan. Site plan provides elevations for proposed arrays, fencing and landscaping. The application, EA and Phase I Environmental contain required soils information and reports (Attachment 1) Yes Standards of Evaluation On-site utility and transmission lines placed underground when feasible 5.9.6 (C) (2) (a) Application, Applicant Testimony, Staff Testimony, and Site Plan (Attachments 1 and 2). Yes Height of array shall not exceed 40 ft. 5.9.6 (C) (2) (b) Application, Applicant Testimony, Staff Testimony, and Site Plan (Attachments 1 and 2). Yes Individual arrays shall be designed and located to prevent reflective glare toward inhabited buildings on adjacent property and rights-of- way. 5.9.6 (C) (2) (c) Application, Applicant Testimony, Staff Testimony, and Site Plan (Attachments 1 and 2). Yes Warning signs concerning voltage. 5.9.6 (C) (2) (d) Application, Applicant Testimony, Staff Testimony, and Site Plan (Attachments 1 and 2). Yes Mechanical equipment and arrays shall be enclosed by a minimum 8 ft. high fence and screening per Section 6.8 of UDO. 5.9.6 (C) (2) (e) Application, Applicant Testimony, Staff Testimony, and Site Plan (Attachments 1 and 2). Yes Proof of liability insurance – minimum of $500,000.00 per occurrence. 5.9.6 (C) (2) (f) Application and Applicant Testimony (Attachment 1). Yes Type D land use buffer around perimeter of project 5.9.6 (C) (2) (g) Application, Applicant Testimony, Staff Testimony, and Site Plan (Attachments 1 and 2). Yes 158 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning Board Recomm endation STANDARDS for Solar Array – Public Utility (continued) Decommissioning of solar facility 5.9.6 (C) (3) (a) through (f) inclusive Application, Applicant Testimony, Staff Testimony, and Site Plan (Attachments 1 and 2). Applicant acknowledges requirement and agreed to the condition in the event the use of the site as a solar array – public utility is ceased. Yes 159 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning Board Recomm endation SPECIFIC STANDARDS In accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2), the Planning Board shall also consider the following general conditions before the application for a Special Use can be approved. NOTE: Planning Staff will provide a recommendation on these items during the January 10, 2018 Planning Board meeting once the applicant provides required information. The use (will / will not) maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted. Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) Application package and testimony from applicant and their subject matter experts on how the project complied with the UDO. 160 REQUIREMENT UDO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Staff Planning Board Recomm endation The use (will / will not) maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property). Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) Application package and testimony from applicant and their subject matter experts on how the project complied with the UDO. The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, (will / will not) be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) Application package and testimony from applicant and their subject matter experts on how the project complied with the UDO. 161 1. In accordance with Section(s) 6.13 and 6.21 of the UDO, and consistent with the approved application, the applicant shall maintain and preserve the area in the northeastern corner of the property encumbered by the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) as depicted on recently adopted FEMA Flood Maps, and the associated 80 foot wide adjacent stream/floodplain buffers. With the exception of installing public and/or private water and/or public sanitary sewer and/or the removal of dead, diseased, or dying plant materials, this 4.25 acre area shall remain undisturbed as required within the UDO. 2. In accordance with Sections 6.13, 6.21, and 5.9.6 (C) of the UDO, the applicant shall cause a formal and detailed landscape and tree preservation plan to be submitted and approved by the Orange County Planning Department within 180 days from the approval of this Special Use Permit. This plan shall also incorporate the preservation of environmentally sensitive areas such as jurisdictional streams, wetlands, floodplain areas, and all required stream/floodplain buffers. 3. In accordance with Section 7.14 of the UDO, the applicant shall cause a plat to be submitted and recorded to illustrate all lease, access, and utility easements on the subject area. 4. Per Section 2.5 of the UDO, the applicant shall complete and submit a formal application to the Orange County Inspections Department requesting authorization to commence construction of the proposed solar array. The application, including all applicable fees, shall be submitted within 180 days from the approval of the Special Use Permit. 5. To ensure public safety as outlined in Section 5.3.2 of the UDO, the Orange County Fire Marshal’s office shall review and approve the final site plan and ensure that any and all modifications be made to address fire code and access issues prior to the issuance of the permit authorizing the commencement of land disturbing activities. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has not received any comments from local residents and property owners indicating they do not believe the proposed facility complies with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) inclusive. These standards include maintaining or promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare, maintaining or enhancing the value of contiguous property, the use is in harmony with the area in which it is to be located, and the use being in compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the County. Staff has reviewed the application, the site plan, and all supporting documentation and has found that the applicant complies with the specific standards and required regulations as outlined within the UDO with respect to the submittal of required information for the project. Provided the Planning Board finds in the affirmative on the specific and general standards as detailed herein, and no evidence is entered into the record demonstrating the applicant has either: a. Failed to meet their burden of proof that the project complies with the specific development standards for a school; or b. Fails to comply with the general standards detailed within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the UDO, the Board could make an affirmative recommendation on this application to the BOCC. In the event that the Board makes an affirmative finding, staff recommends the attachment of the following conditions: 162 6. To ensure public safety as outlined in Section 5.3.2 of the UDO, the applicant shall provide a detailed, scaled, map to the Orange County Fire Marshal’s office and the Efland Volunteer Fire Department denoting the location of all storage areas for batteries, master cut-off switches, and other similar devices to ensure the protection of emergency responders in the event of a catastrophic incident on the property. This map shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance (C of C) by the County allowing for operation of the facility to commence. 7. To ensure compliance with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 of the UDO, the applicant shall submit a Solid Waste Management application for the project within 180 days from the approval of the Special Use Permit. 8. To ensure compliance with the provisions of Section(s) 2.5, 2.19, 2.21 and 5.3.2 of the UDO, the applicant submit all necessary site plans, stormwater, grading plans, and erosion control applications to the Orange County Erosion Control Division for review and processing prior to development or land disturbing activity. These applications shall be submitted within 180 days from the issuance of the SUP. 9. In accordance with Section 2.5 of the UDO, the applicant shall submit the approved site plan and approved driveway permit to NC DOT for review and comment within 180 days from the issuance of the SUP and provide planning staff with a copy of the issued permit. 10. In accordance with 2.7.14 of the UDO, the Special Use Permit will automatically expire within 12 months from the date of approval if the use has not commenced or construction has not commenced or proceeded unless a timely application for extension of this time limit is approved by the BOCC. 11. In accordance with 2.7 of the UDO, if any condition of this Special Use Permit shall be held invalid or void, then this Special Use Permit shall be void in its entirety and of no effect. 