The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Board - 081920 Agenda PacketORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201 HILLSBOROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27278 AGENDA ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD Wednesday, August 19, 2020 Special Meeting – 7:00 pm Due to current public health concerns, the meeting will be virtual. Members of the Planning Board and staff will be participating in the meeting remotely. Interested persons can view and participate in the meeting by pre-registering at: https://orangecountync.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_nCekqph0TKi2KOo1qIOtuw After registering, Zoom will email registrants additional information and a link which must be used to access the meeting. No.Page(s)Agenda Item 1.BRIEF SUMMARY BY STAFF ON TECHNOLOGY PROTOCOLS FOR MEETING Presenter:Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator 2.CALL TO ORDER 3. 3 – 32 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a.DRAFT Minutes for the August 5, 2020 Regular Meeting (to be approved at the next regular meeting; provided here for information purposes) 4. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 5.PUBLIC CHARGE Introduction to the Public Charge The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and future needs of its 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 its respect to all present. The Board asks those attending this meeting to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner toward each other, County staff, and Board members. At any time should a member of the Board or the p ublic fail to No.Page(s)Agenda Item observe this charge, the Chair will take steps to restore order an d decorum. Should it become impossible to restore order and continue the meeting, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. The Planning Board asks that all electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate. Please be kind to everyone. 6.CHAIR COMMENTS 7. 33 – 38 CLARIFICATION OF PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH/ORANGE COUNTY CENTRAL ORANGE COORDINATED AREA (COCA) LAND USE PLAN AND TO THE ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP (FLUM) -To clarify the motion made at the August 5, 2020 Planning Board meeting and revote on the clarified motion regarding County-initiated amendments to the COCA and FLUM in the vicinity of the southern portion of the Hillsborough Area Economic Development District. This item is scheduled for BOCC public hearing on September 15, 2020. Presenter:Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor 8. 39 – 125 ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT (MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – RESEARCH TRIANGLE LOGISTICAL PARK)-To continue review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on a developer-initiated application for an MPD-CZ (Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning). The proposed project encompasses approximately 180 acres in the Hillsborough Economic Development District (EDD) south of Interstate 40 and west of Old Highway 86, within Hillsborough Township. 168 acres are currently zoned MPD-CZ (Settler’s Point) and 12 acres are currently zoned R-1 (Rural Residential). This item was continued from the August 5 regular meeting and is scheduled for BOCC public hearing on September 15, 2020. Presenter:Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 9. 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). D R A F T MEETING MINUTES1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD2 AUGUST 5,20203 REGULAR MEETING4 (Due to current public health concerns, this meeting was held virtually.5 Members of the Planning Board, staff and public participated remotely)6 7 MEMBERS PRESENT: David Blankfard (Chair), Hillsborough Township Representative; Adam Beeman (Vice-Chair),8 Cedar Grove Township Representative; Kim Piracci, Eno Township Representative; Susan Hunter, Chapel Hill 9 Township Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Randy Marshall, At-Large 10 Representative; Hunter Spitzer, At-Large Representative; Alexandra Allman, At-Large Representative; Melissa 11 Poole, Little River Township Representative; Carrie Fletcher, Bingham Township Representative12 13 MEMBERS ABSENT:Gio Mollinedo, At-Large Representative; Vacant, At-Large Representative14 15 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Tom Altieri, 16 Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Brian Carson, GIS Tech III, Tom 17 Ten Eyck, Transportation/Land Use Planner, Christopher Sandt, Staff Engineer; Tina Love, Administrative Support; 18 Steve Brantley, Economic Development Director, Amanda Garner, Assistant Economic Development Director; 19 20 APPLICANT AND ASSOCIATES PRESENT:Bill Aucoin, Vice President - Avison Young; Chris Bostic, Project Manager –21 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.; Jack Graham, Principal – Avison Young; Michael Birch, Partner – Longleaf Law 22 Partners; Christa Greene, Senior Principal – Stantec; Frank Csapo, CEO – Barrister Commercial Group; Wes Hall, 23 Civil Engineer Analyst – Kimley-Horn; Matt Peach, Senior Transportation Engineer – Stantec; Rick Ogburn, Director 24 of Construction – Barrister Commercial Group; Doug Short, Partner – Manning Fulton25 26 OTHERS PRESENT:Penny Rich (BOCC Chair); Sarah Shore; Joseph Shore; Stephen Williams; Frederick Tapp; Kaila 27 Mitchell; Brandon Sneed; Gerald Scarlett; Leslie Robert;, Ellen Mayer; Jayse Sessi; Myra Gwin-Summers; Franklin 28 Garland; Isabel Garland; Clare Brennan; Karen Fernandez; Theresa Gilliam; Maryanne Ross; Jill Bauer; Dennis 29 Hagerman; Ronald Sieber; Jared Jurkiewicz; Matthew Kostura; Jon Lorusso; Richard Wagoner; Ted Bryant; Bob 30 Bundschuh; Allen Rynish; Brian Lapham; Steve Kaufmann; Gina Rhoades; Doug Short; Betty Garland; Kevin 31 Nicholson, Jonathan Espitia, William Clayton, Beatrice Brooks, Rowdy and Kim Walker, Beth Rosenberg, Diane and 32 Erik Dunder; Noah Chase; Cedar Eagle; Jack Rupplin; Tammy Grubb; 3 callers33 34 35 AGENDA ITEM 1: BRIEF SUMMARY BY STAFF ON TECHNOLOGY PROTOCOLS FOR MEETING36 PRESENTER:Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator37 38 Perdita reviewed the technical processes and rules 39 40 41 AGENDA ITEM 2: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL42 Chair David Blankfard called the meeting to order. 43 44 45 AGENDA ITEM 3: INFORMATION ITEMS46 a. Planning Calendar for August and September47 48 49 AGENDA ITEM 4: APPROVAL OF MINUTES50 February 5, 202051 52 MOTION by Randy Marshall to approve the February 5, 2020 Meeting Minutes. Seconded by Hunter Spitzer.53 VOTE:Unanimous54 55 3 D R A F T 56 AGENDA ITEM 5: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA. 57 There were none 58 59 60 AGENDA ITEM 6: PUBLIC CHARGE61 62 INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC CHARGE63 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute,64 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development law of 65 the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 66 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner, which considers the present and future 67 needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to 68 and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every 69 effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our 70 deliberations, decisions, and recommendations.71 72 PUBLIC CHARGE73 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 74 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 75 fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 76 public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 77 regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting 78 until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed.79 80 81 AGENDA ITEM 7: CHAIR COMMENTS82 There were none 83 84 85 AGENDA ITEM 8: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH/ORANGE COUNTY CENTRAL ORANGE 86 COORDINATED AREA (COCA) LAND USE PLAN AND TO THE ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 87 FUTURE LAND USE MAP (FLUM) -To review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on County-88 initiated amendments to the COCA and FLUM in the vicinity of the southern portion of the 89 Hillsborough Area Economic Development District. The amendments related to COCA affect 17 90 parcels (in whole or part) encompassing 84 acres. The amendments related to the FLUM affect 20 91 parcels (in whole or part) encompassing 89 acres. The COCA proposed land use category is 92 Suburban Office and the FLUM proposed category is Economic Development. This item is 93 scheduled for BOCC public hearing on September 15, 2020. 94 PRESENTER:Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor95 96 Tom Altieri reviewed the abstract and proposed changes97 98 Hunter Spitzer: The first question that I have, no residential zoning will be permitted under this new County Land Use 99 under the Economic Transitionary correct?100 101 Tom Altieri: As part of these amendments, there is no associated rezoning at this time. The residential structures, 102 the homes that are there now will continue to be conforming, the planning term, because the Rural Residential or R1103 Zoning District will remain in place.104 105 Hunter Spitzer: So could these properties potentially be rezoned to say medium or low intensity residential 106 development is my question, are those allowable zonings under this new land use?107 108 Tom Altieri: Yes109 4 D R A F T 110 Hunter Spitzer: I noticed in the Comprehensive Land Use map that there are protected areas identified in green but 111 in the areas selected to be rezoned as Suburban Office, there are no protected areas and I was wondering why not 112 but they are identified as protected in the County Land Use map. I suppose I know why, because we don’t want to 113 restrict development but I was wondering if you could lend anything to that.114 115 Tom Altieri: It’s really for no particular reason, it’s just a matter of the Town took the initial step in the development of 116 the Joint Land Use Plan and it used the Land Use categories that it already had in its existing plan and it is just not 117 shown on the map in the Joint Land Use Plan. Those areas there certainly exist, I did mention that if or how 118 development occur in those resource protection areas is really handled through our Zoning Ordinance with stream 119 buffers and so forth. I think the resource protections area is really shown on the County’s Future Land Use map as 120 more, let’s just say, a reminder, if you would. That layer that land use category does not have a direct companion-121 zoning district or applicable zoning districts that would be applied in a resource protection area. It’s more or less just 122 an overlay just to show where there is a high likelihood of wetlands or steep slopes and so forth.123 124 Hunter Spitzer: Ok, thank you.125 126 David Blankfard: I have a question, so Orange County Comprehensive Plan map says it’s 20 parcels and 89 acres 127 and Hillsborough says it’s 17 parcels and 84 acres. Is that just the Town and Orange County finally coming together 128 to make the map match up?129 130 Tom Altieri: That is correct. There are just a few parcels that are addressed in the COCA Land Use Plan on the 131 north side of the amendment area that are also covered in the County’s Future Land Use map so there’s a little 132 overlap there. That’s why when we’re looking at amendments to the COCA Land Use Plan the acreage amount is 133 different from the County’s Land Use Plan. I can point those out if you’d like to see the differences, I know you have 134 the maps in your packets but there is just a few parcels and a few acres difference between the two amendments 135 and that’s right along the northern boundary of the amendment area.136 137 Melissa Poole: Will you flip back – I think it was 17, one of the maps where it had the star. (Map was shown) This is 138 currently Rural Residential and the star is where the RTLP is planned to go.139 140 Tom Altieri: Correct.141 142 Melissa Poole: So, I guess my questions is that it seems like we are doing this backwards, for me if this is Rural 143 Residential then why is RTLP planned to go there but we are only now talking about rezoning? It seems like we are 144 doing this backwards. Am I misunderstanding?145 146 Tom Altieri: What we are doing is responding to the Town’s expansion of its Urban Services area and we are 147 reflecting that on the Joint Land Use Plan with Hillsborough and when that’s done, we need to apply a Future Land 148 Use category to the map and that is the addition of the Suburban Office Complex. We also need to add a County 149 Land Use classification which is Economic Development District. The County is not proposing rezoning so this 12 150 acres would stay R1. However, there is another item on your agenda tonight where the developer is initiating a 151 process to also amend the zoning, not just for the 12 acres where the star is, but for a couple of the parcels to the 152 north as well. I hope that answers your question. These are really separate amendments. We have a County 153 initiated amendment to implement the expansion of the Town’s Urban Services Area that is different and separate 154 from the developer’s proposal and the rezoning required for RTLP. It’s just a matter of the two amendments share 12 155 acres. Does that help?156 157 Melissa Poole: Yes, thank you.158 159 David Blankfard: Ok, we will take comments from the public. Please say your name and if you received a letter from 160 the County about this amendment. Thank you.161 162 Franklin Garland: My name is Franklin Garland and I live off of Ode Turner Road. It seems like this was tried 163 already and I have a lot to say. Some people have ceded their time to me because I have spent the last two weeks 164 actually doing research. Nobody on the south side of the I-40 wants this, ok, the residents. There’s approximately 165 5 D R A F T 2000 residents that get involved in this. I know that you’re looking at just one particular piece of land out there but 166 what does the public, what do the people of Orange County have to say about this? I am looking at the Code of 167 Ethics, I’m looking at the Mission Statements, it says here “serve the residents of Orange County” “our residents 168 come first”. Now the residents don’t want this, ok. I know that, I personally put out 2000 flyers last week and it’s 169 unanimous out there that nobody wants it. So how can you force this on us, ok. Even though we don’t want it. That’s 170 another question for the Planning and Inspections Board out here. I have many, many questions that go along here 171 and I’m going to read a statement later on that maybe clarifies a whole lot but right now, my main question is what 172 give you the right to just force this on us? Anybody? Want to care to answer? Who’s win?173 174 David Blankfard: Your elected officials, they are the ones that started this with the Town... (interrupted) 175 176 Franklin Garland: So our elected officials…177 178 David Blankfard: Hold on, let me finish, your elected officials are the ones that started this land use planning, years 179 and years ago so I don’t know what to tell you.180 181 Franklin Garland: in 1991, this was planned as an EDD, actually all this area out here was rural, and it was 182 designated possibly as an Economic Development Area because I-40 wasn’t in place then. Once I-40 went in place, 183 I believe in 1984, actually you said 1981. It actually was designated as is and this is 39 years ago. This whole area 184 has grown to be residential now. It’s no longer open space and rural and like I said it’s a whole lot of people out 185 there. If our elected officials are choosing to do this, why are they going in there with perceived ideas, and already 186 made up their mind that this is going to happen. That’s not the democratic way. That’s called a fascist way when you 187 do it that way. It’s very offensive, most people are offended by this and we’re trying to put a stop to this. By the way, 188 I think this is a ridiculous way to hold a meeting. I am going to add that, that we have 42 attendees where in person 189 you would probably have several thousand today, ok. It’s not valid for anybody in there, we actually are trying to take 190 some legal action on this as well. I will have more to say, I have a statement that I mailed out to the Commissioners 191 already, I hope that they have the courtesy to read it, I asked them to actually reply via email, text, call any which way 192 that they had actually received the email. I have one of the Commissioners actually respond, that said they received 193 it, not that they had read it, it would be nice if they actually went with how their constituency actually feels. I think 194 they are the ones that count out here. Again, like I said earlier, as that our residents come first and you’re putting the 195 Town of Hillsborough first. You’re putting the Planning Board first, what the whims are there. We are perfectly happy 196 with our wells, we don’t want city water necessarily out here. We don’t want city sewer, we are out of the Town, we 197 don’t want to be annexed and this is not just me. I happen to hold a chunk of property that is immediately adjacent to 198 this that I’m structure out there that basically, 2.5 million square feet big. This is about 3 times the size of Carter 199 Findlay Stadium and you say that doesn’t have an impact. You’re putting this in middle of an area that is completely 200 at this point basically residential. So you’re going to put an industrial park for lack of a better word, because this light 201 manufacturing, any manufacturing as you actually look carefully in there, warehousing and logistic center. That 202 translates into industrial park, this is a pretty hefty size industrial park. It would actually, just to give you a couple 203 comparison numbers, the PNC Center is 700,000 square feet including all the levels, so that’s 700,000 this is 2.5 204 million that you want to put in there. Carter Findlay Stadium is 107,000 square feet. How can this not going to have 205 an impact on this whole area, doing this. 206 207 David Blankfard: I think your comments, most of the stuff you are wanting to talk about is going to be held up in the 208 later item. Right now we’re talking about something else. Thank you.209 210 Franklin Garland: I know you’re trying to approve something that is going to be the infrastructure for something else.211 212 Craig Benedict: Good evening, my name is Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director. Just a little bit about 213 how we can answer some questions from the public in how we will handle it moving forward. If staff can address with 214 a quick answer, if it’s a or b we will provide that during this meeting, if it is a more lengthy question, we will make 215 note of the public comment and we can provide in writing the justification of the goals of the County and how the 216 process has come forward.217 218 Franklin Garland: (background discussion of a personal nature)219 220 Perdita Holtz: I have gone ahead and muted Franklin Garland221 6 D R A F T 222 Randy Marshall: I was just going to say that since we have a number of people who want to speak tonight, it seems 223 to me we want to try to institute some limit to the amount of time that people have to speak. Otherwise, we’re going 224 to be here terribly late. The other thing is in the past, it’s never been quite productive to have Planning Board 225 members respond to presenters individually. I agree with what Craig had to say in that we need to take the 226 information that people are offering to us and we can get back to them or staff can get back to them at an appropriate 227 time.228 229 David Blankfard: Thank you Randy.230 231 Perdita Holtz: We have asked for folks to limit comments to no more than 5 minutes.232 233 Ronald Sieber: This is Ronald Sieber speaking; I live in the New Hope Springs neighborhood, which is along David 234 Road. I have two short comments to make and a question. My first comment is that the signs that have been 235 provided by the Planning Department to announce these meetings are too small, the print on them is too small, and 236 they are placed in dangerous venues that if a person such as myself wants to stop and try to interrupt what is on 237 them, we’ll get run over by cars. This actually happened to me on Davis Road when I stopped to photograph one of 238 the signs because it was really too small to read. As I was doing that, a truck came up behind me and almost hit my 239 car which was parked by the side of the road. I would ask the Planning Department to please come up with a sign 240 that’s got larger print in it, is more intelligent in its presentation and doesn’t present a danger to us folks who want to 241 read what’s going on. My second comment is that the July 21st meeting invited only those people within a 1000 242 square feet of the affected area along David Road, which is a mile and a half long, there are 100s of homes, 243 thousands of people who live on Davis and Ode Turner and all of us are going to be effected by this change. Not 244 only from the development itself in parcels one and two but also the proposed change of planning along Davis for 245 that little 12 acre parcel that the RTLP is planning to incorporate as part of their zoning change. That goes to my 246 questions, my questions is if this is a rural neighborhood of farms, legacy businesses and homes, why are we 247 allowing a major corporation come in and annex this piece and make it part of their monstrosity of a development. 