Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB minutes 121817Approved 1/10/2018 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 Approved 1/10/2018 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 Approved 1/10/2018 reviewed that the applicant is proposing no breaks in the buffer for District 1. He noted that District 3 had been removed from 110 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 Approved 1/10/2018 Hunter Spitzer asked why the developer is asking for more clearing. Michael Harvey reviewed that it is for an access 165 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 Approved 1/10/2018 the variable buffer. Michael Harvey said the board wanted to hear feedback from this board and didn’t take a 220 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 Approved 1/10/2018 275 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 Approved 1/10/2018 supposed to be installed with Waterstone but they would be doing it as part of this project. 330 331 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 Approved 1/10/2018 gets a TIA, and let the developer look for a long-term second access. Lydia Wegman said she concurred with that 385 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 Approved 1/10/2018 Michael Harvey said a county commissioner suggested a condition to limit business hours. The applicant has 440 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 Approved 1/10/2018 495 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