163 1 6 4 1 6 5 1 6 6 1 6 7 1 6 8 1 6 9 1 7 0 1 7 1 1 7 2 1 7 3 1 7 4 1 7 5 1 7 6 1 7 7 1 7 8 1 7 9 1 8 0 1 8 1 1 8 2 1 8 3 1 8 4 1 8 5 1 8 6 1 8 7 1 8 8 1 8 9 1 9 0 1 9 1 1 9 2 1 9 3 1 9 4 1 9 5 1 9 6 1 9 7 1 9 8 1 9 9 2 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 2 0 3 2 0 4 2 0 5 2 0 6 2 0 7 2 0 8 2 0 9 2 1 0 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 4 2 1 5 2 1 6 2 1 7 2 1 8 2 1 9 2 2 0 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 2 2 5 2 2 6 2 2 7 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: January 10, 2018 Action Agenda Item No. 9 SUBJECT: Zoning Atlas Amendment: Conditional Zoning – Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Applicant Responses and Additional Documentation 2. Additional TIA Roadmap(s) 3. Staff Comments 4. Excerpt of Draft December 18, 2017 Planning Board Minutes 5. Revised Statement of Consistency 6. Revised Condition(s) of Approval Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2575 Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597 PURPOSE: To continue review and comment on modifications to the Settlers Point Master Plan Development – Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) application and make a final recommendation to the BOCC on the proposal. BACKGROUND: This item was last reviewed at the Board’s December 18, 2017 meeting to review suggested modification(s) to proposed/recommended conditions. Items requiring continued review/discussion include: 1. Recommended Conditions: a. CONDITION 13 (h) (vi) MTC BUFFER – The applicant has supplied the requested schematic. Please refer to Attachment 1 for more detail. 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. The MTC buffer in District 1 shall remain undisturbed. With respect to District 2, the applicant is proposing the following: • Reduce the width of the MTC Buffer in District 2 from 100 ft. to 50 ft. in width, specifically beginning at the intersection of Old NC Highway 86 with the Interstate 40 on-ramp, extending approximately 2,000 ft. east. This will allow for development of necessary utility infrastructure, internal roadways, parking areas, stormwater features, etc. in support of the project. 228 STAFF COMMENT: The total area encumbered by the MTC Buffer in District 2 is 308,200 sq.ft. (3,082 ft. of linear frontage along Interstate 40 multiplied by the standard MTC Buffer width of 100 ft.). Approximately 154,100 sq.ft. 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 ft. to 50 ft. for approximately 2,000 linear ft., reducing the required buffer by 100,000 sq.ft. (2,000 ft. of linear frontage along Interstate 40 multiplied by the 50 ft. MTC Buffer reduction). Further clearing, as discussed herein, is proposed within said areas to be re-vegetated. This is to create visual breaks for the project. Please note the remaining 1,082 linear ft. of MTC Buffer, which the applicant has indicated will remain 100 ft. in width, includes area encumbered by an existing 150 ft. wide utility easement. Foliage within this easement has already been eliminated to support location of overhead power lines. • The remaining 1,082 linear ft. of Interstate frontage will have an MTC Buffer width of 100 ft. STAFF COMMENT: This area includes property encumbered by an existing 150 ft. wide utility easement (i.e. overhead power lines). Foliage within this easement has already been eliminated. • 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 ft. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant has not provided sufficient detail on the proposed ‘low-growth landscaping’ envisioned for the area. The applicant indicated during the December 18, 2017 Planning Board meeting a 100 ft. 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. STAFF COMMENT: As indicated herein the applicant has the legal ability to clear 154,100 sq.ft. of MTC Buffer per current standards. The applicant will need to demonstrate how the proposed modification complies with this allowance. b. CONDITION 13 (k) SIGNAGE – The BOCC expressed concern over a lack of detail on how the architectural landmark freestanding sign and entry portal signs would look. 229 STAFF COMMENT: The applicant has supplied the requested examples. Please refer to Attachment 1 for more detail. c. LAND USE – SCHOOLS, Elementary, Middle, and Secondary: While we are awaiting additional comment from the Orange County School system on the viability/need for a school site south of Interstate 40, the applicant has agreed to eliminate the proposed use from the project consistent with staff’s recommendation. d. UTILITY CONDITION(S): As articulated at the December 18, 2017 Planning Board meeting, staff recommended the imposition of the following additional condition: Looped water systems shall be required to ensure necessary water flow and pressure within each development district. The applicant has requested the condition be revised as follows: Looped water systems shall be may be required to ensure necessary water flow and pressure within each development district. These requirements and ultimate improvements are the responsibility of the developer. STAFF COMMENT: Staff is not supportive of the proposed revision(s) by the applicant and would like to review alternatives with the Board. 2. Revisions to project concept plan: a. 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 a tree survey could be provided as part of the initial site plan submittal but will not be available for review as part of the rezoning application review process. 3. 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 has responded to the suggestion as follows: 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 standards; IES/ANSI, OSHA, etc. to maintain safe lighting conditions for employees, business owners and the public. Definitive language will have to be reviewed and discussed at the January 10, 2018 meeting. 230 b. A final recommendation needs to be made with respect to an applicant proposed condition limiting the percentage of retail operation(s) allowed in District 2 to 30% or 78,540 sq.ft. of total cumulative floor area. The Town of Hillsborough has suggested a limitation on retail of 20,000 sq.ft. of cumulative floor area, approximately 8%. c. 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 has responded to the suggestion 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 this time staff is not recommending the imposition of a condition on the hours of operation for non-residential land uses. d. BOCC members requested the applicant update and provide additional detail on the tax assessment information contained within the application outlining the anticipated tax benefits of the project for the County. There was a general concern there was insufficient information provided within the application supporting identified findings. 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. Approved minutes from the meting can be viewed at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/10.4.17PlanningBoardMinutes.pdf. The application was reviewed the November 14, 2017 Quarterly Public Hearing. Agenda materials from the public hearing can be accessed at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/document_center/BOCCAgendaMinutes/171114.pdf. Minutes from the public hearing can be viewed at: http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/weblink8/0/doc/49440/Page1.aspx. The Planning Board reviewed proposed revisions to recommended conditions at its December 18, 2017 regular meeting. Agenda materials from this meeting can be accessed at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/DecemberPBAgendaPacket.pdf. A copy of the draft minutes from this meeting is contained in Attachment 4. Planning Director’s Recommendation: The Planning Director continues to recommend approval of the application, including a revised Statement of Consistency as contained within Attachment 5 and a new resolution of approval with the imposition conditions as referenced herein detailed in Attachment 6, summarized as follows: ‐ Fire Marshal approvals (Town and County). 231 ‐ Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) buffer consistent with the applicant’s requested modifications as detailed herein. ‐ 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. ‐ Transportation - Various improvements as detailed in Attachments 1 and 2, summarized herein, for two 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 preservation of specimen trees. ‐ 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). FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments who have determined that the approval or denial of the request would not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. Costs associated with advertising, including the public hearing notice and mailings, were paid by the applicant in accordance with the adopted Orange County Fee Schedule. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board: 1. Receive the revised information, 2. Deliberate on the proposal as desired, 3. Consider the Planning Director’s recommendation, and 4. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the revised Statement of Consistency (Attachment 5) and the proposed ordinance (Attachment 6). 232 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 my changes, did this on phone so read all of them carefully  Jim Parker    On Dec 8, 2017, at 4:11 PM, Michael Harvey <mharvey@orangecountync.gov> wrote:  Per today’s meeting the following additional/modified conditions to the Settlers Point MPD‐CZ  application should be proposed/suggested by the applicant:     1. CONDITION 3 (Utilities) – Add a new subsection (e) reading as follows:     (e) Looped water systems maybe required to provide necessary water flow and pressure within  each development district. These requirements and ultimate improvements are the responsibility  of the developer.        2. CONDITION 5 (Transportation) –A new subsection (c) to read as follows:     (c) Development of District 1 shall utilize the existing Service Road to obtain access to Old NC  Highway 86.  At the time development in District 1 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 (other than a traffic signal at this intersection) an  alternative traffic alignment/improvement shall be required to serve District 1 which will allow  for both left and right turn access onto Old NC Highway 86.  This alternative, with substantiating  TIA, shall be reviewed and approved by Orange County and the NC Department of  Transportation and shall be installed in conjunction with the site development that generates the  traffic that exceeds the above defined threshold. These improvements are the responsibility of  the developer.     3. CONDITION 5 (Transportation) –A new subsection (d) to read as follows:     (d)  Internal roadways within District 1 shall have dedicated right‐of‐ways extended to property  lines to serve adjacent property at no more than two locations.     4. CONDITION 13 (Land Use) – under Subsection (ii) addressing development in District 2 the  following new language shall be added related to the permitting of retail land uses:     Retail ‐  limited to 30% of the allowable floor area of District 2 not to exceed 78,500 sq.ft. of total  cumulative floor area.        Michael D. Harvey AICP, CFM, CZO  233 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.) 234 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: 235 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 236 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) 237 EXAMPLES OF PROPOSED LANDMARK FEATURE SIGN (AT I-40/OLD NC86 INTERSECTION) 238 EXAMPLES OF PROPOSED PORTAL SIGN AT ENTRANCE (AT PROJECT ENTRANCE OFF OLD NC86) 239 240 SETTLER'S POINT ALLOWABLE BREAK IN THE MTC BUFFER PER UDO SECTION 6.6.5 (A) District 1 District 2 I-40 Frontage Length 50% Allowed Break Length 3,052 ft.1,526 ft. 2,856 ft.1,428 ft. 241 242 JC C ( J U S T I N . C O A T S @ S U M M I T D E . N E T ) 16-0243_BASE 2017-12-07.dwg EXHIBIT CO M P R E H E N S I V E B U F F E R P L A N 1 inch = ft. GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FEET ) 250 BY DA T E RE V I S I O N S 132456 PROJECT NO. SHEET NO. DR A W I N G A L T E R A T I O N IT I S A V I O L A T I O N O F L A W F O R A N Y P E R S O N , UN L E S S A C T I N G U N D E R T H E D I R E C T I O N O F LI C E N S E D A R C H I T E C T , P R O F E S S I O N A L EN G I N E E R , L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T , O R LA N D S U R V E Y O R T O A L T E R A N Y I T E M O N TH I S D O C U M E N T I N A N Y W A Y . A N Y L I C E N S E E WH O A L T E R S T H I S D O C U M E N T I S R E Q U I R E D BY L A W T O A F F I X H I S O R H E R S E A L A N D T H E NO T A T I O N " A L T E R E D B Y " F O L L O W E D B Y H I S OR H E R S I G N A T U R E A N D S P E C I F I C DE S C R I P T I O N O F T H E A L T E R A T I O N S . PR O J E C T E N G I N E E R / A R C H I T E C T PR O J E C T M A N A G E R DR A W N B Y 7 DRAWING NAME: CO P Y R I G H T 2 0 1 7 SU M M I T D E S I G N A N D EN G I N E E R I N G S E R V I C E S C 16-0243 I- 4 0 A S S E M B L Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y , N O R T H C A R O L I N A IN T E R S T A T E 4 0 - E X I T 2 6 1 A T O L D H W Y 8 6 MA S T E R P L A N F O R C r e a t i v e l y I n s p i r e d - T e c h n i c a l l y E x e c u t e d Li c e n s e # : P - 0 3 3 9 50 4 M e a d o w l a n d D r i v e Hi l l s b o r o u g h , N C 2 7 2 7 8 - 8 5 5 1 Vo i c e : ( 9 1 9 ) 7 3 2 - 3 8 8 3 F a x : ( 9 1 9 ) 7 3 2 - 6 6 7 6 ww w . s u m m i t d e . n e t FI R S T I S S U E D A T E I N T E R S T A T E 4 0 INTER S T A T E 4 0 ENVIRONMENTAL BUFFER EXISTING STREAM EXISTING STREAM 150' POWER LINE EASEMENT 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN LIMIT (TYP) SERVICE R O A D I- 4 0 E B . R A M P I-40 WB. RAMP I-40 E B . R A M P I- 4 0 W B . R A M P OLD N C 8 6 100' BUFFER 10 0 ' BU F F E R 100' BUFFER 10 0 ' BU F F E R 50' B U F F E R (A L T E R N A T E ) 100' BUFFER PROPOSED BUFFER BREAKS (TYPICAL) 10 0 ' BU F F E R STREET FRONTAGE AREAS TO BE PLANTED 8 0 ' S T R E A M B U F F E R 8 0 ' S T R E A M B U F F E R 8 0 ' S T R E A M B U F F E R 8 0 ' S T R E A M B U F F E R 8 0 ' S T R E A M B U F F E R 8 0 ' S T R E A M B U F F E R 50' M I N . F L O O D PLAI 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 FEM A 1 0 0 - Y R . F L O O D P L A I N FEM A F L O O D W A Y FEM A F L O O D W A Y 5 0 ' M I N . F L O O D P L A I N B U F F E R 5 0 ' M I N . F L O O D P L A I N B U F F E R PROPOSED BUFFER BREAK (TYP.) 100' BUFFER TS ( T I M . S M I T H @ S U M M I T D E . N E T ) K: \ 2 0 1 6 \ 1 6 - 0 2 4 3 \ C i v i l \ C u r r e n t D r a w i n g s \ 1 6 - 0 2 4 3 _ B A S E 2 0 1 7 - 1 2 - 0 7 . d w g , B U F F E R P L A N , 1 2 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 7 1 0 : 3 1 : 2 1 A M , c o a t s j , 1 : 1 243 244 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 245 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 246 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 247 2 4 8 2 4 9 2 5 0 2 5 1 2 5 2 2 5 3 2 5 4 2 5 5 2 5 6 2 5 7 2 5 8 1 2 Minutes 3 Orange County Planning Board 4 December 18, 2017 5 Regular Meeting 6 7 8 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative; Tony Blake (Vice-Chair), 9 Bingham Township Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large 10 Chapel Hill Township; Kim Piracci, At-Large; Township; Alexander Gregory, Chapel Hill Township Representative; 11 David Blankfard, Hillsborough Township Representative; Randy Marshall, At-Large; Adam Beeman, Cedar Grove 12 Township; Hunter Spitzer, At-Large; 13 14 MEMBERS ABSENT: Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township 15 Representative; 16 17 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Meredith Kern, 18 Administrative Assistant; 19 20 OTHERS PRESENT: Cheryl Sadgrove, Minutes Preparer; Jim Parker, Summit Engineering; Ariel Gamboa, Summit 21 Engineering; Ed Sirgany, Summit Engineering; 22 23 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 24 25 Lydia Wegman called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and noted new members were present. 26 27 Adam Beeman said he moved here in 2008 and lives in Cedar Grove. He is interested in making sure the county 28 moves forward in a nice, controlled manner rather than what he experienced up north. 29 30 Hunter Spitzer said he is a sophomore at UNC. He has lived in Hillsborough all his life, is interested in planning and 31 wanted to get involved. 32 33 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 34 a. a) Planning Calendar for December and January 35 • January 10 – Planning Board Meeting 36 • January 23 – BOCC public hearing on this matter 37 • January 26 – BOCC retreat. Planning Board members are not required to attend. 38 39 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 40 November 1, 2017 41 42 MOTION by Paul Guthrie to approve the November 1, 2017, Regular Meeting Minutes. Seconded by Tony Blake. 43 VOTE: Unanimous 44 45 AGENDA ITEM 4. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 46 No additions to the agenda. 