248 This is just going to change everything not only in our neighborhood but on the road itself on Old 86 and potentially 249 on Davis Road. That’s the end of my question. Thank you for taking it.250 251 Richard Wagoner: My question is more of a question than a comment. I was unable to attend the earlier July 252 meeting for the public and my question is about the residential areas right when you come off I-40 onto Old 86. Right 253 now, I think it is in the Neighborhood Mixed Use on one map but on another map, it’s the Economic Development 254 Transition so I am trying to get an idea of what is proposed for that area in the future. My mother-in-law lives when 255 you are coming off 86 on the right hand side, my wife is the property owner along with my mother-in-law so we are 256 trying to find out what is proposed for that area.257 258 Tom Altieri: The parcels you are inquiring about are to the north of the amendment area that I discussed in my 259 presentation. They are addressed in that Central Orange Joint Land Use Plan as well as the County’s 260 Comprehensive Plan it is located in an area that would have the potential for economic development. The properties 261 there that are residential if zoned for non-residential uses those parcels are allowed to continue to be there to have 262 residential uses. They are what’s called non-conforming uses meaning that it may be a house if it’s rezoned to non-263 residential it’s not within the conforming zoning district but those houses are certainly allowed to stay. We did receive 264 a question at our public information session about would it increase potentially the developers interests in purchasing 265 those houses and the response at that time was that yes it could so it is possible there could be some transitioning 266 there if property owners want to willingly sell their property to developers for non-residential uses in the future.267 268 Richard Wagoner: There would be no requirement at this time, you could stay there if you wanted to or sell if you 269 wanted to?270 271 Tom Altieri: Absolutely, that is correct. I know it’s hard to really separate the development proposal from some of the 272 land use amendments that I’ve been discussing but things like buffer requirements around the development to 273 provide buffers between it and adjacent residential uses will certainly be discussed later this evening.274 275 Richard Wagoner: Ok, thank you.276 277 7 D R A F T Clare Brennan: Hi, Clare Brennan, like one of my neighbors earlier, I also live down Davis Road in the New Hope 278 Springs subdivision. I wanted to specifically talk about that little parcel of land that had the star on it. That’s of 279 concern to me and I think a lot of my neighbors since we live down Davis Road. As I see it, I think this big planned 280 economic development is likely going to happen but I would like to sort of try to get a win out of this somehow and 281 maybe will a battle but lose the war. My position is that we need not be rezoning or annexing that little parcel that 282 had the star on it. I think that was 17 acres that was on the west side of 86 and adjacent to Davis Road. I think there 283 was plans to change that zoning from Rural Residential to an Economic Development Transitional Zone, I am totally 284 opposed to that, and speaking for my neighbors, I think we all are in the subdivision. I also want to step back and 285 remind people that Old 86 is one of 57 scenic byways in the State of North Carolina and appeared on colonial maps 286 of this state dating back to 1770 so we’ve had 250 years of living off of Old 86, families, generations enjoying this 287 rural life so it is really with a lot of dismay and disappointment that we are seeing the plans for this huge rezoning 288 here right at the corner of our neighborhood. I also take a bit of issue with the term RTP Logistics Park. We are at 289 least 30 miles from RTP, surely this is a bit of a misnomer should we maybe consider calling this the Hillsborough 290 Manufacturing District, it’s kind of what we are looking at, right? This is not a RTP associated park in any way shape 291 or form. Also this might go onto the next agenda item but I have a real concern about the PIN 9862-99-8894 that is a 292 warehouse that has an access road off of Davis Road and this is planned to be 300,000 square feet again according 293 to my math that is some sort of building that would be 300 ft. by 1000 ft. right as you turn off of Old 86 onto Davis 294 Road. Quite frankly, that is really unacceptable. We moved out here to this lovely part of Hillsborough and Orange 295 County for the luxury and the privilege of living in the country and that is really just going to totally deface the whole 296 entryway into what is supposed to be our gateway into historic Hillsborough. I also want to mention in this COVID 297 environment, that Davis Road has really become a place that our neighbors cherish. We cycle out there and walk out 298 there you see families walking hand in hand with children on Davis Road especially because people are home now 299 and not able to go out and socialize. Folks cycle out there this is a great place to ride bikes and again that quality of 300 life that we’re used to maybe gone if this huge development comes to fruition so my pitch again is to remove any 301 service road, any development from encroaching down that Davis Road corridor and let’s leave Davis Road in as 302 much of the pristine condition as we can. My last question is once this large manufacturing and industrial 303 warehousing site is approved, will residents be notified about the potential new owners of these facilities and what 304 sort of manufacturing and industrial plans do we have for these parcels are we looking at a rubber tire plant, a swine 305 pig manufacturing site, pharmaceuticals what are we really approving here? It’s quite nebulas in my mind and a little 306 frightening so I’ll stop now and just take any questions if need be. Thank you.307 308 David Blankfard: Thank you. 309 310 Randy Marshall: How far is your development from 86?311 312 Clare Brennan: 1.75 miles, it’s right the Ode Turner fork, go left at the fork.313 314 Randy Marshall: Ok, so you’d have to go 1.7 miles down Davis Drive from 86 to get to your development?315 316 Clare Brennan: Correct.317 318 Randy Marshall: Thank you.319 320 Hunter Spitzer: My question was if we do not approve this Land Use Plan amendment, can this area still be rezoned 321 in the following amendment or would it be passed to the Board of County Commissioners? The one for the Research 322 Triangle Logistic Park if we don’t change our land use map?323 324 Tom Altieri: Any rezoning needs to be consistent with the Land Use Plan. If it is not consistent with the Land Use 325 Plan then the Land Use Plan needs to change concurrently. So the answer to your question is no.326 327 Craig Benedict: I can add on to that. North Carolina State Law allows rezoning to proceed and independent and if 328 the rezoning is approved in an area such as this then we would have to, as Tom said, go back and change the Land 329 Use Plan.330 331 Hunter Spitzer: So it would be inconsistent but because our Land Use Plan didn’t agree with this, it wouldn’t 332 necessarily stop it?333 8 D R A F T 334 Craig Benedict: That’s correct.335 336 Jared Jurkiewicz: My name is Jared Jurkiewicz; I live down Davis Road as well just past the New Hope Subdivision. 337 I’m actually in the Windsong Subdivision, which is a tenth of a mile from them. I am also the president of the 338 homeowners association for the Windsong Subdivision representing approximately 15 households on this call and I 339 would just like us all to go on record saying that we oppose making these changes here all of us are extremely 340 concerned about the detrimental effects it will have to our community, to the traffic on Davis and to the overall 341 lifestyle of the area. It has been summarized by Franklin and several others beforehand that many of us moved out 342 here specifically because it was a rural area and we wanted to be outside of the city. We did not come here to 343 suddenly have a massive manufacturing facility and warehouse district pop up in our back yards. A lot of us are 344 incredibly unhappy about this and I don’t know if it is true or not but I know it has been discussed among people here 345 as we feel like this is being snuck in and hidden with the things such as the signs that are unreadable on the road 346 unless you stop and endanger your life to read them. That the stuff is being done very under the table and sort of an 347 underhanded fashion and it is breeding a lot of resentment with the residents of this area. I can that’s true for my 348 entire subdivision, it’s come up in our homeowners association meetings several time now and as Franklin said, it 349 really feels like, even though the statute said or the creed said that Hillsborough residents come first, it feels like we 350 are all coming last. That this corporation, which is from out of state, is getting more preferential treatment than the 351 2000 + citizens that live here and that’s pretty much my entire comment. Thank you.352 353 Hunter Spitzer: New question, I know that the Town is planning to expand sewer service area to the north of this 354 parcel that’s in question right now and they will provide services to the proposed RTLP development but I remember 355 reading the plan that they’re also planning a long term vision to build a sewer loop that will return back across 86 and 356 I wondered if the Town needs this area to complete that project?357 358 Craig Benedict: Tom, I can handle that one. The loop that they would be providing would be for a water system and 359 not a sewer system. So it’s likely that in order to get the fire flows for development of this type, that a loop would 360 occur back from I-40 near the service road through the development and back out to Old 86 where there is presently 361 a large water line in 86 now. As far as the sewer system, this area even this additional 12 acre area and the other 362 roughly 70 acres on the east side all flows by gravity naturally to the sewer systems within Hillsborough. That’s why 363 this both could be served easily by the sewer system and also water main loop that would go back to the existing 364 facilities along Old 86.365 366 Hunter Spitzer: Right, the Town doesn’t necessarily need this area to complete the water loop.367 368 Craig Benedict: There’s multiple engineering solutions. One of them would be a loop system so it’s something that’s 369 being explored to provide those fire flows that are necessary.370 371 David Blankfard: I think the other way they could do it is to have a fire pump inside each room and each building 372 could generate the flows that they would need for a sprinkler system but those are costly.373 374 Bob Bundschuh: My name is Bob Bundschuh; I also live in New Hope Springs, a couple of miles down Davis. I’ll try 375 to keep this to this particular amendment. The first question I have is when did Hillsborough actually approve this? 376 You said that this is the next step the County has to then follow suit but why now? What made it pertinent this month 377 to actually start doing this and is it related to the second part of the agenda? Looking at your first five slides, you 378 looked at all the areas that are slated for development, there are a lot of areas that are slated for development, 379 already zoned for development and aren’t developed yet. So why the push to do this right now, why don’t we wait 380 until we actually let the demand start catching up with the supply. Or as some people have said is this a quick way to 381 get this kind of rezoned and then call it the master plan which back when Settler’s Point was going on this was phase 382 3 and some type of retirement place and we’re going to go ahead and table that as kind of a negotiation tactic that 383 was used back then. So why is it suddenly become a thing to, it’s not a rezoning but we’re going to match it up with 384 the master plan for the Suburban Office. The second one is the 12 acre parcel at the northwest corner, it’s kind of 385 funny that it is connected to the redrawing of the lines to say, we need that little 12 acre parcel to become part of this 386 complex across the way. So we had 89 acres and 12 of it is across the street. Is it really realistic that someone 387 would actually go in and get that 12 acres, develop it you said, a walkable office building without drive up traffic or is 388 that a way to let’s get this little corner across the street, and Hunter even eluded to it, do we have to do it in the right 389 9 D R A F T order to say yeah we do the land use first and then we can go and rezone it. Is that a way of saying let’s get this first 390 because somebody wants to rezone that later. It’s not, it doesn’t make sense that we have to put that little 12 acre 391 piece in there, it’s just a way to get it in line so that in your next agenda you can then rezone it. Like other people, 392 that connection to Davis, and we’ll talk about that more in the second one, it makes no sense. Davis is a two-lane393 road where the white line actually will go into the gravel sometimes it’s so narrow. The development on Davis is not 394 where you want to put it. And lastly, so how do we change it? Every time we come to one of these meetings, we 395 want to change the master plan of the development to zone it more industrial and take away rural and you said well 396 that’s been the plan for 20 years. Well obviously, it can be changed so how do we change it back. Do we go to the 397 zoning board? Do we go to the County Commissioners? How do we put restrictions as the people that live out here, 398 so that every year we don’t have to keep doing this and that a decision made 20, 30 years, is not going to come up 399 all the time. One last comment, and Randy with all due respect, you said earlier that we have to make this quick or 400 we’ll be here terribly late. I understand we got to make it quick but we live here. We’re the one that have to deal with 401 the decisions being made so if people have to stay up a little later, I think that’s a small sacrifice for those of us who 402 have to live with being up terribly late with development so with all due respect, I’m ok with staying up a little late and403 I think everybody else is to. Thank you.404 405 Maryanne Ross: Hi, thank you for having this meeting and thank you Bob for that. We are community members and 406 with all due respect, if we are here later, this is our neighborhood. The last meeting that we attended it was put off to 407 a later date and they waited until we forgot, they waited until something else happened and they passed a rezoning. 408 It’s the same thing that Ronald said, the sign was put out and it was so small, the meeting had passed, it was only for 409 a few people and then the next thing I knew, I drove by and there were like 20 signs out. And then the meeting 410 happened a week later. So, speaking to David and Hunter and Melissa, welcome, the OCPB charge is that 411 ‘harmonious development, future needs, homes, homestead, wildlife habitat’ we have deer, we have endangered 412 bluebirds, we have many wildlife that are living in this neighborhood community. Whether or not we live 1.75 miles, 413 2.3 miles, we live on Davis, we live on Ode Turner, we live in this neighborhood. This is where we live now. We 414 didn’t live here 20 years ago this is where we live this is where our families are this is our harmonious development 415 we are your constituents we would appreciate you listening to what we have to say. I’m talking to you Hunter, I’m 416 talking to you Melissa, I’m talking to you David. Apparently, you weren’t here when we had this meeting two years 417 ago and they wanted to rezone yet again these same areas and that fell through and what Mr. Altieri described 418 earlier, the whole kit and caboodle was this is an example of the Town giving an inch and a developer taking a mile 419 because there’s a little bit of an extra parcel and that’s what they want to do. And we implore you to please put a 420 stop to it. Let us have our green area. Let us live our lives where we live it best. I do not need nor do we want to 421 have this traffic, this green space taken away, Thank you.422 423 Jon Lorusso: Good evening, I don’t have a lot to say. I wanted to voice my opposition to this. I also live off Davis 424 Road across from the New Hope Springs Subdivision. I am against this I concur with previous speakers about the 425 signs. I almost got into an accident myself trying to read information off a sign. It does feel like this is being done 426 without the, no one voices their opposition. I came in from a meeting late tonight and I missed the meeting in July. I 427 wasn’t at the meeting a few years ago that the previous speaker mentioned. I don’t know how long in the process we 428 are but once it’s done you cannot undo it. You cut down a tree the tree is gone it’s not coming back you can’t just put 429 a new one there. If this is done, it’s permanent. It will change forever the place that we live. The phrase Not in My 430 Back Yard comes to mind. I don’t know how many of the County Commissioners live in this area if this was being 431 done on the other side of the County, I probably wouldn’t care but it is being done in my backyard like the previous 432 speakers have said, I didn’t move here so that I could live next to a giant manufacturing district. This is just not why I 433 moved here not why I live here. I would also like to reiterate what speakers said about the potential use. What’s 434 going to go on here? No idea. I think she mentioned a rubber tire factory, who knows? It’s really none of our 435 business right? It’s private property, they can do whatever they want. I am very upset by this and I really wish you 436 wouldn’t do this to us. That’s all I have to say.437 438 Stephen Williams: I just wanted to voice my concerns and many people have already spoken on the topics I was 439 concerned about. I am wondering why the residents in this area haven’t be given any results as to if traffic studies 440 have been done on the impacts that this facility might have on traffic as well as green space. I spent one day this 441 week putting up my new mailbox because I am in the process of building on a property 3 acres that will border this 442 potential development and life others have said, as I was putting up my mailbox, bikers went by, people walking, 443 cars, it’s just unimaginable what the impacts will be on Davis Road to allow an entrance or exit to a facility of this 444 size. I am also confused as to why the 12 acres is so important. We keep saying that it’s, we’ll talk about something 445 10 D R A F T separate but really they go hand and hands. I really thought it would have been best in the interest of everyone if this 446 had been addressed and then questions had been asked. There’s a major and no one has mentioned this, there are 447 major power lines that separate that 12 acres from the rest of this development. I don’t know if that has been brought 448 to anyone’s attention, I’m sure the planning committee is aware of that it just seems illogical that those 12 acres are 449 essential to them putting this development in. I concur the signs are super small, many people at the July meeting 450 voiced their concerns there weren’t many of us but there were a few there. I do feel like it’s absurd that we’re talking 451 about changing the zoning of a residential area with residents and people’s homes and lives that in and of itself 452 should say. What are we doing here? Why are we doing this? Are we doing this for money? I chose to buy land in 453 Orange County and pay the higher taxes because I wanted some space, I wanted 3 acres, I wanted some woods. I454 didn’t know at the time that all this was going to be occurring or I would have changed my mind. I could have bought 455 in a different county and paid a lot lower taxes so I hope the planners here will hear our voices and as it’s been said, 456 we do the voting and I guess we’ll need to remember that when we vote again. Again, time is of the essence but I’m 457 hearing a lot of questions from people on the planning committee so we might want to direct the time to constituents 458 and residents if we want to save time and save those planning committee questions for when you guys meet at a 459 later time. Thank you.460 461 Leslie Roberts: Thank you for letting me speak, this is Leslie Roberts and I live on Old 86 about a half a mile from 462 the Davis/86 intersection. I am opposed to this and I have some concerns that have not been mentioned yet. One of 463 them being that traffic on Old 86 is picking up quite a bit since I’ve moved here I’ve noticed and I think would be 464 erroneous to assume that the traffic will stay between this warehouse and 40 since 40 is right there. I think that traffic 465 will probably increase along Old 86 to New Hope Church Road as people bypassing go another to the interstate. I 466 think that is something that should be considered also considering the narrower parts of Old 86 out here as well as 467 cyclists and just people just trying to get out of their driveways. I am also concerned because I know that this is a 468 long time coming people have not heard that this has been in motion for many many years but the world we live in 469 now is not the same world we were in when this was thought of and I think it would behoove us to really take a step 470 back and consider the footprint that we are looking at leaving with this industrial complex. Many businesses are 471 opting to work from home options that may be permanent. They are finding that automation can make smaller 472 spaces for warehouses and not as big warehouses are needed. So I think it’s frivolous at this point to consider such 473 a big industrial impact when we’re very clearly seeing that in two or three years from now the same resources may 474 not be necessary and so I think that’s really important to consider that what we’re doing here will have a lasting 475 effect. I have a question to be considered for later, are there plans to consider that is there a pivot that can be made 476 if we realize that this is not going to be fruitful. So that’s where I’m coming from. I appreciate you taking my 477 questions, thank you.478 479 Matthew Kostura: Just a couple of comments. First there have been a lot of question about what might go in here. I 480 think it’s pretty clear what going to go in here, a very large warehousing distribution center, manufacturing is probably 481 not in the cards here. You are really talking about the big impacts is traffic and with all due respect to Randy about 482 asking where people live on Davis Road, 1.8 miles away, whatever. Last I heard cars move they are going to be 483 coming down this way and a point that I want to make is that for everybody out here on Davis Road, all the 484 comments about the biking and the walking and such are true and here’s the reason why, in 20 years’ time since I’ve 485 been living here based on North Carolina’s own annual average daily trip data, the traffic on David Road has not 486 increased one bit it’s been stuck around 800 trips a day. So this is not a road for us, it’s a driveway. We don’t view it 487 as a road it’s our driveway that we come home to. Now at the top of it, you’re going to be putting the traffic bog of 488 basically four years’ worth of trips on this road, four years 3000 trips. That just doesn’t make any sense. Secondly, I 489 want to go back to Melissa Poole’s question because I think it’s really important. It seems like this rezoning is 490 backwards. How I interrupt Tom Altieri’s commentary is basically this way, we can rezone it because in the future we 491 have it marked for rezoning. So we can rezone it now. That’s basically how I’m interrupting this, I think it’s true but 492 it’s really just as a way, an ad hoc way to say, we’re going to get this way in that is critical for this development. They 493 need a second egress from that site and that land is for that. Oh and by the way, they’re putting a 300,000 square 494 foot building there too. Right next to a bunch of homes, which they are free, to sell to anybody who wants to come in 495 and put up fence. It seems to me, I really want to address that issue of how this lays out because it seems to me like 496 this a very ad hoc exercise. I really like some explanations on how that works out because it seems to me what 497 you’re justifying a present change because the future overlay that’s going to occur. Really, that cuts back to Melissa 498 Poole’s comments. Thank you, I’m done.499 500 11 D R A F T Adam Beeman: I am just wondering if we can just get past this first amendment, a lot of the problems and questions 501 would be addressed and answered in Mr. Harvey’s presentation over the rezoning of the MPZ-CD. We’re going 502 through stuff that they will get answers to once Mr. Harvey give his presentation. I don’t know if there is a way we 503 can vote on this first amendment and move along but a lot of the stuff will be answered once we get to that next504 presentation, I believe. 505 506 Gerald Scarlett: I will speak specifically to Item 8 let it be known that I am not in favor of any of this. I have been here 507 for 65 years; my family has been here for over 200 years. When you look at your map, West Scarlett Mountain Road508 is my driveway. It’s a half a mile long and I personally maintain all of it, all the expense and all the work. What I 509 would ask of the Board is that you recommend to the County Commissioners that Item 8 not be approved. I’d like for 510 all this to go away but I’ve been fighting this stuff since Interstate 40 took part of my property so I know how some of 511 it will turn out but we do not need to approve Item 8. If you look at that map, the change that you are making, I know 512 it’s not yet a rezoning, seems to be just because the Town wanted to do it and we want to match that. I think we 513 need to make everything as hard as possible for anybody to do anything in that section other than the R1. Part of my 514 reasoning for that is if you look at my driveway, that is the beginning of the Rural Buffer. My property is in the Rural 515 Buffer. There are a lot of things I cannot do with my property that people on Davis Road can because I’m in the 516 Rural Buffer. Some of my tax money has been spend over the last couple of years to put up signs that say ‘Entering 517 the Rural Buffer’. Some people love it, I personally don’t, it rubs my nose in the fact that I can’t do something on the 518 piece of property my family has been paying taxes on for 150 – 200 years but none of that matters at this point but if 519 you look at that map and you look at my driveway, it does not make sense to me that you have a Rural Buffer that 520 limits the use of property so that it has to stay the very rural, more rural than the rest of the County but I would have 521 to pass businesses and retail potential down the road to get off of my Rural Buffer property. If we are going to make 522 development, there has got to be a buffer between a Rural Buffer and the beginning of the Retail and Industrial. It 523 makes no sense to make a hard line to the Rural Buffer, don’t cut your trees, you can’t divide your property, right over 524 to here’s an industrial zone. If you are going to this and recommend to the County Commissioners that they do this 525 and approve this then you need to do away with the Rural Buffer. That needs to be forgotten about so I guess if 526 there is a question in all that, is there any intention of providing any kind of buffer between my driveway and the 527 changes that this might allow and the zoning that it might allow down the road and I know that the answer to that is 528 no. So, I would beg you please recommend to the Commissioners at least for Item 8 and of course, I think so for the 529 rest of it too, recommend to them that they do not change that. Let’s not make it easy for people to come in and ruin 530 what we’ve done here. Thank you.531 532 Sarah Shore: My name is Sarah Shore. Randy, I just want to let you know that my land backs up to this so we are 533 directly affected by this amendment. This proposed amendment that was snuck in, that was completely different for 534 Settler’s Point, is really upsetting because I will have a warehouse in my backyard, about a 100 yards away from my 535 children’s playset. I moved here to keep my kid’s childhood simple with the woods and being able to run around and 536 have fun and you are now telling me there will be a semi going past my backyard because of the is one little parcel of 537 land and I understand that we can’t fight it all but whoever said it earlier, fighting and winning this battle and losing 538 the war is looking like it might be but please do not put a semi in my backyard and this warehouse. One thing Randy, 539 this is my backyard, I don’t live down Davis Road, I live on Old 86. Thank you.540 541 Cedar Eagle: Hello, I have a question regarding the zoning basically. Can the constituents create a petition to keep 542 the zoning as Rural and Residential and if so, how many signature would be required on a petition like that before the 543 Town would have to address it? That’s my only question.544 545 Craig Benedict: There is a public hearing process that is part of these amendments. You are welcome to attend and 546 bring signatures or petitions if you would like to that public hearing and that will be part of the consideration for the 547 amendment so that’s the process within the laws of the County that are put up in the Unified Development 548 Ordinance.549 550 Cedar Eagle: Ok but there’s no set amount of signatures that is necessary. You can’t give me any kind of numerical 551 data to show how much outcry we would need to make it strongly … I mean I understand the County Commissioners 552 what this approved but pretty much everything I’ve heard from every resident wants it to keep agricultural and 553 residentially zoned so if had a public outcry of thousands of petitions saying they don’t want it how much impact 554 would that have?555 556 12 D R A F T Craig Benedict: We regularly, as part of the public hearing process, take a look at the input that comes from 557 residents and it is gauged against our Comprehensive Plan. There is not a numerical limit that makes it go one way 558 or the other. There is a public hearing process.559 560 Cedar Eagle: Ok, thank you that’s all I needed to know.561 562 Tom Altieri: If I might add, what you are describing sounds a little bit like a reference to annexation law in that when 563 an area is proposed for voluntary annexation, a majority of the property owners have to agree to that annexation. 564 That could be what you are referring to. Annexation of course is not proposed here and there is no rezoning part of 565 Item 8.566 567 Jack Rupplin: Good evening, I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you about this issue. I was ignorant about it until 568 a few days ago until Franklin Garland told me about it because I noticed the little signs but they didn’t mean much to 569 me. He briefed me on this and I realized the impact that this would have on the total area and I was totally shocked. I 570 thought that this amount of time that he described was totally short fused especially on circumstances we are living 571 now with the COVID and so I contacted my attorney and he referred me to another attorney and in turn they referred 572 me to Morningstar Law and they are a very good group of attorneys who specialize in this sort of issue. I spoke with 573 them and I asked them what it would take for them to represent us in this case which I will oppose with all ingenuity 574 and money I can muster to stop this because it is totally a rough plan. It’s a plan without any thought there is no 575 special use zoning in here, it’s just all very broad stroked and that makes it very dangerous and very unpredictable 576 and we will suffer the consequences for a long time and I am personally very happy where I’m near and I will want to 577 continue living where I am. So, as to what I want from you all is a voluntary deferment or delay of any action so we, 578 the residents of this area, we can organize and we can retain legal counsel and we can prepare a plan or a counter 579 plan and suggest some modifications to the zoning or the rezoning and suggest some modifications to the RTLP and 580 come up with something that is reasonable. This is our area not the Planning Board’s area. We want to work with 581 you and we want to organize we are not going to be run over and we are not going to be forced into this so I would 582 like to ask you to consider postponing this and give us the time to organize and to get legal counsel. Hereby, I 583 pledge $1,000 dollars of my money as seed money to begin this action. I thank you very much for your attention and 584 God bless you.585 586 Betty Garland: I just wanted to say that this is going to be in my backyard. We do a brisk agritourism business in 587 general here and this is going to have a very negative impact on that. Also, regarding petitions and signatures we 588 had about 5000 against the Summit project but it got voted in anyway so like if we had 30,000 signatures would that 589 get somebody’s attention? I would like to get that really clarified if I can. That’s it.590 591 Kaila Mitchell: I’m Kaila Mitchell, I live on Jedi Way my parents live on one side and then my in-laws live on the other 592 we are about a quarter of a mile down the road from Old 86. Before we move here, at the end of 2017, my husband 593 Matt Mitchell spoke with Michael Harvey asking about the development plans as far as that expansion that plot that 594 will come up to Davis. He was told that were was no appetite for it and so we were under the impression that it would 595 not happen. If we had known that it would have, of course we would have chosen not to move here. Some of our 596 concerns, just like many of our neighbors that I agree with, we are concerned about light, and noise, pollution, air 597 pollution and of course safety because of the increase traffic, especially the big trucks. I’d also, the potential for the 598 decrease in the value of our property being so close to a warehouse district. So I wanted to make my concerns 599 known as well and that I stand in solidarity with my neighbors being 100% opposed to this. Thank you.600 601 Jon Lorusso: I spoke earlier, I’d just like to say that if this meeting were in person, the attendees, the residents would 602 have the opportunity to meet and meet each other in person a lot of my neighbors, share contact details and organize 603 in a way that Mr. Rupplin was speaking about. We don’t have the opportunity to do that because this is being done 604 virtually but if, I was made aware of this through Mr. Garland, Mr. Franklin Garland, I would say, just to keep it simple, 605 I am going to email him and see if he has any means of organizing the rest of us. Perhaps a Facebook group or 606 something along those lines would be useful. Mr. Rupplin if you have any ideas, I can’t really share my email with 607 you right now but I will try to get in touch with you through Mr. Garland and hopefully we can organize something that 608 way. That’s all I have thank you.609 610 13 D R A F T Franklin Garland: Thank you for taking my questions again, I know I am using a lot of the time out here. Somethings 611 that haven’t been asked yet and I know this will come up later on in the meeting but are any Commissioners present 612 today for this meeting. That’s one question, ok.613 614 Perdita Holtz: Can I go ahead and answer that and say that Commission Chair Penny Rich is on the call as an 615 attendee.616 617 Franklin Garland: She the only one.618 619 Perdita Holtz: Yes, it is not typical that BOCC members attend Planning Board meeting.620 621 Franklin Garland: So this is moot, what we’re discussing the decision everything we’re saying.622 623 Perdita Holtz: Well this the Planning Board meeting and there will be a public hearing before the Board of County 624 Commissioners at a future date.625 626 Franklin Garland: It’s my understanding, and everybody that has spoken so far that this was in fact an information 627 meeting with the Commissioners present and once again it seems to me that the Planning Board is trying to sweep 628 everything under that rug. Ok, again pulling the wool in front of our eyes. Big questions for you guys, there is the 629 Research Triangle Logistic Park Company out there Terra Equity did a presentation for a hand full of people because 630 nobody else was notified and Planning Board has made it a point of not notifying all the people that really get 631 involved but just the ones that are in contact with the property. Ok, so sort of devious, ok because there are, like I 632 said, thousands of people that get affected by this not just the 12 parcels around it. However, big big question, we 633 did have an informational meeting on July 15th I believe it was and they said it was going to create 4500 jobs. The 634 same argument used by the planning that was going to create this jobs for from Northern Orange County. So, this 635 was with Summit Corporation. If we have 4500 new jobs out here and that are being created for the people who live 636 in Northern Orange County, that means we’re going to have approximately 4500 cars coming through Hillsborough 637 additional to the traffic that is a mess already there, in the morning and those cars are going to be returning in the 638 afternoon ok. I don’t think that is exactly good planning by the way. I mean we really need a different way other than 639 Churton to get through Hillsborough and that’s never going to happen but let’s go ahead and double the traffic out 640 there. 