47 48 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 49 50 Introduction to the Public Charge 51 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 52 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development laws 53 of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 54 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner, which considers the present and future 55 Attachment 4 – Excerpt of Draft Minutes 259 needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to 56 and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every 57 effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our 58 deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 59 60 61 Public Charge 62 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 63 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 64 fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 65 public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 66 regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until 67 such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 68 69 Lydia Wegman read the public charge aloud. 70 71 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 72 There were no comments. 73 74 AGENDA ITEM 7: MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – SETTLER’S POINT - To review comments made at the 75 November 14 quarterly public hearing, proposed revisions to conditions as a result of comments, and to make a 76 recommendation on the proposed revisions concerning an application for an MPD-CZ (Master Plan Development 77 Conditional Zoning). The proposed project encompasses approximately 195 acres in the Hillsborough Economic 78 Development District (EDD) south of Interstate 40 on both sides of Old Highway 86. The public hearing for this item 79 has been extended until January 23, 2018. Additional review of remaining aspects of the application and an 80 additional recommendation by the Planning Board is scheduled for the January 10, 2018, Planning Board meeting. 81 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 82 83 Michael Harvey directed the board to the abstract on Page 11. He reviewed that this item was heard at the November 13, 84 2017, quarterly public hearing. It was referred back to the Planning Board for additional review because there were 85 modifications to several conditions and there was additional information on the transportation impact analysis (TIA). It is not 86 staff’s intention to ask the Planning Board to make a final vote this evening. Staff is asking for votes on direction. The Planning 87 Board is not asked to provide a final decision at this meeting because additional discussion is expected on the Major 88 Transportation Corridor (MTC) buffer in January. Staff is continuing to work with the applicant to address the comments made 89 at the public hearing. He noted that the applicant is represented here this evening. 90 91 Michael Harvey reviewed that the transportation analysis addendum is located on Page 20. Staff comments begin on page 41. 92 The summary of major questions/responses from the November public hearing starts on Page 62. General information about 93 the Conditional Zoning District starts on Page 77. An excerpt of the October Planning Board minutes begins on Page 80. The 94 November public hearing minutes start on Page 101. The revised conditions of approval start on Page 123. 95 96 Michael Harvey said he planned to walk the board through the revised conditions. 97 98 Kim Piracci asked for an explanation of the MTC buffer. Michael Harvey answered it’s a 100-foot buffer for all nonresidential 99 development along major highways, so it applies along Interstate 40. A 50 percent break in the buffer is allowed but it is to be 100 otherwise undisturbed. 101 102 Lydia Wegman requested that any images that would help explain the buffer be displayed. Michael Harvey shared an image 103 provided by the applicant. 104 105 Paul Guthrie asked if the interstate adjacent to this property has the standard 300-foot right of way and does the North 106 Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) have control of it. Michael Harvey answered that to his knowledge it is under 107 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 108 through the federal government. 109 110 260 Michael Harvey showed an image provided by the applicant that indicates where the100-foot buffer is to be located. He 111 reviewed that the applicant is proposing no breaks in the buffer for District 1. He noted that District 3 had been removed from 112 the proposal completely. In District 2, the applicant is allowed to create visual breaks in the MTC buffer. The developers plan 113 to stick to the 50 percent breaks. The image indicated where the intermittent breaks would be located. 114 115 Patricia Roberts asked whether 50 percent breaks is an Orange County law. Michael Harvey answered yes. 116 117 Kim Piracci noted the breaks are 50 percent of width (along the border of the property) and not in depth. Michael Harvey 118 affirmed that. He said the Orange County Board of Commissioners has expressed some concern that the applicant is also 119 proposing to do some selective clearing within the MTC buffer for utility infrastructure and roadway networks. This will be 120 discussed more in this review. 121 122 Paul Guthrie asked whether there is any knowledge of long-term expansion of I-40 in that area. Michael Harvey said 123 expanding has to occur in the 300-foot right of way unless the federal government procures more land. There is talk of 124 expanding I-40 into three lanes as it is in Durham. He believes that can be accommodated with the existing right of way. 125 126 Michael Harvey said on Page 13, the first condition up for discussion is Condition 6, contained in Attachment 7, granting 127 Orange Rural Fire Department denial authority. The applicant has indicated they don’t mind the fire department being a review 128 party but they don’t think the fire department should have power to deny the application. Instead, the applicant suggests the 129 power to deny the application be left to the fire marshals from the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County. The Orange 130 County Board of Commissioners has requested this board’s opinion on whether Orange Rural Fire Department should have 131 denial authority. Typically, fire departments review such applications but do not have authority to deny them, Michael Harvey 132 said. 133 134 Tony Blake said the intent was they be included in the review but not have approval or denial. The main thing is they be 135 involved. Michael Harvey asked for a show of consensus to modify the condition to allow Orange Rural Fire Department to 136 have review but not denial authority. 137 138 MOTION by Randy Marshall that Orange Rural Fire Department have a review but not action to approve or deny the 139 application. Seconded by Hunter Spitzer. 140 VOTE: Unanimous 141 142 Michael Harvey continued with the presentation. He reviewed the next condition to be discussed involves the MTC 143 buffer. The applicant does not propose any disturbance breaks in District 1, which is the industrial district. The 144 applicant had asked for clearing 60 percent of the buffer instead of 50 percent in District 2. The Orange County Board 145 of Commissioners expressed reservation about allowing the additional clearing. The applicant has since submitted to 146 staff that they will abide by the ordinance allowing clearance of 50 percent of the buffer. They have delineated a 147 clearing limited to 50 percent. They are not limited due to the clearing associated with the utility easement. Regarding 148 additional allowances for modifications to the MTC buffer, the applicant has shown a 100-foot buffer going up to the 149 utility easement and then the applicant is asking for a variable width MTC buffer instead of 100 feet. Based on the 150 narrative reviewed at the Oct. 4, 2017, Planning Board meeting and the public hearing, the MTC buffer would be 151 cleared for accesses and stormwater feature construction. The Planning Board is asked to give feedback on the 152 proposed variable width of the MTC buffer, proposed to be 50 feet instead of 100 feet in some places. 153 154 Kim Piracci asked for clarification because she is unclear why it’s sometimes 50 feet and sometimes 100 feet. 155 Michael Harvey answered the variable width would be to accommodate an access road, parking and a stormwater 156 feature. 157 158 Paul Guthrie asked if the buffer is intended to be a sound buffer and a visual buffer. Michael Harvey answered right 159 now it serves as both but it borders a major highway and there are already significant breaks in the buffer, including 160 the interchange, which allows sound to travel. While the Orange County Board of Commissioners realized allowing 161 50 percent breaks in the buffer would have a sound impact, they also understood that it allowed marketing of the site. 162 163 David Blankfard asked for clarification about the parcel to the north. Michael Harvey answered that the applicant is 164 choosing to propose a solid buffer for District 1. 165 261 166 Hunter Spitzer asked why the developer is asking for more clearing. Michael Harvey reviewed that it is for an access 167 road, parking and a stormwater feature. 168 169 Tony Blake asked if the breaks are for signage. Michael Harvey answered no, there are signage regulations and they 170 are not permitted in the buffer. The breaks are for the purpose of drivers on the interstate being able to see the 171 development. No billboards are allowed. There are still signage limitations. 172 173 Lydia Wegman asked to hear from the developer on the variable buffer request. 174 175 Jim Parker spoke representing the developer. He said as much as we like to preserve buffers and trees, this is an 176 economic development parcel that needs visibility from the highway. The end users who will use this property will 177 want to be seen from the highway. If we can’t provide that, we’ll lose opportunity. The visibility would be one of the 178 key reasons businesses would want to locate here. 179 180 Lydia Wegman asked if stormwater accommodation and parking is secondary to visibility to the road. Jim Parker 181 confirmed that. 182 183 David Blankfard asked have you started developing what you plan to do in that area for signage. Jim Parker 184 answered no, we’ve laid out some building footprints to give us an idea of how the circulation could work. What we 185 anticipate is plausible in terms of parking. The hotel would be located where you would expect it to be on one of the 186 highest points with good visibility from both directions. This is an economic development area at an interchange. 187 Again, we are supportive of trees and buffers that protect residential developments. Neither the motorists nor the 188 businesses that would locate there care about the buffer. The businesses want to be seen. 189 190 Paul Guthrie asked, from Jim Parker’s general perception, would this development fill out quickly. Jim Parker 191 answered if the economy stays as it is and sewer service is extended quickly, it will. Since we have made it public in 192 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 193 can count on it. But to answer your question, I think it will. 194 195 Kim Piracci asked if the two little restaurants would be fast food restaurants. Jim Parker answered affirmatively. He 196 said he was hoping for a sit-down restaurant but businesses in this type of development all work together. 197 198 Kim Piracci asked if there has been a feasibility study of the best use of this land. Jim Parker answered we have 199 done our own studies, which are nonscientific and I don’t know if any are. On our team, we have brokers who deal 200 with this day to day and know how to bring commercial users. They are excited about the property and opportunity. 201 202 Hunter Spitzer checked that the reduction of the depth of the buffer is also for visibility. Jim Parker answered yes, in 203 addition to parking and access drives. 204 205 Lydia Wegman asked if 100 or 75 feet would be problematic. Jim Parker said he’s not trying to be flippant but if they 206 thought they could get by with 75 feet of buffer, they would have asked for that. They are asking for what they need. 207 208 Craig Benedict said they have re-landscaped that parking lot with a tree every 10 parking spaces. Any encroachment 209 has to be re-landscaped in accordance to what use is going on in there. 210 211 Michael Harvey said in summary, regarding the MTC buffer issue for this project, the applicant had requested 60 212 percent breaks and county commissioners did not react with great comfort to that request. The applicant has said 213 they’ll stick with 50 percent breaks but they are asking for reducing the remaining buffer from 100 feet to 50 feet in 214 some places. Michael Harvey asked for the general reaction of the reduction of the buffer from 100 to 50 feet. 215 216 Kim Piracci said I’m remembering all the local residents at the public hearing were very concerned about the noise. I 217 don’t like the idea of cutting all those trees. The developer can come up with another way. Once a tree is cut down, 218 it’s gone. Planting a bush doesn’t make it better. 219 220 262 Hunter Spitzer said considering the board didn’t want the 60 percent break, the commissioners probably don’t want 221 the variable buffer. Michael Harvey said the board wanted to hear feedback from this board and didn’t take a 222 negative or positive reaction to the request. 223 224 Craig Benedict said District 1 has no breaks even though that would be allowed by code. The Master Plan zoning 225 brings forth the variability. Regarding the resident comments, there were some from Davis Road to the southwest 226 and some comments from the northwest. The northwest is on the north side of the interstate, so anything we remove 227 to the south of the interstate isn’t going to impact residents on the north side of the interstate, he said. 228 229 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 230 interstate, you get used to that noise. She would like to see as much development close to the interstate as possible 231 to keep the rural areas rural. Coming from Durham, there is no development at the interchanges in Orange County 232 and then there is when you reach Alamance County. Our taxes are too high because we don’t have a commercial tax 233 base. 234 235 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 236 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 9 237 and then have the 100-foot buffer up to the second wet area. It just seems to me like there is compromise here. I 238 agree with Patricia Roberts that this is the place you’re going to want development if you’re going to have any. And 239 Orange County really needs it. 240 241 Adam Beeman said there is nothing worse than driving up and down the interstate and not being able to see what’s 242 at the exit. He wants to be able to see where the hotel is. 243 244 Michael Harvey said the applicant has one clarification. There will be a 100-foot buffer along the property line that is 245 not along the interstate. The applicant offered additional buffer for the people who live on the other side of that 246 property line, following the District 3 boundary. He said the stream buffer is obviously required to remain in tact. 247 Obviously, there would not be a 100-foot buffer at the road access point. Kim Piracci checked that it would be written 248 down. Michael Harvey said he believes it already is. 249 250 Kim Piracci asked whether the trees are old growth. Craig Benedict answered the trees are mostly pines and are 60 251 to 80 years old. 252 253 Paul Guthrie asked if most utility corridors will be underground and will they follow transportation routes. Michael 254 Harvey answered obviously Orange County tries to work with utility partners for some semblance of rationality. In 255 some instances, the county is successful. Sometimes you have to take a path of least resistance (for sewer and gas). 256 Electric is dictated where it ties into substations. Utilities are more adept at dictating where they need to go than at 257 taking direction from government entities. 258 259 Paul Guthrie said some uses on these parcels could be heavy users of utilities and he wonders how far in advance 260 utilities are planned. Michael Harvey answered utility companies are involved in the reviews early on. Predominately, 261 underground utilities are used for these larger sites. Gas could be a potential issue here because the developer could 262 have to secure easements. Water is secured. The Town of Hillsborough has to sign off on every site plan that there is 263 adequate capacity for both water and sewer. 264 265 Paul Guthrie said from my experience, what you say regarding utilities dictating where they go is largely accurate. 266 But if you stand up to the utility, something will happen. Michael Harvey said he has been in Orange County 13 years 267 and he has stood up to a lot of people, but utility companies tend to not back down on where they need to locate 268 utilities. Tony Blake asked if Duke Energy owns the easement. Michael Harvey confirmed. 269 270 Kim Piracci said her taxes went up 27 percent this year so she is on board with development. In terms of the buffer, 271 she’d rather see 100 feet because she likes trees. 272 273 David Blankfard asked how often the MTC buffer has been reduced to 50 feet. Craig Benedict answered that the 274 county hasn’t had development to use it. Michael Harvey said the county came close to it with the proposed 275 263 Buckhorn Village development, which didn’t get developed. 276 277 Patricia Roberts if Buckhorn Village didn’t get built because the developers didn’t get the buffer reduction they 278 wanted. Michael Harvey answered no, it was approved but the downturn in the economy killed it. 279 280 Lydia Wegman said she is supportive of the plan. 281 282 Michael Harvey said the next condition is regarding architectural landmark and portal signs. That will be presented at 283 the January meeting. He clarified there will not be external illumination. 