4600 people that almost the population of Hillsborough that you actually adding to the traffic conditions out 641 there ok. I don’t know if you guys have considered that apparently not because certainly that would require putting in 642 four lanes or at least 2 lanes in every direction and that’s not in the plans either. I understand that DOT doesn’t have 643 money to convert the roads at this one and to the work and Hillsborough doesn’t either ok. I also, actually good 644 question out here, everything we got pretty much blindsided with Summit and it got approved. I will ask someone 645 who is in the know, Summit got approved pretty much they just blew us away and said we’re going to do whatever we 646 want anyhow and you did and then they pulled out. Why did they pull out, when did they pull out, what did Terra offer 647 you that is making you do it. When did they let you know that they were going to do this and why weren’t we 648 informed that this all had happened? Any care to comment on that, it is planning, this is you know obviously 649 somebody planned Summit and decided to get out of it. Somebody now trying to just pull another one over us. I 650 wouldn’t mind if Mr. Harvey or Mr. Benedict answered this one cause apparently they’re the one in charge of this and 651 I hope they’re present because they are the planning commission and if they’re not there why are we even having 652 this meeting?653 654 Craig Benedict: I can give you a brief answer; we will provide something in writing. The developer of Settler’s Point 655 received approval in January 2018. At times, developers do not stay with the project and we are not privy to why they 656 left the project, cease to exist. Another project did pick that up.657 658 Franklin Garland: Have you seen the damage they did back there already? And the wildlife that the displaced? I 659 mean they literally raised it and then abandoned it.660 661 David Blankfard: I think that was the tornado.662 663 Franklin Garland: No, no, no, no, no, no we’re talking about 90 + acres that are devastated back there not tornados. 664 Raised, cut down and raised and leveled with grading already having started on it. I am just curious why they pulled 665 out. It seems like you guys would know. There would be some agreement that there have to do it since they went 666 14 D R A F T forth and everything and they pulled out and you guy pulled out from who knows where this other mega corporation 667 that is not even in North Carolina that one of the stipulations is here that it’s going to help North Carolinians. This 668 company is from Kentucky for crying out loud. They gonna get their own crews in here and that is supposed to help 669 us? Orange County residents? I mean I don’t see where you guys are deciding this and pulling this out from and you 670 literally putting this whole thing in middle of a residential area. You look around your development zone and it is all 671 residential. It might be by I-40 but that doesn’t keep it from being residential. 672 673 David Blankfard: I think Michael Harvey has something to say.674 675 Franklin Garland: I’d be surprised.676 677 Michael Harvey: The applicant for Settler’s Point did not engage in any land clearing. The land clearing that Mr. 678 Garland is referring to is actually carried out, as I understand it, a timber operation and consistent with a forest 679 management plan to harvest it, the timber. The land disturbance activity did not occur as result of any actual 680 development activity for the Settler’s Point project.681 682 Franklin Garland: Why did Settler’s Point pull out Harvey. I mean you should know you’re in charge of this.683 684 Michael Harvey: Well, Mr. Garland, I responded to your email request. Summit has not pulled out the properties 685 have been rezoned, Summit is not moving forward with their development plans at this time. We have a new 686 applicant proposing a new project that is being processed in accordance with the provision of the Unified 687 Development Ordinance.688 689 Franklin Garland: So if Summit hasn’t done anything that doesn’t mean they’re out of the picture, they just have not 690 done anything yet. You gonna try to sell this to the second customer, how about we go ahead and do a proposal of 691 our own to put up whatever we want our community and try to counter that, would that fly too then.692 693 David Blankfard: You’re welcome to do it. 694 695 Franklin Garland: If our proposal calls for farmland for example, we want it rezoned to pasture. I mean that’s a 696 perfectly legitimate thing and that’s then, you’d have to accept it right if the people, if that’s what we want.697 698 Jayse Sessi: My name is Jayse Sessi, I live a little further away but I drive by that area all the time. We moved here 699 almost 14 years ago and we chose to live in a semi-rural area. Since we’ve been here that parcel that corner has 700 been put up for several different situations and I think it’s a little upsetting that the rural area, if that 12 acres, will 701 impact the neighborhoods that are nearer than I am but it also would have a negative impact, I think, for this area. 702 It’s not just that immediate, those immediate houses those people have mentioned but it’s further away that has an 703 impact as well. I am just basically wanting to voice my concerns and I am against it and my support to the local 704 community.705 706 David Blankfard: Ok, I think that’s everybody from the attendees. Does anybody on the Board have any further 707 questions or comments or anything?708 709 Perdita Holtz: There are two people with their hands up. They have already spoken and as is normal during an in-710 person meeting, normally people are able to speak once so I’ll have to let the Planning Board make a decision on 711 whether they want to hear from Cedar Eagle again and Franklin Garland again.712 713 David Blankfard: So what does the Board think?714 715 Hunter Spitzer: I think it’s time for a motion.716 717 Adam Beeman: I believe I’ve heard enough.718 719 David Blankfard: Yeah, they’ll have time to talk about what they really want to talk about in the next couple of items.720 Ok, so can I get a motion.721 722 15 D R A F T Adam Beeman: Motion to approve the item – I don’t have it in front of me. A motion to approve the amendment for 723 the zoning for the COCA and FLUM.724 725 Tom Altieri: In the motion, sorry for interrupting, the motion would be to approve the resolution that is provided in 726 your packet as attachment 3 and that outlines the amendment and the parcels to be amended if indeed the Planning 727 Board wants to recommend approval they would do so by virtue of approving the resolution that you have.728 729 Adam Beeman: I move to approve Tom’s resolution.730 731 Kim Piracci: Wait a second, I really... I would like to hear from Michael Harvey before I vote on anything. Do I have to 732 vote to hear from Michael Harvey? 733 734 David Blankfard: You can ask Michael anything.735 736 Kim Piracci: Isn’t he going to present tonight?737 738 David Blankfard: Yes, the next one.739 740 Craig Benedict: The next two items.741 742 David Blankfard: We’ve got a long way to go. Tom spoke on this item.743 744 Tom Altieri: I’m sorry, I did not hear. I think the motion on the floor is to approve the Land Use Plan amendments 745 through the resolution. I believe Mrs. Piracci’s question is with regard to the rezoning and there are actually two 746 rezonings on the agenda but I think the one that she is referring to is Item 10, the MPD-CZ that Michael Harvey has a 747 presentation to introduce that item. This is for the Land Use Plan amendments and does not include the rezoning.748 749 Randy Marshall: I am prepared to read the proposal if you want to hear it from the agenda packet.750 751 MOTION by Randy Marshall to approve the amendment. The requirements of Section 2.8 of the UDO have been 752 deemed complete pursuant to Sections 1.1.5 and 1.1.7 of the UDO and Section 153a to 341 of the North Carolina 753 General Statutes the Board finds sufficient documentation within the record denoting that the amendment is 754 consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest 755 because it supports modifying existing non-residential zoning designations in an effort to provide each property 756 owner with an opportunity/path forward for the reasonable development of their property. I would recommend that 757 the Planning Board recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that they consider adoption of the proposed 758 Zoning Atlas amendments. Seconded by Adam Beeman. 759 760 ROLLCALL VOTE:761 Carrie Fletcher: No762 Adam Beeman: For it763 Hunter Spitzer: No764 Melissa Poole: No765 Randy Marshall: Yes766 Kim Piracci: No767 Patricia Roberts: Yes768 Susan Hunter: Yes769 Alexandra Allman: Yes770 David Blankfard: Yes771 MOTION PASSED 6-4772 773 774 AGENDA ITEM 9: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT (GENERAL USE REZONING)-To review and make a recommendation to 775 the BOCC on a County-initiated action to rezone 8 parcels totaling 45.96 acres from MPD-CZ 776 (Settler’s Point) to EDH-4 (Economic Development Hillsborough Office/Retail) (1 parcel 32.76 777 acres in size) or EDH-2 (Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office) (7 parcels totaling 778 16 D R A F T 13.2 acres). The parcels are located in Hillsborough Township, south of Interstate 40 and east of 779 Old Highway 86. This item is scheduled for BOCC public hearing on September 15, 2020. 780 PRESENTER:Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor781 Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract and proposed changes to the Zoning Atlas Amendment 782 783 David Blankfard: Anybody from the Board have any questions or comments?784 785 Hunter Spitzer: My first question is in rezoning these parcels back to what they were prior to this, particularly on the 786 east side of 86, could I recommend or ask for consideration to rezoning to low intensity to medium intensity 787 residential in this area? It seems as though the industrial land uses are not very in line with the vision that the 788 residents have and I would add this zoning in addition to the ones that you already have recommended and in place 789 of Rural Residential this would allow for a more transition, a different opportunity for development in the area that I 790 think would be more in line with what some people have voiced.791 792 Michael Harvey: Thank you for the question, that suggestion in my opinion is inconsistent with the Comprehensive 793 Plan, which identifies this area as Economic Development. I also think that these property owners would object to be 794 down zoning their property and loss of potential development value. There parcels have been zoned Economic 795 Development for several decades. I think that it is not something that I am comfortable with recommending or 796 supporting. I think that if you have an interest in restudying the area that statement needs to be made to the County 797 Commissioner who would need to take it under consideration. What I will say is that, as with other projects in this 798 general area, there has been an interest in expanding our current Hillsborough Economic Development District and 799 Economic Development opportunities in this area. I also think it’s not necessarily the best planning idea to put a low 800 intensity residential right up against an interstate. I think that the current land use categories and zoning that we 801 have recommended that would allow for purposeful development and expansion consistent with current County 802 policy.803 804 Hunter Spitzer: I have another, more of a comment and this is pertaining to the analysis section of the introduction of 805 this amendment. ‘It finds that this is consistent with land use goal 3, a variety of land uses that are coordinated within 806 a program and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes land use conflicts, 807 supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system.” This is not mentioned again in the actual motion or I 808 believe the resolution we have to recommend to the Board. So if that will not be included over in summary words 809 those things that we’ve accomplished then I have no further objections but I do find that land use goal in itself a little 810 bit contradictory and not applicable to this situation.811 812 David Blankfard: All right, anybody else have any comments? Ok, again I’d like to ask people from the community to 813 say if they received a letter from the planning department. 814 815 Stephen Williams: I did receive a letter from the County Planning Board. I just want to reiterate something that the 816 gentleman just said that was speaking. He said that he didn’t think that the residents or the owners, I’m sorry, the 817 owners of the property that we are discussing now would appreciate a rezoning that would devalue their property and 818 I think that that’s something that every resident here is concerned about. It’s interesting that we’re concerned about 819 these particular parcels and the owners of them and worried about decreasing the value they have in their property 820 but I think it should be noted that rezoning these areas and putting in this development which is the goal here, is also 821 going to devalue the properties of the residents that are around those areas. Thanks.822 823 Bob Bundschuh: I have a question if these go back to their old zoning and they’re allowed to develop independently, 824 two questions. Is water and sewer does the loop have to be supplied to them before they can do that and secondly, if 825 someone decided to develop again can you reiterate what steps they would have to take. Would it go through zoning 826 and then the County Commissioners again or since it is zoned does it just go to the zoning board?827 828 Michael Harvey: I think I can answer that question. So, any development of this property will have to be done in 829 compliance of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, it would be staff administrator review, it would not 830 go back to the Planning Board or the County Commissioners. If these property remain Settler’s Point, MPD-CZ it 831 would also not have to go back to the County Commissioners or the Planning Board it would develop under site plan 832 review. There are standards in the Unified Development Ordinance dealing with shared driveway access that any 833 17 D R A F T development on these properties would have to abide by but the rezoning of these parcels would mean that the 834 concept access management strategy developed as part of the Settler’s Point MPD-CZ would not have to be 835 followed and from our standpoint, it is more appropriate to give these individual property owners a path forward to 836 development of their property as compliant with the various 18 or so pages of conditions associated with the Settler’s 837 Point MPD-CZ would be difficult for them to abide by.838 839 Bob Bundschuh: And water and sewer?840 841 Michael Harvey: I’m sorry sir; I forgot the water and sewer. These parcels are intended nor are they slated to be 842 served by water and sewer. In order for any of these eight parcels to get water/sewer, it is my opinion they would 843 have to request annexation of the Town of Hillsborough. My apologies for that. This rezoning does not somehow 844 give them the ability to tap onto water/sewer inconsistent with what the Town’s original reaction was back when 845 Settler’s Point was being reviewed.846 847 Franklin Garland: So, Mr. Harvey, it’s my understanding with these eight parcels and pretty much everything else out 848 there that what you decide goes and even though the ethics part of our webpage out here says that you can’t do that, 849 you just gonna railroad everything through no matter what as you saying this is not going to go to the Board of 850 Commissioners, what you’re doing right now. That they would have no say, they can’t tell you no, and hold on hold 851 on, I’m not done….852 853 Michael Harvey: No sir, this Zoning Atlas amendment has to go to the County Commissioners for eventual approval, 854 the development of these properties, as individual parcels would be handled by the staff consistent with the 855 requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance as all permitted land uses would be handled.856 857 Franklin Garland: Ok, so if you spending all this time and energy and all this money on it and all the people out here, 858 I can get 20 or 30 thousand people to go against what you’re trying to propose, you have wasted all this money and it 859 will go to the Board of Commissioners and they gonna say, well we agree with the community, maybe they will this 860 time. Apparently, you don’t. You don’t live here, I don’t know where you live, you know. I don’t know where the 861 Commissioners live, I don’t know where the rest of the Board lives but apparently they’re not being affected by this 862 because they could care less, including you, ok. I would really appreciate it if actually some of the Commissioners 863 and some of these planning people came and looked at these properties. I will gladly let you on my property and 864 show you what I mean. I have a drone I can fly over so you can see it because apparently you going by maps and 865 that’s good enough and that’s not good enough for the people that live here by the way. You know what’s good 866 enough is for you to leave us alone.867 868 David Blankfard: Thank you Mr. Garland869 870 Steve Kaufmann: Can I have video too. My name is Steve Kaufmann and I did receive a letter from the County for 871 this. First, let me introduce myself as a resident of Hillsborough for 25 years. I moved here to be a school teacher 872 here and I moved on Davis Road and like everyone else has spoken about Davis Road, I just love this road it’s like a 873 dream come true moving here and I opened up a martial arts school here. I’ve been teaching martial arts in 874 Hillsborough for 25 years also. Driving on Old 86 on my way to work, I saw some land for sale on the east side right 875 near 40 and I wanted to build a martial arts school so I purchased that land that was actually zoned for schools at 876 that time. Unfortunately, there as a moratorium for six months going on while I was purchasing it and once the 877 moratorium was over I was no longer able to build a school on it. So I’ve been waiting for 20 years and I had the 878 opportunity to have a school on it when Settler’s Point was approved because basically the codes changed a lot 879 during that time which they’re present still. Because of what Michael Harvey explained, it’s impossible for anyone to 880 do anything with that property given that everyone has to work together because there’s traffic ordinances and lots of 881 details that take lots of money to do anything within any of that property. So, I don’t want people to inflate those 882 properties on the east side with the this humongous thing that’s going on with the west side. They are very very 883 different things. I purchased this property exactly 20 years ago; I’m like a newcomer there. I purchased it from a 884 family who had lived there for generations and all my neighbors have lived there for generations, I mean, I’m 885 definitely the new guy there after 20 years. All those people have had property for many years and I don’t know what 886 they are planning to do with it but I don’t see anyone eager to build with it, they are just sitting on it, including myself 887 at the moment. We’re very very close to I-40 there’s already Dodson’s Construction is already a business right near 888 40 that’s been a business there ever since I’ve been there and that’s right next door to my house. Whatever is going 889 18 D R A F T to go on there, those are like four to six acres lots. Once again, don’t inflate it with the these humongous warehouses 890 that are happening on the west side an especially that 12 acre lot on Davis Road which I’m definitely against. Those 891 are very very different things that are happening on the same night tonight so I just wanted to air my concerns. It 892 would definitely be a setback to me to have that as residential only, I purchased it to build the school on and I’ve 893 been struggling for 20 years to try to get a school on it and I’ve been in conversations with Orange County for 20 894 years about how to build a school on it and believe me it’s not easy to build anything in Orange County without going 895 through lots of red tape. If you are a very large building company and you have lawyers and you have architects and 896 you have designers and you have site planners and you have lots of money to work with you can get things done but 897 as a small mom and pop operation that I have it’s very very very difficult to get anything done so I just want to assure 898 you that there aren’t going to be all these things popping up on the east side of that street. There’s no water and 899 sewer there, it’s almost like it’s impossible to build there the land doesn’t perk well and we don’t have water and 900 sewer. It’s probably going to be sitting there for a good many years still. Ok, that’s all I have to say, thank you very 901 much.902 903 Craig Benedict: Michael Harvey, can you confirm that these rezonings would facilitate him being able to do 904 something on his property besides the Settler Point district two.905 906 Michael Harvey: Yes, as I alluded, if the rezoning is approved then development of the individual parcels would have 907 to compliant with the County Unified Development Ordinance but they would be developed and could be developed 908 independently from one another consistent with the Table of Permitted Land Uses contained in Section 5.2.909 910 Perdita Holtz: Franklin Garland has put his hand up for a second time; it will be up to the Board whether you want to 911 allow additional comments from Mr. Garland.912 913 David Blankfard: I don’t think we need to hear anything else from Mr. Garland on this agenda item. 914 915 Gerald Scarlett: I’m Gerald Scarlett again from West Scarlett Mountain Road. I just have a quick question. I think I 916 know the answer but I want to make sure. Item 9 on the agenda, the only thing that is doing is reverting the zoning 917 for the property on the east side of Old 86 back to its previous zoning before the development for Settler’s Point, is 918 that correct?919 920 Michael Harvey: You are correct sir.921 922 Gerald Scarlett: Thank you.923 924 Randy Marshall: Ready to make a motion if that’s the desire of the Planning Board.925 926 David Blankfard: Yes927 928 MOTION by Randy Marshall this would be an ordinance amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas as established in 929 Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance and whereas the proposed rezoning consists of 930 the eight property owners and whereas the proposal has been found to be consistent with the 2030 Orange County 931 Comprehensive Plan and whereas the requirement of Section 2.8 of the UDO have been deemed complete and 932 whereas the Board has found that the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be reasonably necessary to promote the 933 public health, safety, and general welfare, we recommend that the Board of County Commissioners rezone the areas 934 described above and depicted on the attached maps.935 936 Michael Harvey: Chair Blankfard, this is Michael Harvey, can I ask for a clarification. Randy so your motion is that 937 you make a recommendation to approve the Statement of Consistency as contained in attachment 3 and the 938 proposed ordinance, which you have just summarized as contained in attachment 4 to the County Commissioners, is 939 that correct?940 941 Randy Marshall: My presumption was we had already approved the attachment 3 by our earlier vote and I was 942 recommending approval of attachment 4.943 944 Michael Harvey: No sir, this is a different item, so it’s both items.945 19 D R A F T 946 Randy well then I recommend both 3 and 4.947 948 MOTION by Randy Marshall to recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency and the ordinance amending 949 the Orange County Zoning Atlas. Seconded by Hunter Spitzer.950 951 ROLLCALL VOTE:952 Carrie Fletcher: Yes953 Adam Beeman: Yes954 Hunter Spitzer: Yes955 Melissa Poole: Yes956 Randy Marshall: Yes957 Kim Piracci: Yes958 Susan Hunter: Yes959 Alexandra Allman: Yes960 David Blankfard: Yes961 Patricia Roberts: Yes962 963 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY964 965 966 AGENDA ITEM 10: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT (MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION –RESEARCH TRIANGLE 967 LOGISTICAL PARK)-To review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on a developer-initiated 968 application for an MPD-CZ (Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning). The proposed project 969 encompasses approximately 180 acres in the Hillsborough Economic Development District (EDD) 970 south of Interstate 40 and west of Old Highway 86, within Hillsborough Township. 168 acres are 971 currently zoned MPD-CZ (Settler’s Point) and 12 acres are currently zoned R-1 (Rural Residential). 972 This item is scheduled for BOCC public hearing on September 15, 2020.973 PRESENTER:Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor974 Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract and proposed changes to the Zoning Atlas Amendment 975 The Applicant for the RTLP proposal give a presentation976 977 Randy Marshall: I read in some of the material here that you are likely going to consider putting left turn only from 978 that service road onto Davis Drive, I didn’t see it in your presentation. Is that something you’re considering doing, left 979 turn only coming out of the service drive onto Davis?980 981 Michael Birch: Correct, we have added a condition that is part of the case that requires the developer to install 982 signage essentially stating ‘left hand turns only’ there at that access point. That is part of the conditions.983 984 Randy Marshall: I think that would help address some of the residents concern that there’d be a lot of increased 985 traffic going down Davis Road or at least intending to try to control traffic and encourage them to turn left, that might 986 allay some of their concerns.987 988 Michael Birch: Absolutely, and that access point is approximately 1000 feet from the intersection with 86 and as I 989 mentioned, the traffic engineers have been working with the County and the State to really anticipate only about 5% 990 of the site trips to come or to go on Davis Drive to the west, or coming from the west. We think that signage will 991 assist with that.992 993 Adam Beeman: My biggest concern is the traffic coming off of 40 or especially coming from Mebane. How do you 994 plan on solving that problem because it’s only a single lane coming down the ramp and there is no lights so right now 995 anybody that comes off that ramp could sit there for minutes before they can make a left turn to go towards the 996 hospital. I only see that increasing with all those, the developments that they put in over across the street from the 997 hospital and you want to add how many tractor-trailers coming off of that ramp? So, I’m just curious to know what 998 your plan is for the light situation coming off the ramp.999 1000 20 D R A F T Matt Peach: Hello everybody, my name is Matt Peach with Stantec Consulting Services; I’m the engineer of record 1001 for the traffic impact analysis. Mr. Beeman, I did hear your question and I think your concern regarding the amount of 1002 traffic coming from Mebane and using I-40, that’s correct? We’re currently in the process of recommending and 1003 coordinating improvements with NCDOT. We know that the applicant has recommended improvements, particularly 1004 installing a traffic signal at the I-40 eastbound ramps there at Old NC 86. In addition to that, we’re trying to 1005 coordinate with NCDOT regarding two projects they have in the area along I-40 and to the north on Churton Street 1006 trying to make sure that our recommendations are in line with their future projects as well. That was the, part of the 1007 information that they had requested previously, that we supplied them today.1008 1009 Adam Beeman: So there’s no intention to add any extra lane, widen any lanes coming off the ramp or turning that 1010 corner towards your service road?1011 1012 Matt Peach: That’s what we’re coordinating with NCDOT right now. We would definitely try our best to work within 1013 the existing pavement to have turn lanes there at the service road. In terms of lanes at the ramps, we are not 1014 proposing any at this moment but that’s exactly what we’re coordinating with NCDOT.1015 1016 Adam Beeman: I come off of that ramp from Mebane, I go to the hospital, and I can sit there from minutes trying to1017 take that left. I just imagine if someone is trying to take the left and that ramp’s not any wider when you start stacking 1018 up trucks behind those people, you are going to be up on the highway before long so I am just curious. I know, 1019 understand you’re within the footprint but that right hand turning lane would be really nice so that the truck could just 1020 roll off and not have to sit there and stack up.1021 1022 Matt Peach: I certainly understand that and the purpose that and the purpose of putting a traffic signal in there would 1023 be to allow the side street to move more efficiently. In theory, that delay would be reduced.1024 1025 Adam Beeman: Well that’s my biggest concern; I mean all the other stuff is secondary. My biggest concern is just 1026 that whole intersection is a nightmare and I don’t if it’s going to be on you guys to deal with it or because the hospital 1027 is expanding, they’re building all those houses across the street from the hospital and all that development, that 1028 intersection is going to be a nightmare before long so I was just hoping that you guys would try to address it 1029 preemptively rather than reactively.1030 1031 Matt Peach: Our current recommendation to NCDOT is to install a signal at that location so we are right in line with 1032 you there and just to point upon the point you made regarding the hospital, we made sure to account for traffic for 1033 future phases of Waterstone in our analysis.1034 1035 David Blankfard: I have a question, so what kind of traffic is going to be coming out from the building onto David 1036 Drive? Is that going to be trucks or is it going to be automobiles or a combination?1037 1038 Matt Peach: We do foresee both. Really as we had kind of been mentioning previously, the trucks would be using 1039 Old NC 86 to get up to I-40 primarily. We see very little traffic going to and from the west on Davis Road. If traffic is 1040 on Davis Road it’s trying to get from that driveway to Old 86 for that 1000 feet and that’s about it.1041 1042 David Blankfard: What about when they get to Davis Road and it’s backed up from 1-40? What prevents them from 1043 taking a right on Old 86 going down to the stop sign and then turning onto New Hope to get onto 40?1044 1045 Matt Peach: Another recommendation we made in the traffic study was to install a signal at Davis Road as well at 1046 Old NC 86 so again the delay on the side street having no longer stop control will be reduced in this scenario.1047 1048 David Blankfard: But there’s nothing to stop them from turning right and going further into the rural….going toward 1049 Carrboro.1050 1051 Matt Peach: There will be no physical barrier, to answer that question specifically, but they would be losing time and 1052 which I don’t believe truckers, it’s in their best interests.1053 1054 21 D R A F T David Blankfard: I guess, I’m just saying if it gets backed up where you’re proposing, over near the service road, if it 1055 gets backed up there then they would go the other way. Is there going to be a lot of stacking between the service 1056 road and I-40?1057 1058 Matt Peach: I don’t believe that would be any longer, to answer your question. We do foresee some queues going 1059 back from the ramp but that’s just normal for the installation of a traffic signal and quite frankly, we need that traffic to 1060 stop for brief periods so we can let the ramp move but our analysis show that the stacking would go back a couple 1061 hundred feet certainly nowhere near Davis Road and certainly not long enough to really deter anybody from taking 40 1062 up that way off Old 86.1063 1064 David Blankfard: Ok, so what you’re saying is it’s faster just to go down to towards the service road as opposed to 1065 taking a right?1066 1067 Matt Peach: Correct sir.1068 1069 David Blankfard: Now what about once they get to 40 and say they are going on 85 northbound, would it be faster to 1070 for them to get on 40 west and then looping around to 85 or to keep going straight past Waterstone to get to 85.1071 1072 Matt Peach: I’d imagine the faster way would be I-40 but that would be an individual decision that every individual 1073 driver would have to make.1074 1075 David Blankfard: Ok, so we don’t know?1076 1077 Matt Peach: I can’t say definitively what behavior individuals will choose. It depends on time of day, depends on 1078 their individual preferences. In my view, I would take I-40 to 85.1079 1080 David Blankfard: Ok, my next question is what the outcome of the high electric line going over the existing or one of 1081 the proposed buildings?1082 1083 Chris Bostic: Good evening, I’m Chris Bostic with Kimley-Horn; I’m the civil engineer of record for his project. To 1084 answer your question, Duke Energy does have regulations as to what is allowed underneath those transmission 1085 lines, no buildings are allowed within the easement of those transmission line, however, they do allow parking and 1086 our current conceptual plan does contemplate putting parking underneath the power lines and keeping the proposed 1087 structure the required distance away from the easement.1088 1089 David Blankfard: Ok, the entrance onto Davis Drive, there’s a parcel of land that’s very close and their house is very 1090 close to where the proposed driveway is or the road access. Is there concern about, I mean you’ve got the 100 foot 1091 setback but is it going, what kind of impact is that going to have for that property owner?1092 1093 Michael Birch: (Showed an exhibit) So, I think you are talking about this area (pointed out on exhibit) down here 1094 along Davis, so we really only have within that 100 foot area, really only have kind of the drive aisle and maybe a little 1095 bit of parking in that area with the building setback 60 feet. Excuse me the building setback with a maximum height 1096 of 60 feet but outside of that 100 foot setback line, in terms of impact, I was trying to see if there is a better image to 1097 try to get a sense of it there but I think with a mix of landscaping that we anticipate in that area that is a mitigating part1098 of the transition.1099 1100 David Blankfard: There is a similar part on the east side. That person’s home is quite close to the property line. I 1101 am just wondering is their backyard going to be your driveway and parking lot.1102 1103 Michael Birch: No, there was anticipate likely having a stormwater control facility in that area and then only outside of 1104 that, again, we are kind of showing a 100 foot buffer on this exhibit that the parking and drive aisle would be outside 1105 of that, largely outside of that 100 feet.1106 1107 David Blankfard: Is this going to be phased construction;are you starting with Building A and then going to Build B, 1108 C and then finishing up with D?1109 1110 22 D R A F T Michael Birch: Likely, it will be phased. I don’t know exactly if it’s a Building A, B, C, D but we do anticipate that it 1111 would be phased. The building likely off the service road to be part of that initial phase.1112 1113 David Blankfard: Are they all one story, or are they going to be multiple stories or high bay?1114 1115 Michael Birch: Anticipated to be one story.1116 1117 David Blankfard: So, high bay?1118 1119 Michael Birch: Yes.1120 1121 David Blankfard: Are you going to put any photovoltaics on the roof?1122 1123 Hunter Spitzer: I was going to ask how far away is the nearest Duke Energy substation?1124 1125 Michael Birch: I want to make sure I heard the two questions to make sure we get the response for you. One, how 1126 far away are we from the closest Duke Energy substation and then two, are we planning to include any photovoltaic 1127 cells or panels on the roofs. Just from the developer it’s likely that some will be included. We don’t have the answer 1128 on what the distance is to the substation.1129 1130 Hunter Spitzer: Would the developer be willing to submit to a condition requiring roofs not to install solar immediately 1131 but to be readily available to solar installation? If that makes sense? Designed with the intent to install solar.1132 1133 Michael Birch: Yes, I think that’s something that the developer would be willing to agree to.1134 1135 Hunter Spitzer: Additionally, would the developer be willing to commit to electrical vehicle charging stations in 1136 addition to this?1137 1138 Michael Birch: Yes.1139 1140 Hunter Spitzer: I know for the Settler’s Point development we had, I am be confusing this with a different Special Use 1141 Permit, but we had agreed to a particular number of stations per parking spaces. I am sure one of the staff can 1142 remember because it was based on the parking deck for the Orange County Municipal Building downtown. What 1143 would be acceptable ratio?1144 1145 Michael Birch: My senses given the nature of this development and how different it is both from Settler’s Point and 1146 the project that was used as a reference point for that Settler’s Point ratio, my sense is we would not be agree on a 1147 ratio basis. I think we could discuss a flat number of station. 1148 1149 Hunter Spitzer: I see and are you intending to provide stations or availability to electrical fleet management 1150 particularly in the context of developing the distribution center?1151 1152 Michael Birch: Sorry, just to kind of answer your question, our sense is that something like that or having that 1153 available will be driven by the end user, a particular end user that we don’t have in mind right now or don’t have at 1154 the table. So I think it would be hard for us, difficult for us to commit to providing that and then there’s the potential, 1155 again if it’s not a warehouse, distribution use. Kind of having those and nothing to use it so I think given that is 1156 somewhat of a trend being driven by some of those types of users, if there is that type of use there, I would expect 1157 them to be there but I think not knowing who the users are going to be or what type of user there is going to be, I 1158 don’t think we can commit to that as a condition.1159 1160 Hunter Spitzer: Are you anticipating any fuel storage on the premises, gasoline, diesel or otherwise for backup 1161 generation or vehicle fueling? I’m not sure where the nearest gas station is immediately to this but I imagine if you 1162 are expecting a lot of traffic it wouldn’t be unreasonable.1163 1164 Michael Birch: There might be some diesel storage for backup generation but that’s really all that is anticipated.1165 1166 23 D R A F T Hunter Spitzer: This is more of a question for the planning staff. There are UDO regulations to control that correct? 1167 Fuel storage.1168 1169 Michael Harvey: It’s actually regulated by the North Carolina State Fire Code, not necessarily by zoning. In terms of 1170 distance from structure, how stored, how protected, and how maintained it’s actually going to be addressed through 1171 compliance with the fire code and what I want to remind everybody that site plans that are submitted have to go 1172 through the development review process with Orange County which requires the fire marshal’s office to sign off on 1173 them. That is going to be a component of any and all review. So this will come up at the appropriate time by the 1174 appropriate entity if proposed.1175 1176 Hunter Spitzer: Can I simply request that the developer agree as a condition not to put fuel storage adjacent to their 1177 vegetative buffer of the flood plain.1178 1179 Michael Birch: Yes, we can agree to that.1180 1181 David Blankfard: This is a question for Michael, is the building height determined by how tall the fire department can 1182 raise their ladder?1183 1184 Michael Harvey: So Mr. Blankfard let me answer that question this way, obviously there are height limits enforced 1185 under Orange County General Use Zoning Districts and 60 feet is the potential building height that would be allowed. 