284 285 Regarding land use for elementary, middle and secondary schools, the county has reached out to the Orange County 286 Schools Board of Education. The county had expressed concern about schools being located at an industrial site and 287 is waiting to hear from the school board. The concern is about allowing schools in District 1 near industrial sites. Tony 288 Blake asked would that preclude having a corporate training site. Michael Harvey answered no, just schools teaching 289 pre-K through 12th grade. 290 291 Paul Guthrie said there would be episodes of heavy traffic if schools were allowed. Will there be adequate access at 292 peak times? Michael Harvey said that has been asked and the developer is looking at that. 293 294 Patricia Roberts asked if there is a need for more schools right now. Michael Harvey answered there is not 295 anticipated need for a school according to the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) for 10 years. 296 He said there is thought that a school should be closer to Gravelly Hill Middle School or Efland Elementary School. 297 He thinks the developer was looking to the future. 298 299 Craig Benedict said we do have SAPFO. There is not a need for an elementary or middle school in the next 10 years. 300 Cedar Ridge High School is being expanded now. School land-banking opportunities are most likely needed in the 301 western area of the county due to the growth in Mebane. A school use was more pertinent when District 3 was being 302 considered. That would have been residential and even though it was proposed to be senior housing, a school in that 303 residential area would be more appropriate. He added that having a school in an area where you want tax base 304 would not be the best use. 305 306 Michael Harvey reviewed there is an additional condition that looped water systems would be required to provide 307 additional water flow and pressure in each district. The developer has tweaked alternate language saying looped 308 water systems may be required and are ultimately the responsibility of the developer. County staff will be meeting 309 with the applicant to further work on this language. 310 311 Tony Blake said if you’re going to make this a “could” or “may,” you should define what adequate flow pressure is. 312 Michael Harvey said he thinks Craig Benedict wanted something specific to address a concern he had about water 313 pressure. 314 315 Tony Blake said water pressure is a measurable thing. Craig Benedict said we’ll be moving toward saying it will meet 316 fire code and building code. We’re not going to mandate something that’s not necessary. We’ll put some sort of 317 standards in there. It will be based on occupancy code. If there is a multi-story hotel, the pressure may need to be 318 higher in that area. 319 320 Tony Blake said flow is critical for the rating of the insurance. 321 322 Lydia Wegman checked that staff and the developer will continue to discuss. Michael Harvey confirmed. 323 324 Michael Harvey continued his presentation. He said the developer had several conditions associated with the TIA 325 and external and internal traffic improvements. He reviewed the existing conditions map. He reviewed where 326 stoplights would be installed in Phase 1. He said the developer wanted everyone to know there was supposed to be 327 a stoplight at that intersection at Waterstone. The developer is planning to install it if it doesn’t get there first for 328 Waterstone. 329 330 264 David Blankfard asked for clarification about the lights, that it would be located at the exit. Michael Harvey said it was 331 supposed to be installed with Waterstone but they would be doing it as part of this project. 332 333 Michael Harvey reviewed where there would be an installation of a left turn lane on Service Road and on Old 334 Highway 86. 335 336 Michael Harvey then showed the 2022 buildout map. There would be two lanes of through traffic on Old Highway 86. 337 There would be a stoplight wherever the access to District 2 is built. He noted Davis Road remains unimproved. He 338 said two individuals raised concern that Davis Road would become a five-lane road. In his 13 years, he’s not seen 339 that plan. 340 341 Michael Harvey said Ed Sirgeny with Summit Engineering is present to answer questions. Michael Harvey said 342 District 1 is meant to be served by Service Road. Staff would like the developer to work on having another access. 343 Staff also needs additional time to review some of Jim Parker’s comments on the TIA. 344 345 Tony Blake asked about a super street. Michael Harvey answered I’m not going to say it’s totally abandoned because 346 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 347 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. 348 349 Craig Benedict said a memo was received the day of the public hearing from DOT saying there was no need for a U-350 turn. Now they’re saying you can have 900,000 square feet of warehousing or equivalent. After that would be the 351 trigger point in District 1 of having to come up with another connection farther to the south. It still allows the left turn 352 movement for a long period of time. Service Road was created when I-40 was built. DOT put it where they thought it 353 could be signalized. Now they want more space between a signal and the interstate ramp. That much can be built 354 without the need for the U-turn. 355 356 Michael Harvey said the applicant was required by staff to provide the breakdown, which he shared. It included land 357 use, size, units, adjacent street traffic volumes weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. 358 359 Jim Parker said Tony Blake, if your question is if other accesses have been explored beside Service Road, yes. 360 361 Tony Blake asked if anyone has approached DOT about combining the exit ramp and Service Road. Jim Parker 362 answered no, DOT used to do that but they don’t like that anymore. We understand there is a limit to this working 363 fluidly. Level of service is going to dictate the service road functioning. DOT is not going to allow level of service to 364 decline beyond a certain point. We will continue to try to look for alternatives to make the whole thing work. 365 366 Tony Blake said with this zoning, it doesn’t come back before the Planning Board or Orange County Board of 367 Commissioners so I want to make sure we hash it out as much as we can. 368 369 Michael Harvey said that’s not quite accurate. Right now there is access from Service Road. Any access to Old 370 Highway 86 would come back for a modification. If Jim Parker and his cohorts can find a way to get an alternative 371 access, there is going to be tweaking of the application. Every site plan application has to have a TIA. This 372 assessment is required in Orange County when the traffic trips is expected to exceed 800 trips a day but for this 373 project it is for every project regardless of the expected trips per day. 374 375 Tony Blake spoke in favor of aligning the access along the power easement. Jim Parker said we have looked at a lot 376 of options. At this point, none of them are 100 percent viable. 377 378 Kim Piracci said I’m assuming that if traffic circles were appropriate, you would consider that. 379 380 Michael Harvey said any viable traffic alternative would be studied but may not be appropriate here because tractor 381 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 382 Orange County. 383 384 Michael Harvey asked for other comments on the TIA. He said it sounds like the board is comfortable with the revised 385 265 condition, eliminating the U-Turn, revising the catch points on travel trips with the understanding that every project 386 gets a TIA, and let the developer look for a long-term second access. Lydia Wegman said she concurred with that 387 statement. 388 389 Craig Benedict said he would be meeting on Thursday with the two new board members on this project. He will talk 390 about the traffic impact analysis with them. There are about 14 improvements. It’s going to be important for the 391 general public and elected officials to understand them. 392 393 Michael Harvey said in conclusion, there were requested revisions of the concept plan. He reminded everyone they 394 don’t have a project yet. This is to provide an idea of where buildings and stormwater features would go. The county 395 commissioners suggested a tree survey be done. A detailed tree survey is not possible in the timeframe given to the 396 applicant. Staff will work with the developers. 