1186 You are correct that building height is usually determined by the available or one of the factors in determining 1187 allowable building height is available infrastructure to fight fire. I think that without putting words in the applicant’s 1188 mouth or stealing their thunder, I think one of the reasons this site has so much traction is because the availability of 1189 water and sewer service is there will be potential for sprinklered buildings that would address some of that as well. 1190 There’s also, in their narrative discussions about the potential to allow for water towers on the property that might be 1191 used in addressing that very particular issue as well.1192 1193 David Blankfard: Is there any requirements for high beams on the trucks and cars spilling over our property line? 1194 Something similar to what happens in parking decks?1195 1196 Michael Birch: I think that’s likely addressed through the vegetated buffer around the perimeter. I think largely, I 1197 think Michael Harvey can correct me if I’m wrong, largely the County’s Lighting Ordinance with regard to site lighting 1198 but again I think we anticipate that vegetated buffer around the perimeter of the site would mitigate those headlights.1199 1200 Michael Harvey: Chair Blankfard, this is Michael Harvey, Mr. Birch is correct our lighting regulations particularly 1201 address outdoor lighting, building security lighting and whatnot they don’t address or they are not designed to 1202 address lights from vehicles.1203 1204 David Blankfard: Would the developer be willing to try to mitigate those high beams?1205 1206 Michael Birch: I think we’re trying to through the use of those perimeter buffer yards and also one, the vegetation 1207 and two the distance and also the location of where our parking area are or anticipate them to be. I think it would be 1208 hard for us to articulate an objective standard but just to answer your question more broadly, I think yes we will try to 1209 mitigate that but it’s hard for me to think of an objective standard that we could apply as a condition.1210 1211 Melissa Poole: So you don’t have actual companies going into this location into this space yet, is that correct?1212 1213 Michael Birch: That’s correct.1214 1215 Melissa Poole: Ok, so if you’re looking at manufacturing and possibly laboratory and research are you looking at that 1216 they would have the ability to operate multiple shifts?1217 1218 Michael Birch: Yes, potentially a building user could have multiple shifts that is correct?1219 1220 Melissa Poole: So, back to, I want to jump back to just to a moment to David, when he talking about particularly the 1221 residents most closely situated towards the lines, I mean I guess my question is how can you guarantee this will not 1222 24 D R A F T disrupt their life if you are running multiple shifts. That’s 24 hours, could be 7 days a week 24 hours and you don’t 1223 know what kind of businesses are going in there.1224 1225 Michael Birch: Right but they are indoor activity in these buildings. In terms of like the primary use is inside, again 1226 building setbacks, vegetative buffers around the perimeter, and I mentioned earlier, those distances between just our 1227 property line in some of the closer structure to our west from the larger parcel over 1100 feet. To our south from that 1228 larger parcel over 800/900 feet so I think we are well buffered on the subject property but also a lot of the lots that 1229 surround us are deep lots with the houses situated far from the common boundary line.1230 1231 David Blankfard: Can you have the traffic engineer explain what is going on at Davis Drive and Old 86. Specifically, 1232 what the current traffic is and then when this is functioning what happens what will the new traffic pattern be.1233 1234 Matt Peach: Thank you, appreciate the question. Obviously, we recommended a traffic signal there at that location 1235 and I believe was touched on previously in the presentation but what we were concerned with at the intersection of 1236 Davis Road and Old NC 86, quite frankly, is sight distance. What our concern was traffic coming along Davis Road 1237 coming to a stop and being able to see in both direction down Old NC 86 for a sufficient distance to allow them to 1238 turn safely onto Old NC 86 to make sure there is a sufficient gap in traffic. We didn’t feel that it was there in terms of 1239 site distance so we had recommended a traffic signal to that end in addition to helping facilitate movement to and 1240 from the site. In terms of traffic today, we had full traffic counts. Currently on Davis Road at Old NC 86 there’s about 1241 170 cars along Davis Road in the morning peak hour. In the evening peak hour there is roughly 91 cars coming 1242 along Davis trying to turn onto Old NC 86. On Old NC 86 there’s a 300 northbound cars approximately in the 1243 morning and this is consistent with the evening rush hour southbound is similar about 300 in the morning and 1244 evening rush hour. 1245 1246 David Blankfard: That’s current?1247 1248 Matt Peach: That’s correct.1249 1250 Hunter Spitzer: I have a question for the County staff; does the Town’s sewer line currently follow along Cate’s 1251 Creek? Both sewer and water connections?1252 1253 Craig Benedict: I can answer that, yes the sewer line is known as the Cate’s Creek outfall and it would roughly follow 1254 those elevation changes flowing to the north. The water doesn’t have to follow the topography and it would be along1255 the service road and there is an existing 16 inch water main on Old 86 now at Davis Road all the way into 1256 Hillsborough and there is actually an emergency interconnect all the way down Old 86 to the Orange Water and 1257 Sewer Authority facility. The Old 86 line is in operation with the Town of Hillsborough now and it would be those two 1258 areas, Old 86, service road and then some sort of loop through the project would be likely with the final engineering.1259 1260 Hunter Spitzer: I was thinking less about water and sewer and more along the lines of co-locating some sort of 1261 pedestrian trail but then I remembered that you have to build a bridge over I-40, which would probably border on 1262 impossible. Maybe that should be a development …. If they are planning on redoing 40 in this area anyway which I 1263 think is the case. Ah, maybe we should see if the developer will build us a bridge, what do you say guys?1264 1265 David Blankfard: I still have a question for the traffic, what is going to be when it’s build out what are the numbers 1266 going to be?1267 1268 Matt Peach: When we put the development in, we’re looking at very little traffic coming from the south on Old NC 86. 1269 We’re looking at, we had estimated that being a maximum of 37 vehicle per hour. That’s particularly in the morning 1270 and it’s similar for the southbound on Old NC 86, that is a maximum of, we had estimated that at 28 that’s in the 1271 evening rush hour. Along Davis Road, since we are directing trucks to turn left out of this site and onto Davis for that 1272 short 1000 foot section to get to Old 86, we’re seeing a little bit higher, so we’re looking at staff, 62 in the morning 1273 traffic, an additional 62 and up to 200 vehicles per hour in the evening.1274 1275 David Blankfard: One of the comments was, did your, the traffic study was only for a.m. and p.m. was that the high 1276 times? The other times were fewer these were the maximums?1277 1278 25 D R A F T Matt Peach: That’s correct, the other hours of the day we’re forecasting much less traffic. What NCDOT requires us 1279 to do is basically run the traffic study imagining that a shift change or some other operation were to occur during the 1280 rush hour on the road already. So, kind of trying to get that worst-case scenario, that’s what we ended up studying. 1281 We didn’t study any of the off-peaks where traffic would be less both at the development and along the roads within 1282 the study area.1283 1284 David Blankfard: Ok, on this slide that is being shown at the service road there is a right out only so how do the 1285 trucks get to I-40?1286 1287 Matt Peach: That’s correct. The back and forth that we are currently having with NCDOT right now is NCDOT had 1288 expressed concerns over whether queues at the interchange would extend past the service road and what they had 1289 requested we analyze and those are the numbers I was just quoting you, would be if left turns were prohibited out of 1290 the service road and if that traffic were relocated down to Davis but to get back over to Old NC 86 for that 1000 feet. 1291 That’s why you see that right turn there, that was at the request of NCDOT.1292 1293 David Blankfard: So the trucks leave the service road they take a right on Old 86 they go down to Old 86 and how do 1294 they turn back around?1295 1296 Matt Peach: So trucks would go through the site, they would exit at Davis go to Old NC 86 that way.1297 1298 David Blankfard: Ok, so they would go through, ok. They wouldn’t be exiting from the service road the trucks would 1299 be diverted towards David Road and then they take a left on Old 86 towards I-40.1300 1301 Matt Peach: That’s correct.1302 1303 Melissa Poole: So, with regards to manufacturing and the laboratory, I’m sorry to jump back to this, when we went 1304 through the list of prohibited, and this might be a question for Craig and Michael Harvey, when we went through the 1305 list of prohibited businesses, I did not see like biodefence or anything like that in that list. So, if it doesn’t come back 1306 to Planning Board once we go through this and it doesn’t go to Board of County Commissioners everything just kind 1307 of goes through. What are the protections for residents, not just nearby but Orange County in general, for things like 1308 insuring biodefence manufacturing in there or biodefence research is going in there?1309 1310 David Blankfard: I think the building codes, I’m not, hopefully, I’m not speaking out of turn Michael. I think the 1311 building codes would limit the amount of toxic chemicals and based on what is going on there. That would be …1312 1313 Melissa Poole: It doesn’t have to be chemical, it could be research on Corona, it could be research on, you know, it 1314 doesn’t have to emit a toxic chemical. You see what I’m saying?1315 1316 David Blankfard: Then it wouldn’t be lethal, right? If they’re just doing research? 1317 1318 Melissa Poole: I have a client in Maryland who’s doing the vaccine for COVID and everybody in the company’s got 1319 COVID. I’m just telling you.1320 1321 Michael Harvey: This is Michael Harvey, let me just provide Ms. Poole an answer. The permitted uses that the 1322 applicant put in their narrative are various categories with sample uses, and then they have a prohibited use list. The 1323 direct answer to your question is if a proposed activity falls into those general uses and is similar to the uses listed as 1324 the example, much like the current County’s Table of Permitted Uses, you could have an activity that is consistent 1325 with research and development that, not to make a judgement call, you may not necessarily find viable as others but 1326 it could go because you’re allowing research and development. We wouldn’t have the authority to say no you can’t 1327 do that. David is correct there would be building and other regulatory standards that the applicant would have to 1328 comply with but if they meet the standard proposed by the applicant and approved by the County Commissioners, the 1329 staff would not have the authority to prohibit it if it falls in that category. That would be the same answer with the 1330 current Table of Permitted Uses. If you are proposing for example, a rec amenity and while you as an adjacent 1331 property may not like amenity someone has chosen, if we have the broad category and it meets that requirement and 1332 criteria then it goes, it’s permitted as a rec amenity. The Planning Board and County Commissioners wouldn’t have 1333 any ability to, I hate to use the word challenge but I’m going to, whether or not the validity of that land use is 1334 26 D R A F T consistent with the approval. I will also say that every decision that the County makes as it relates to the 1335 enforcement of the UDO and as it relates to the enforcement of the conditions imposed on this project, is subject to1336 appeal to the Orange County Board of Adjustment. That’s not a great answer but that is the answer, part of the 1337 answer I’m going to give you to try to address your question.1338 1339 Ronald Sieber: Hello, this is Ronald Sieber again and first of all, I’m just trying to process the change from 800 cars 1340 per day traveling on our road, Davis Road, to 200 per hour. I mean that is a stunning, I repeat that is a stunning 1341 change in numbers. I want the Planning Board to think about that, you work for us. This is unreal that you are 1342 allowing this development to go forward. I just can’t believe it so therefore, I’ve prepared several and a couple of 1343 questions and I’d like to just run them by you and you don’t need to respond, I would just like you to hear, record and 1344 react to it at a later date.1345 1346 David Blankfard: Ronald, before you start, can you tell us if you received a letter from the Planning …1347 1348 Ronald Sieber: No, I receive no letter because I live, as Mr. Marshall would point out, 1.7 miles away from this1349 development so therefore, I’m not relevant, so you know.1350 1351 David Blankfard: I didn’t say that but thank you.1352 1353 **Planning Board Member Melissa Poole left the meeting**1354 1355 Ronald Sieber: Yes, ok, thank you Mr. Blankfard and I’ll proceed. First of all, I just want to point out that the 1356 developer does not seem to supportive of electrical charging stations. We’re at a point, and I’ve followed the 1357 automotive industry because that’s what I write about, I’m a professional writer. We’re at a point where fleets, I’m 1358 talking about fleets of trucks are developing electrical charging stations to charge and support their electrical fleets. I 1359 think it’s time that developers, especially those who are putting warehouses up for such facilities to be used by fleets 1360 of trucks. They need to start providing the infrastructure for these folks to attract them as businesses. I think that 1361 also, I’d like to point out, that on amendment 8 and I know this goes back to 8 and we’re talking about 10 but 8 is 1362 involved with 10. Four members of the Planning Board voted against amendment 8 and I do appreciate their 1363 support, however, I just want to put it on, put the remainder on notice that that property that you want to rezone from 1364 rural to something else is along a road that is inhabited by 100s of people, some of them are legacy businesses, 1365 some of them are farms, and many of them are residents who moved out here without any knowledge, like myself, 1366 without any knowledge of some sort of planned economic development section that is going to change our lives 1367 forever. We did not move out here to be next to an industrial park, we moved out here to be in a rural neighborhood 1368 and that’s what we want to preserve and I think it’s high time we change that development or designation and I’m 1369 going to work every way I can to change that if we can have a chance to do that but apparently it seems like the dice 1370 and the deck is stacked against us. Nevertheless, we as a community are going to fight this every way we can. We 1371 are opposed to this proposed change. Having said all that this community is not opposed to intelligent development. 1372 That’s in sync, that somehow aligns with some of the goals of this community, which is to have a nice place to live, a 1373 Rural Buffer. Now Steve Kaufmann had an intention to build a school and he’s going to get that zoning returned to 1374 him so he can do that. That’s an example of the kind of development that we can support as a community not a 1375 warehouse. Come on guys think about it. In closing I would just like to say we are totally opposed to an access road, 1376 as I mentioned, the number of trips on this road are going to be drastically increased. The size of the vehicles are 1377 going to be on this road which is Davis Road are going to be drastically changed. Planning Board will you think 1378 about what you are deciding on, you work for us. That’s the end of my comments. Thank you.1379 1380 Joseph Shore: Hi everyone my name is Joseph Shore, I live on Old 86 between Davis and 40 most of the 1381 conversation tonight has been about the effect on 40 but this going to completely alter my life and I can’t emphasize 1382 that enough. If it’s impossible to get out of my driveway with 300 cars during rush hour as the traffic engineer 1383 mentioned and you double that it means cars are going to be coming by my driveway every 5 to 6 seconds, 18 1384 wheels are going to be coming by every 5 to 6 seconds. That will literally make my property worthless because I 1385 won’t be able to access my own home anymore I won’t be able to get to work or I’ll have to stay in my travel lane for I 1386 don’t even know how long to try to get in and out. There’s a preschool right down the road, there’s a preschool by 1387 the corner of Davis and Old 86. I can’t imagine trying to be a parent to drop off my 3 or 4 year old there when there’s 1388 18-wheelers coming by every 10 seconds or 5 seconds. Just imagine the traffic trying to turn in and out of the 1389 preschool in the morning. To the previous gentleman’s quoting, we aren’t opposed to development but this is the 1390 27 D R A F T absolutely wrong thing for this area. I can’t emphasize that enough this is a residential area. In the 1980s when this 1391 plan was originally developed, my house was a cow pasture so sure put a warehouse there it doesn’t matter to them1392 but things have changed dramatically, it doesn’t make sense to have this development here any longer so Planning 1393 Board please hear me I’m begging you, oppose this. Please don’t make my family collateral damage from this 1394 economic development building.1395 1396 Jon Lorusso: Hello, it’s quite late thank you for giving me a chance to speak. I wrote down a few notes of what I’d 1397 like to say before I get to them I just want to agree with previous speaker this really does come down to a 40 year old 1398 plan that is no longer relevant and yet the Planning Board feels that they need to stick with it because it’s on the 1399 books so we might as well, I’m almost tempted to say that there is some kind of conspiracy going on some kickbacks 1400 because there really, this is the Planning Board, you are supposed to plan for the communities and the people who 1401 live here. Not for out of state businesses, not for lawyers in Raleigh this is for the people, you work for us the people 1402 who live here. Yes, the people here need jobs but not at the expense of their fellow citizens, this is absurd. So just 1403 to go through a few points. The traffic engineer mentioned that is would be up to the individual truck drivers whether 1404 or not they took 40 west to get to 85 north that’s absurd no one would ever do that. People who live here know that 1405 you wouldn’t do that, you are obviously going to take Churton to get 85 north. We’ve already had, the Planning 1406 Board has a plan in action to extend 70 from Orange Grove because of already existing traffic issues. They already 1407 exist the traffic issues this is going to make it so much worse and yet are we planning or are we reacting. We’re going 1408 to allow this to be built and then react later on. We’ll figure it out 20 years from now when people are fed up. So, this 1409 neighborhood, one if the improvement that Mr. Birch mentioned was oh we get a traffic signal at the end of Davis 1410 Road and all we have to do it to get it is build a 2.1 million square foot warehouse inside of our neighborhood. Great 1411 thanks a lot thank you for that wonderful improvement. The left only sign coming out of the place onto Davis Road, 1412 are there any laws that, is there going to be a cop stationed there and if they make a right are they subject to a 1413 summons? A ticket? No, it’s really just up to the individual driver if they see that the traffic is backed up to the light 1414 on Old 86 you know maybe I’ll just make a right and take Orange Grove up or maybe I’ll make a left on Orange 1415 Grove and go down to Arthur Minnis, who cares right? Who cares about the people who live here, who cares. 