397 398 Michael Harvey said the developer has provided a better buffer plan. He thinks there is a greater comfort level and 399 the Planning Board will look at this again in January. Orange County has one of the most restrictive buffer programs 400 in the state for streams and wetlands. These developers have said they will comply with all those requirements. For 401 us, the buffer program is very established. 402 403 Michael Harvey reviewed there was some concern about outdoor lighting and on Page 16, staff has provided 404 information on the county’s current outdoor lighting standards. Because we are a community that requires full cut-off 405 fixtures, you are not going to see some of the light pollution you see in other communities, especially as seen at 406 Hampton Pointe. There were still be some glow. The applicant has looked into the viability of turning off some lights 407 at night but the developer has said some lights have to be left on to secure the property. There will be some 408 measures to buffer the lighting. He said the ordinance addresses light glare and light overpass. 409 410 Kim Piracci wanted confirmation that Michael Harvey did say in Orange County the lights have to be full cut-off. Craig 411 Benedict confirmed and answered that change was made about 10 or 12 years ago. You want some lighting out 412 there for the safety and comfort of the business and the patrons. 413 414 Lydia Wegman asked if this would be coming back in January. Michael Harvey said he will have a more formal 415 response from the applicant in January. He noted this does not seem to be a concern of the board. 416 417 Michael Harvey said on Page 17, there is the condition addressing retail space. The Town of Hillsborough has 418 expressed concern about retail and its effect on redevelopment in town and recommended limiting retail to 20 419 percent. He said the applicant has suggested limiting retail to 30 percent, not to exceed 78,540 square feet. He 420 shared the staff response, which includes that staff believes Orange County is blessed to have two interstates in the 421 general area. The county doesn’t think retail should be limited. Michael Harvey said there is sufficient travel trips 422 above the Interstate 40 and Interstate 85 areas to support two distinct travel nodes in this area. The joint planning 423 land use plan as adopted by the town and county agrees that retail is viable in this area. The county staff encourages 424 the town to support the 30 percent limit on retail. 425 426 David Blankfard asked if the developer wants more than 30 percent. Jim Parker said no, 78,540 square feet is 427 reasonable for this area. He said it is aggressive but doable. He said as Michael Harvey said, this is an interstate 428 market. There is another interstate market closer to town that may or may not end up being an interstate market. It 429 may end up being more conducive to something else. This is a drop in the bucket compared with that one. 430 431 Craig Benedict said Walmart’s and Targets are 130,000 square feet, so we’re not talking about big-box retail. He said 432 if we get to 900,000 square feet of office and warehouse and industrial, you want supportive retail so people can 433 shop and eat in that area. The market for this retail is two-fold. One is the interstate market, plus the internal capture 434 of the development of the other employment whether it’s warehouse or hotel. 435 436 Hunter Spitzer asked if combined retail is stores and restaurants. Craig Benedict answered affirmatively, adding there 437 is potential for maybe dry cleaning, barbers, hair salons, and restaurants. 438 439 Lydia Wegman said 30 percent makes sense. Tony Blake agreed. 440 266 441 Michael Harvey said a county commissioner suggested a condition to limit business hours. The applicant has 442 indicated that such a condition is incredibly problematic. Staff has not pursued a condition on that. Lydia Wegman 443 said that makes sense. 444 445 Michael Harvey reviewed the applicant has addressed the concern of overall buffer impacts of the project and there 446 will be more discussion in January. 447 448 Paul Guthrie asked what the terrain would be around the stormwater ponds. Will they be empty and full depending on 449 the rainfall, he asked. Michael Harvey answered as the stormwater facilities haven’t necessarily been submitted for 450 review, he doesn’t know if they will be full constantly or only full as there is inundation. Typically, there is landscaping 451 around the feature. A stormwater facility doesn’t necessarily mean a big pond. It can be a rain garden. It can be a 452 subterranean facility. Since there will be a push for capturing stormwater, he thinks the facility will be minimal. There 453 are some limitations we’ll have to live with within state law. He thinks the developer will avoid big mosquito pits 454 because it’s bad for development. 455 456 Paul Guthrie said he wanted more specifics. Michael Harvey said any time a stormwater feature is developed, the 457 county requires the developer secure a maintenance agreement and submit documentation. Development in Orange 458 County is held to a stormwater standard. It will be addressed on every feature. Developers are required to post bonds 459 to maintain the stormwater features. 460 461 Craig Benedict reminded the board the next meeting is not Jan. 3 but instead Jan. 10. 462 267 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, one overlay district applies to portions of the Property subject to this atlas amendment, specifically the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. No modifications are being proposed to the established boundaries of this overlay district as part of this process. The Planning Board finds: a. The requirements of Section 2.8 of the UDO have been deemed complete; and, b. Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 153A-341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within the record denoting that the amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which is proposed for concurrent amendments. 1. The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it supports the following 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives: • Objective LU-1.1: Coordinate the location of higher intensity / high density residential and non-residential development with existing or planned locations of public transportation, commercial and community services, and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer, high-speed internet access, streets, and Attachment 5 268 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 zoning district promoting development of 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 non-residential land uses to aid in the marketing on an area designated within the Comprehensive Plan as being suitable for high intensity non- residential development. Further, the approved master plan establishes mandatory land use buffers and setbacks for development within the project to ensure off-site impacts are mitigated. The Planning Board of Orange County hereby recommends that the Board of County Commissioners consider adoption of the proposed Zoning Atlas amendments. ______________________ ________________________ Lydia N. Wegman, Chair Date 269 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 5 Ordinance #: ORD-2017-023 270 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. 271 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. Looped water systems shall be required to ensure necessary water flow and pressure within each development district. 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 and/or sewer capacity shall result in the denial of the site plan application by the County.3 1 Added by staff in response to a meeting with the applicant on December 8, 2017. The applicant has requested the condition be modified. Please refer to Attachment(s) 1 and 2. 2 Language added by Planning Board at its October 4, 2017 regular meeting. The applicant has expressed no objections to the revision.. 3 Condition added by Planning Board at its October 4, 2017 regular meeting. The applicant has expressed no objections to the revision. Formatte Formatte 272 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. 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 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. 4 c.d. Internal roadways within District 1 shall have right-of- way/roadways extended to serve adjacent property. 5 4 Added by staff in response to a meeting with the applicant on December 8, 2017. The applicant has requested the condition be modified. Please refer to Attachment 1. 5 Added by staff in response to a meeting with the applicant on December 8, 2017. The applicant has requested the condition be modified. Please refer to Attachment 1. Formatte Formatte 273 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. 6 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. 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, 6 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. 274 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. 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. 275 6. The Orange County and Town of Hillsborough Fire Marshal, and representatives of the Orange Rural Volunteer Fire District7 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. 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. 7 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. Formatte 276 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. 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. 277 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, 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, 278 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, 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, 279 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. 8 15. Restaurant, 16. Movie theater,9 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. 10 b. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS: All development shall abide by the performance standards as articulated in Section 6.4 of the UDO inclusive. c. RATIO STANDARDS: All development shall abide by the following ratio standards: i. Minimum Percentage of Open Space: 30% or a cumulative total of 81.6 acres in Districts 1 and 2. ii. There shall be a minimum of 30 acres of open space in District 1 or 2. iii. Maximum Allowable Floor Area Ratio shall be as follows: 8 Added at the suggestion of the applicant to address Town of Hillsborough comment(s) on limited overall retail development within District 2. 9 Planning Board recommended the deletion of a duplicate reference to a previously identified land use. 10 Use eliminated per staff recommendation and the applicant’s request. For more information please refer to Attachment 1. 280 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 line Freestanding Buildings In-line Shops and Buildings Vehicular use areas Storage areas Signs 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. 281 * When proposed use is adjacent to common ownership property such as a private street, alley, or parking area the setback shall be reduced to 5 ft. * iv. No building shall be permitted within required land use buffers as required by the UDO and detailed herein. g. STORMWATER AND EROSION CONTROL: All development shall abide by the provisions of Section(s) 6.14 Stormwater and 6.15 Erosion Control of the UDO. h. LANDCSAPING: In addition to the applicable provisions of the UDO, the following standards shall apply: i. Landscaping shall be watered through reclaimed stormwater. On-site wells may be permissible in the event that stormwater is unavailable. Proposed irrigation well(s) shall be permitted by Orange County Environmental Health.11 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. 12 ii.iii. A 100-ft. undisturbed land use buffer shall be installed and/or maintained along the western and southern boundaries of District 1. No thinning shall be permitted within this area. iii.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. 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. 11 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. 12 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 282 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.13 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, 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. 13 The original condition has been revised by the applicant as denoted in Red Underlined Text. For more information please refer to Attachment 1. 283 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 1,000 ft. of additional clearing for visual breaks shall be allowed. These areas shall be re-vegetated with low-growth landscaping. Re-vegetation plans shall be submitted and approved by staff as part of the site plan review process. 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. 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. 284 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. The overall maximum amount of surface parking permitted for the entire development combined, shall be one (1) space for every two hundred (200) square feet of floor space. ii. Development of joint parking facilities shall allow for the reduction of required parking spaces in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.9.11 if the UDO. iii. Off-street parking design shall be in accordance with Section 6.9.10 of the UDO. iv. Compact car parking shall be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.9.10 (A) of the UDO. v. In cases of a corner lot, parking shall not be located directly adjacent to the corner of the property facing the intersection. Landscaping, and/or a prominent building feature, shall be installed within this area to avoid confusion. 285 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. All exterior lighting, including traffic signals and street lighting shall conform to ASHRAE / IESNA Standard 90.1-2004, Exterior Lighting Section, without addenda, for Zone LZ3 – Medium (Commercial/Industrial, High-Density Residential). j. LIGHTING: All proposed lighting shall comply with the standards detailed in Section 6.11 Outdoor Lighting of the UDO. k. SIGNAGE: In addition to the standards detailed in Section 6.12 Signage of the UDO, development within the Project shall abide by the following: i. Unless otherwise specified herein, signs shall be composed of individual internally lit letters. ii. Approved copyright logos shall be allowed on signage in a box type fashion. iii. The signage shall be permitted for the Project: 1. One (1) architectural landmark freestanding sign serving as a visual identifier for the Project subject to the following standards: a. Maximum height of 50 ft. b. Allowable sign area of 400 sq.ft. per sign face. c. Shall comply with principal setbacks for the District in which it is located. 2. Eight (8) entry portal freestanding signs providing the name of the development and identifying tenants subject to the following standards: a. Maximum Height of 8 ft. 286 b. Allowable sign area of 300 sq.ft. c. 10 ft. setback from all rights-of-way and/or property lines. d. Sign shall be composed of either raised/blocked lettering or shall be a wall sign. e. External illumination shall be permitted in accordance with Section(s) 6.11 and 6.12 of the UDO. f.e. 60% of the sign area shall contain the name of the Project. 3. Signage for theater shall abide by the following standards: a. One (1) marquee, as a permanent canopy projecting over the entrance shall be permitted and may contain the name and/or trademark of the cinema. 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: 287 i. 32 square feet of sign are per tenant not to exceed three hundred (300) square feet per building. ii. Sign shall be located above tenant space. iii. Sign shall only occupy two-thirds (2/3) of the façade. e. No external lighting shall be permitted. 5. Projecting signs shall be permitted consistent with the provisions of Section 6.12.12 (D) of the UDO. 6. Window signs shall be permitted consistent 6.12.12 (E) of the UDO. 7. Directional signs shall be permitted consistent with the provisions of Section 6.12.14 (C) of the UDO. 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. 288 WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this ______ day of ______________, 2017. SEAL __________________________________ Clerk to the Board of Commissioners 289 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 AGENDA ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ORANGE COUNTY WEST CAMPUS OFFICE BUILDING 131 WEST MARGARET LANE – LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM (ROOM #004) HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Wednesday, January 10, 2018 Training Session – 6:00 pm Note: This is a training session for Planning Board members who would like to attend. Attendance is not mandatory and a quorum is not necessary for this training session. Light refreshments will be available for Planning Board members. No. Page(s) Agenda Item 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLANNING BOARD TRAINING SESSION – Staff will lead training in various planning topics using on-line videos produced by the UNC School of Government and augmented as necessary by staff-produced materials. This will be a monthly training session for several months, beginning in January 2018 and ending after all of the video modules have been completed. Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator 3. ADJOURNMENT