200 1416 vehicles per hour additional on Davis Road that is absurd an average tractor-trailer is 72 feet. How many tractor-1417 trailers can fit between Old 86 and 1000 foot entrance on Davis Road? I don’t know what the math is divide 1000 by 1418 72 it’s somewhere around 14. If you have 200 per hour, it sounds to me like it’s going to get backed up. It sounds to 1419 me like there’s a lot of conjecture, a lot of estimates based on businesses that we don’t even know what kind of traffic 1420 they’ll have. I think Michael Birch again that the primary use is indoor yet he doesn’t actually know what kind of 1421 business is going to be there. How does he know they’re going to be indoor? They’re asking for approval when 1422 they’re still back and forth with NCDOT how can you approve something when thinks haven’t even been settled? We 1423 are not talking about little things; we’re talking about huge changes. Oh, the traffic is backed up on 40 west, on the 1424 40 east who cares if there’s an ambulance that can’t get to the hospital, who cares right? It’s all at the expense of 1425 business, who cares, who cares if people are backed up on the highway, who cares? I mean this is absurd; it’s 1426 absurd that our Planning Board the people who are supposed to plan this are the ones that are selling up the river. 1427 It’s crazy. I could expect it from the lawyers in Raleigh who don’t care what happens here because they don’t live 1428 here. They’re going to get this signed and they’re done they get their check but from our own Planning Board the 1429 people who are supposed to protect the citizens of this county they are the ones who are selling us up the river. It’s 1430 insane, it really is insane. That’s all I have to say.1431 1432 David Blankfard: One thing, did you receive a letter from the planning department?1433 1434 Jon Lorusso: No I did not.1435 1436 Perdita Holtz: David as you can see there are 12 people with their hands up and it now 11 p.m. I don’t know if there 1437 wants to be any discussion among the Planning Board on how to handle the rest of the meeting, what some options 1438 might be. 1439 1440 Hunter Spitzer: I do recall that Michael had some comments that he wanted to make pertaining to us making 1441 recommendation. So I would like to hear those at the very least before we move forward.1442 1443 Michael Harvey: As I indicated, your abstract had suggested that the Board, if they felt comfortable, would make a 1444 recommendation in time for the County Commissioner’s September 15th hearing. Obviously the applicant will also 1445 need to weigh in on this. As I see it, there’s a couple of different options and scenarios here. Through no fault of the 1446 28 D R A F T applicant, we got comments from the Department of Transportation on this project Friday, July 31st and again that is 1447 not anything that staff or the applicant control. The applicant has responded to the Department of Transportation and 1448 we are waiting for those comments. We’ve heard tonight from Planning Board members on discussion points on 1449 potential conditions that you all would to see vetted before you make a final decision. We have obviously heard 1450 some comments from the public and there’s going to be obviously some additional comments so as I see it the Board 1451 technically has a couple of options. The Board could table any decision providing the applicant with areas of specific 1452 focus that they want answers to, I’ve heard loud and clear and in my note the primary concerns is traffic impact and 1453 more review of the DOT comments and the applicants responses and what DOT says to some of the traffic concerns 1454 I’ve heard. So you could certainly delay any decision til or table the item until your next regular meeting, which would 1455 be September 2nd to wait for that information. Craig and I have had a texting discussion about this very topic over the 1456 last hour, you could identify areas where you have less concerns or you are satisfied with the conditions and the 1457 applicant’s responses and identify specific conditions you’d like to see fleshed out, you could adjourn this meeting to 1458 a date and time certain in a couple of weeks conceivably to revisit this discussion or the Board could vote either to 1459 make a recommendation to approve or make a recommendation to deny this evening. I’m not trying to say you don’t 1460 have any of those options but staff was going to recommend was that we’re still waiting on DOT to get us some 1461 documentation as is the applicant and hearing some of the discussion tonight, I think that there is a comfort level 1462 lacking with the transportation component from staff, the applicant who is waiting on DOT and you all and that might 1463 need some discussion. Whatever you all’s decision is, I would like to strongly urge you to identify any specific areas 1464 of concern be it traffic, be it alternative energy conditions, whatnot so that the applicant and staff have a clear 1465 understanding of what we need to be working on in the interim to provide you the feedback you’re asking for so you 1466 can make an informed decision. If that makes sense and thank you Hunter for asking.1467 1468 David Blankfard: So what does everybody have a concern with?1469 1470 Adam Beeman: My biggest concern is I want to see whatever the DOT is come to them with and determine whatever 1471 steps necessary to rectify, my biggest concern is coming off of the highway and right there at the highway. I am not 1472 so concerned as Davis Road as much as the highway but that’s all part of the study so I’d like to see what DOT’s 1473 response was.1474 1475 Hunter Spitzer: I would like the applicant to consider removing access to Davis Road as they move forward with the 1476 process cause I suspect that we will probably vote to delay at least until our Planning Board meeting and potentially 1477 until we, until you end negotiations with the DOT. Conditionally, I would like a more concise proposal on electrical 1478 vehicle charging. I will just put the number out there at 1 station per 100.000 square feet of space to be built. Those 1479 are my largest concerns at the moment.1480 1481 Michael Harvey: Chair Blankfard, if I could interject quickly. I’m sorry I know that Ms. Poole lost her internet access if 1482 I recall what Perdita said. One of her concerns was more specificity in land uses. In terms of what would fall into this 1483 categories and what would not. At least that’s what I have in my notes.1484 1485 Hunter Spitzer: If I may say one more thing, particularly to the residents that are listening. A lot of what we’ve been 1486 doing over the past hour has been talking about conditions that we would like to request from the developer, that’s 1487 the nice part about this master planning conditional zoning is that we can ask for certain conditions to be met and so 1488 if you all and I understand that you are all very opposed to this but in the off chance that it can’t be stopped, you do 1489 have the opportunity to shape this development through this process and so I encourage you to consider what you 1490 might want to put in as conditions if at all possible.1491 1492 David Blankfard: I have a huge concern about the traffic being dumped onto Davis Drive. Not just some of the traffic 1493 but everything is going to be dumped onto Davis Drive because NCDOT does not want anybody to come out the 1494 service road. So I don’t know if anybody else feels that way or if we want to see if the applicant can come up with a 1495 better way of getting access to the site. Are we comfortable making a decision now or wanting to wait?1496 1497 Hunter Spitzer: I move that we delay a decision on our recommendation until our next meeting on September 2nd.1498 1499 Michael Birch: This is Michael Birch, the applicant, I think the outstanding issues that appear to be out there are one 1500 responses from DOT but I want to reiterate that whatever DOT comes back with in terms of requested improvements, 1501 those will be made. So it’s not really a negation in that respect. Second with regard to some of the comments about 1502 29 D R A F T Davis Drive, I just think it is not possible for us to prohibit access onto Davis Drive. Third, with regard to some of the 1503 comments or requests for the conditions the design of the buildings with intent to accommodate solar, providing 1504 some electric vehicle charging stations and no fuel storage adjacent to the flood plain. I am comfortable with we can 1505 craft those conditions and extremely short order and so I would respectfully ask but because of the date of the next 1506 Planning Board meeting being on the 2nd essentially eliminates our opportunity to get to the Board of Commissioner’s 1507 meeting on the 15th. I would ask that the Planning Board please consider meeting or adjourning to a date certain 1508 possibly 2 weeks from today on the 19th.1509 1510 David Blankfard: I think we could do the 19 th to reconvene. 1511 1512 Adam Beeman: I was going to ask Craig or Michael Harvey, with what Mr. Birch said about whatever DOT comes 1513 back and they’re going to rectify whatever DOT says they need to do. Do you guys feel comfortable with moving 1514 forward knowing whatever DOT may say or would it be better to meet a date later once the DOT issues have been 1515 straightened out?1516 1517 Craig Benedict: Let me just give a brief introduction about NCDOT is in charge of the roads within Orange County so 1518 they are the ultimate authority on what improvements are made because counties in North Carolina are not in the 1519 road business so they take, their recommendations are of prime importance and as the developer said they will have 1520 to do whatever NCDOT says. We work with DOT and we will take the comments that we have from tonight and 1521 impart them to NCDOT for any alternatives that there may be but NCDOT is also in the business to use taxpayer 1522 money to use the roadways to their best ability. My opinion if you want to call it that is that we will be satisfied with 1523 what NCDOT suggest as improvements for the project.1524 1525 Kim Piracci: I just want to say that it seems to me that the traffic that’s being talked about, even if it could be 1526 arranged in such a way that the traffic only comes and goes from 40 to Old 86 and never hits Davis it just seems like 1527 an enormous amount of traffic even just for Old 86. Even though I understand there’ll be road expansion and 1528 whatnot so I just, I feel like the scope of the project is just too big for this space in Orange County. Maybe smaller 1529 warehouses or two instead of three. I don’t know but in any case it just seems like too much. To me it seems all 1530 that’s too much.1531 1532 Hunter Spitzer: Do you have an expected return date from NCDOT on those comments? An anticipated time?1533 1534 Michael Harvey: Hunter, let me jump in and Mr. Birch may be able to also provide some detail. I don’t know if it’s fair 1535 to say if we have any expectation from DOT. They obviously took a prolonged period of time to get us the comment 1536 they got us on Friday and we can obviously impress to Mr. Edwards who is our district engineer the need for 1537 expediency but I can’t and will not tell you that I can guarantee that within two weeks we’ll have an answer. I can’t 1538 guarantee that within four weeks we’ll have an answer. But I think it’s reasonable for us to try if the Board sees fit to 1539 adjourn to at date and time certain in two weeks. We’ll do the best we can to address this concern as best we can 1540 and I know so will the applicant but I do think it’s also important for me to make clear one think to the Board. It’s been 1541 sort of danced around but I think it’s important to say it. One of the, this same issue came up with Settler’s Point, the 1542 Department of Transportation is not satisfied with the current condition of service road which parallels 40 and they 1543 had requested or indicated that in order for Settler’s Point to be developed they had to have secondary means of 1544 ingress/egress. At Settler’s Point chose to try and secure access off Old NC Hwy 86 directly. That was a gamble 1545 they took and unfortunately it didn’t pay off at the time they had the approval they couldn’t negotiate an access point. 1546 I know that this applicant has looked for alternative access points and I’m not telling you this to say, it’s a fait 1547 accompli, but I’m telling you this that one of the reasons there’s two access points is because DOT has mandated it 1548 from day one. This applicant is obviously proposing Davis Road there’s obviously concerns about that and there’s1549 request for more information and that needs to be processed to move forward but I think the Board just needs to be 1550 put back in the loop that the reason there’s two is because DOT is mandating it.1551 1552 Michael Birch: This is Michael Birch, the applicant just to reiterate on the timing of DOT responses. We will hound 1553 them as best we can to get responses so we can this resolved in advance of a possible meeting on the 19th.1554 1555 Randy Marshall: I’m not sure we are going to continue to be productive tonight so I’d like to make a recommendation 1556 that we adjourn or postpone or continue the meeting until two weeks from tonight at 7 p.m. 1557 1558 30 D R A F T Hunter Spitzer: Seconded.1559 1560 Adam Beeman: I vote going ahead and solving the problem tonight if anybody else is ready to vote. I’m ready to 1561 vote. I’m got my choices made so if everybody else wants to shelve it that’s fine but I’m ready to move forward 1562 tonight.1563 1564 Kim Piracci: I would like to postpone voting but to me it doesn’t make sense to meet in two weeks if we haven’t 1565 heard from the DOT though it could be a conditional two weeks from tonight sort of thing.1566 1567 Michael Harvey: Kim, let me just interject that it unfortunately can’t be conditional you are going to be adjourning to a 1568 date and time certain so there will be a meeting if you all elect to do it this way on the 19th and if we don’t have the 1569 response unfortunately we don’t have the response and I hate to say it that way but it’s the truth. The two options 1570 you have are to adjourn this meeting matter or table this matter until the September meeting which obviously the 1571 applicant I know has a concern with or to say you’re going to attempt to do a special meeting on the 19th. If there’s 1572 Board consensus to try that and we don’t have answers, we don’t have answers. That’s the unfortunately blunt way 1573 I’m going to have to put it to you.1574 1575 Randy Marshall: Part of my thinking was that we still have a number of people who wanted to address this some of 1576 them we may have already have heard from and understand what their positions are but there may be others that 1577 we’ve not heard from at all and I’m not sure we want to start listening to them at this late time. The other things is 1578 we’ve not been able to address the DOT issues and nothing may change as Michael suggests in two weeks but at 1579 least in two weeks we will have a little bit more information and can get a little bit more input from the public and 1580 make an informed decision at that time. I can vote tonight, I know where I stand but I just want to make sure that 1581 everybody feels like they’ve had enough opportunity to get all the information they need or to provide all the 1582 information they need.1583 1584 David Blankfard: I think that we should postpone it to the 19th. I guess we’ll have to have a motion again. But we’ll 1585 wait and until the 19th we can listen to more of the constituents, the public right because they were saying they were 1586 not notified this will give them more time to rally their forces and then if the DOT isn’t there, we’ll just listen to the 1587 public and if the DOT we can finish it then and there. 1588 1589 Craig Benedict: Perdita how many people do you have still want to speak tonight?1590 1591 Perdita Holtz: There are 14 people that have their hands raised.1592 1593 Adam Beeman: I have a question if we come back on the 19th and we don’t have the information from DOT are we 1594 going to push it out again.1595 1596 David Blankfard: We’ll just listen to the public.1597 1598 Adam Beeman: I understand that but are we going to push the vote out again or are we going to vote on the 19th? 1599 1600 Randy Marshall: I suggest that we have a vote on the 19th we’ll have all the information available and I think we 1601 should go ahead and vote then and I would also recommend for people who want to speak, to try not to continue to 1602 repeat yourselves and to provide us with new information or insight which will help us get closer to making a decision.1603 1604 Michael Harvey: Chair Blankfard, just to remind the Board that if you adjourn the meeting to a date and time certain 1605 and adjourn to a specific format, we will not be resending out notifications because this is a continuation of the 1606 meeting. We will not be sending out new notices, we’re not obligated to send out new notices because you are 1607 adjourning to a date time certain. We will post it on the website as we have done with tonight’s meeting but we will 1608 not be sending out notices to everyone within 1000 feet.1609 1610 MOTION by Randy Marshall to adjourn the Planning Board meeting to August 19, 2020 at 7:00 PM via Zoom. 1611 Seconded by Hunter Spitzer.1612 VOTE:9-2 (Adam Beeman and Kim Piracci opposed)1613 1614 31 D R A F T Craig Benedict: Staff will be making a summary of some of the questions.1615 1616 1617 AGENDA ITEM 11: ADJOURNMENT1618 Meeting was adjourned by consensus1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 David Blankfard, Chair1624 32 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date:August 19, 2020 Action Agenda Item No.7 SUBJECT:Clarification of Planning Board Actions on Proposed Amendments to the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan and to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) DEPARTMENT:Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): 1.Resolution Amending COCA Land Use Plan and Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan Hillsborough/Orange County COCA Land Use Plan Amendment Map INFORMATION CONTACT: (919) Tom Altieri, Planner III, 245-2579 Tom Ten Eyck, Planner II, 245-2567 Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 245-2575 Steve Brantley, Economic Development Director, 245-2326 PURPOSE:To clarify the motion made at the Aug ust 5, 2020 Planning Board meeting and revote on the clarified motion regarding County-initiated amendments to the: x Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan, and x Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM). BACKGROUND:At the August 5, 2020 Planning Board meeting, following staff presentation of land use amendments, public comments and questions, and Planning Board comments and questions, the Planning Board proceeded with a motion and action on the item. While the intent of the Board’s action was clear, through review of the meeting recording, staff discovered that the motion included reading from materials related to a subsequent agenda item. Therefore, staff is asking that the Pl anning Board revisit its motion tonight and revote on th e aforementioned plan amendments tonight. Planning staff is not suggesting that the Planning Board revisit its discussion but for the benefit of the public, following is a link to the Planning Board’s previous agendas where all of the agenda packet materials from the August 5 meeting can be found. The Resolution provided as Attachment 1 to this Abstract was provided on pp. 14-16 of the August 5 Planning Board packet:https://www.co.orange.nc.us/AgendaCenter/Planning-Board-26 The draft minutes of the August 5, 2020 meeting are included in tonight’s agenda packet as an informational item. The minutes reflect the Board’s conversation immediately before the motion, the motion itself, and the rollcall vote. 33 Rollcall and Vote Located on pages 14 and 15 of the August 5, 2020 Draft Meeting Minutes ROLLCALL VOTE: Carrie Fletcher: No Adam Beeman: For it Hunter Spitzer: No Melissa Poole: No Randy Marshall: Yes Kim Piracci: No Patricia Roberts:Yes Susan Hunter: Yes Alexandra Allman: Yes David Blankfard:Yes MOTION PASSED 6-4 Planning Director’s Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the Resolution contained in Attachment 1. The following may be helpful as a guide: 1. Motion to recommend to the B OCC approval of the Resolution (Attachment 1), which reflects the proposed Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan and Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendments (reading the Resolution aloud is optional); 2. Second the Motion; 3. Rollcall vote and announce results. (If needed, the Chair or Planning Administrative staff may request any clarification that may be needed to ensure that all of the essential aspects are heard and noted for the minutes.) FINANCIAL IMPACT:Consideration and approval will not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. Costs for mailed notifications and the required legal advertisement will be paid from FY2020-21 Departmental funds budgeted for this pu rpose. Existing Planning staff included in the Departmental staffing budget will accomplish the work required to process this amendment. RECOMMENDATION(S):The Planning Director recommends the Planning Board: 1. Consider the Planning Director’s recommendation, and 2. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the Resolution (Attachment 1) in time for a September 15, 2020 Public Hearing. 34 Resolution #:________ 1 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH/ORANGE COUNTY CENTRAL ORANGE COORDINATED AREA LAND USE PLAN ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP WHEREAS,Orange County has initiated amendments to the: x Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan, x Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, as established in Section 1.7 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan consists of the following: x Extend the Town’s Urban Service Boundary for public water and sewer consistent with previously approved Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement amendment by all parties, and x Add the Suburban Office Complex Future Land Use Classification to all or portions of 17 parcels, totaling 84 acres, located on both sides of Old Highway 86, south of Interstate 40, and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map consists of the following: x Amend all or portions of 20 parcels, totaling 89 acres, located on both sides of Old Highway 86, south of Interstate 40 from Rural Residential to Economic Development Transition. Additionally, 1.64 acres of road right-of-way is included, and x One overlay land use classification applies in this geographic area (Resource Protection Area). No modifications are being proposed to the boundary, and WHEREAS, the following parcels are affected by the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map amendment proposal: Parcel Identification Number (PIN) Entire or Partial Parcel to be Changed? Owner on Record Acreage Proposed to be Changed 9862998894 Partial LANDMARK MANAGEMENT PARTNERS LLC 11.69 9872087570 Partial CHARLENE W HAMLETT 0.03 9872095945 Partial LARRY B LEE 1.64 9872098324 Partial THEODORE L BRYANT and BEVERLY N BRYANT 7.45 9872183072 Partial JOE L JERNIGAN 0.02 9872187626 Partial THEODORE L BRYANT and BEVERLY N BRYANT 7.98 9872188329 Partial JOE L JERNIGAN and VICKIE R JERNIGAN 1.87 9872191961 Entire JEANINE L DUKE and JAMES N POULOS 1.18 9872193459 Entire THEODORE L BRYANT and BEVERLY N BRYANT 10.23 9872196844 Entire MICHAEL WILLIAM SUDYK 3.26 9872198336 Entire THEODORE L BRYANT and BEVERLY N BRYANT 10.44 9872286360 Partial REA LANDCOM INC 0.04 9872286779 Partial THEODORE L BRYANT and BEVERLY A BRYANT 0.59 9872292222 Entire THEODORE L BRYANT and BEVERLY N BRYANT 10.18 9872298289 Partial THEODORE L BRYANT and BEVERLY N BRYANT 7.99 9873007189 Entire JOHN JR BOXTER and SHANNON MARTIN 1.06 9873008345 Entire JOSEPH S SHORE and SARAH C SHORE 2.71 9873104230 Entire MICHAEL W SUDYK and GEORGE W SUDYK 4.45 9873104310 Partial BEATRICE S BROOKS 0.72 9873108103 Entire MICHAEL WILLIAM SUDYK 3.51 Attachment 1 35 WHEREAS, the proposals have been found to be internally consistent with the 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan or part thereof including, but not limited to, the following: Objective ED-1.5: Identify barriers to development of desirable businesses and local busi nesses, and m itigate these barriers. Objective ED-2.1: Encourage compact and higher density development in areas served by water and sewer. (See also Land Use Objective LU-1.1 and Water and Wastewater Objective WW-5.) Objective ED-2.5: Identify lands suitable to accommodate the expansion and growth of commercial and industrial uses in the County. Objective ED-2.7: Select industrial sites in Economic Development Areas based on present and planned supporting systems, such as public water and sewer, access to adequate highway, rail, or public transportation infrastructures, and minimize detrimental environmental or negative social outcomes. (See also Water and Wastewater Objective WW-15.) Land Use Goal 1: Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth, consistent with the provision of adequate services and facilities and a high quality of life. Objective LU-1.1: Coordinate the location of higher intensity / high density residential and non- residential development with existing or planned locat ions of public tr ansportation, commercial and community services, and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer, high-speed internet access, streets, and sidewalks), while avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural resources. This could be achieved by increasing allowable densities and creating new mixed- use zoning districts where adequate public ser vices are available. (See also Econom ic Development Objectives ED-2.1, ED-2.3, ED-2.10, and Water and Wastewater Objective WW- 2.) Land Use Goal 4: Land development regulations, guidelines, techniques and/or incentives that promote the integrated achievement of all Comprehensive Plan goals, and WHEREAS, the requirements of Sections 2.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) has been deemed complete, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan and Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map are hereby amended as depicted on the attached maps. Upon motion of Commissioner ________________________, seconded by Commissioner ________________________, the foregoing ordinance was adopted this ________ day of ___________________, 2020. 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 36 held on ________________________, 2020 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this ______ day of ______________, 2020. SEAL __________________________________ Clerk to the Board of Commissioners 37 38 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date:August 19, 2020 Action Agenda Item No.8 SUBJECT: Continued Review of Zoning Atlas Amendment: Research Triangle Logistics Park (RTLP) Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZ) DEPARTMENT:Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. NC Department of Transportation (DOT) Letter – July 31, 2020 2. Applicant’s Response to DOT Comments – August 5, 2020 3. Staff Memorandum on T ransportation Issues – August 13, 2020 4. Copies of E-mails from Local Property Owners 5. Statement of Consistency 6. Ordinance Amending the Zoning Atlas Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597 PURPOSE: To continue review of an applicant initiated Zoning Atlas Amendment for 3 parcels west of Old NC Highway 86/south of Interstate 40 to Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) district and make a r ecommendation on the application to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The complete application package, including full size maps and available correspondence, is available on the C ounty website at: https://www.orangecountync.gov/1722/Current-Interest-Projects. BACKGROUND:The Planning Board began its review of this request on August 5, 2020. Agenda materials for this item can be access ed at: https://www.orangecountync.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08052020-1013 and draft minutes of the meeting are an informational item in the agenda packet. Attachment 4 contains copies of the numerous e-mails staff has received from local property owners regarding the pr oject. Additionally, emails have been sent to t he Board of County Commissioners and t hese emails are viewable at: https://groups.google.com/forum/?nomobile=true#!forum/ocbocc. During the Aug ust 5 meeting, the following comment(s) related to th e proposal, including potential conditions, were made by Planning Board members: 1. Board members requested more information related to the review of the traffic impact analysis submitted as part of the MPD-CZ; 39 STAFF COMMENT: At the onset of the meeting, staff indicated comments had been received from the NC Department of Transportation (NC DOT) related to their review of the MPD-CZ on Friday July 31, 2020 (Attachment 1). The applicant has reviewed and responded to these comments (Attachment 2). Staff prepared a memorandum (Attachment 3) discussing traffic impact concerns along Davis Road in response to these 2 documents. As of the writing of this abstract, staff has not received any further comment(s) or responses. 2. A Board member suggested the driveway onto Davis Road be removed to address traffic impact concerns. STAFF COMMENT: NC DOT has indicated the MPD-CZ will require a second access point as Service Road is not sufficiently sized or located to safely handle the traffic needs for the project. At this time, NC DOT staff has indicated their support for the proposed driveway off of Davis Road based o n submitted traffic count data, and recommended roadway improvements, as detailed within the applicant’s traffic impact analysis. Staff has discussed alternatives to the proposed driveway off of Davis Road, specifically focusing on development of a driveway off of Old NC Highway 86. At this time, however, the applicant is not able to secure the necessary property to accommodate the proposal. 3. A suggestion was made to prohibit truck traffic utilizing the Davis Road driveway. STAFF COMMENT: Unfortunately, this suggestion is inconsistent with NC DOT expectations for the project. Staff is concerned over our ability to enforce such a standard. 4. Several Board members indicated there ought to be a condition requiring trucks, seeking to access Interstate 85, to utilize Interstate 40 rather than drive down Churton Street. STAFF COMMENT: Staff does not believe we would have the ability to enforce such a condition as Churton Street is a State maintained roadway that does not preclude truck traffic. 5. A Board member suggested the project provide 1 electric vehicular (EV) charging station for every 100,000 sq.ft. of proposed building area. If this condition is imposed, it is anticipated there would be approximately 40 EV spaces at project build-out; STAFF COMMENT: The applicant has agreed to provide 2 charging stations per building. 6. Board members expressed concern over proposed permitted uses indicating more specificity was needed. Specifically, there was a concern manufacturing could include bio-weapon research/development and unethical testing of products on animals; 7. Several Board members suggested a condition requiring placement of vegetation along external property lines designed to address light trespass concerns from vehicles utilizing their ‘high beams’ while driving within the project. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant indicated they believed their proposed landscaping along the common property lines would address the issue. 40 Staff is unsure how such a condition would be enforced in the event of a complaint. 8. A condition was recommended that all structures erected within the project be designed to accommodate alternative energy devices (i.e. solar panels, etc.); STAFF COMMENT: The applicant agreed to a condition indicating building design would not preclude incorporation of alternative energy systems. 9. A condition was recommended that no fuel/chemical storage occur near the floodplain. STAFF COMMENT: Current regulations (Section(s) 6.13 and 6.21 of the UDO) prohibit the storage of chemicals within the floodplain or floodplain buffer. The applicant indicated their willingness to impose an additional 30 ft. setback from the edge of the required floodplain/stream buffers related to the storage of fuel/chemicals. Planning Director’s Recommendation: The Planning Director continues to recommend approval of the: 1. Statement of Consistency indicating the zoning atlas amendment(s) are reasonable and in the public interest as contained in Attachment 5. 2. Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas, as well as imposing development conditions, for the identified parcels as contained in Attachment 6. 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. C osts 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. Continue deliberation on the proposal, 2. Consider the Planning Director’s recommendation, 3. Vote on the imposition of conditions, as detailed herein, and 4. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 5) and the proposed ordinance (Attachment 6) in time for the September 15, 2020 BOCC meeting. 41 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ROY COOPER J. ERIC BOYETTE GOVERNOR SECRETARY Mailing Address: NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION 7, DISTRICT 1 PO BOX 766 GRAHAM, NC 27253-0766 Telephone: (336) 570-6833 Fax: (336) 570-6873 Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968 Website: www.ncdot.gov Location: 115 EAST CRESCENT SQUARE DRIVE GRAHAM, NC 27253 July 31, 2020 ORANGE COUNTY Mr. Matthew Peach, PE Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 801 Jones Franklin Road Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27606 Subject: Proposed Research Triangle Logistics Park Located on SR 1223, Service Road and SR 1129, Davis Road Review of Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Dear Mr. Peach, NCDOT Congestion Management Unit, Division and District staff have completed review of the TIA for the above-mentioned development. Based on the information provided, I offer the following comments. General: The proposed site consists of 2,251,200 SF of industrial warehousing with four buildings interconnected via an internal road network. Access is provided via three proposed full- movement driveways on the existing service road and a fourth full movement driveway located on Davis Road. The site is expected to generate approximately 3648 new daily trips upon buildout in 2023. The TIA did not provide any information or analysis regarding phasing of the project. It is assumed the site will be developed as single entity in a continuous manner. Methodology: Due to the current NCDOT moratorium on traffic volume data collection as a result of Covid-19 impacts, background traffic was determined utilizing data provided in the previously submitted Settler’s Pointe TIA and adjusted accordingly for background growth and contributing traffic from approved development. This is consistent with the scoping document previously approved by the Department. 42 Committed NCDOT Projects: The TIA indicates the proposed development is proximal to two NCDOT projects currently programmed in the State Transportation Improvement Program(STIP). Namely, U-5845(Churton Street Widening) and I-3306A(I-40 Widening). Neither of these projects include committed improvements at any of the intersections included in the study area of this TIA. Analysis Results and Mitigation Requirements: Old NC 86 and Waterstone Drive/Rippy Lane Intersection: The analysis indicates that this intersection is expected to operate acceptably in the 2023 build scenario. We concur with the TIA recommendation that no improvements are required. Old NC 86 and I-40 Westbound Ramps Intersection: The analysis indicates a significant increase in delay and drop in LOS from D-F on the westbound approach with the addition of site traffic. Pursuant to NCDOT guidelines, the applicant will need to provide additional analysis and recommendations for mitigation of this impact to include assessment for warrant and need for a traffic signal. Old NC 86 and I-40 Eastbound Ramps Intersection: The TIA recommends installation of a traffic signal at this location. The applicant should provide additional traffic signal warrant assessment supporting this recommendation. In the event that a signal is verified to be warranted and needed, it is noted that the analysis indicates that a substantial queue for the southbound left turn movement that may exceed existing storage may result. Additionally, the analysis indicates that the queue for the northbound through/right movement is expected to spill beyond the existing Old NC 86 and Service Road intersection which would be expected to result in significant operational and safety issues at that location. The applicant will need to provide additional analysis and recommendations to mitigate the queue spillback or consider restrictions of left turn movements at the service road. Old NC 86 and Service Road Intersection: As noted above, queue spill back from the adjacent eastbound ramps will need to be mitigated or restrictions of left turns at this intersection will need to be considered with appropriate internal circulation patterns provided to route traffic to the proposed Davis Road as an alternate access route. In the event that a full movement intersection is approved at this location, then the following improvements are required. 43 x Construct an exclusive northbound left turn lane with 125’ of full storage and appropriate transitions x Construct and exclusive southbound right turn lane with 100’ of full storage and appropriate transitions. x Construct and exclusive eastbound right turn lane with 200’ full storage and appropriate transitions. Alternate improvements will need to be considered based on the final determination of the intersection configuration. Old NC 86 and Davis Road Intersection: The analysis indicates a significant increase in delay and drop in LOS from B to D on the eastbound approach with the addition of site traffic. The TIA recommends installation of a traffic signal at this location. The applicant should provide additional traffic signal warrant assessment supporting this recommendation. Regardless of final determination regarding signalization, the following improvements are required to ensure safe and efficient operation. x Construct an exclusive northbound left turn lane with 100’ of full storage and appropriate transitions. x Construct an exclusive southbound right turn lane with 100’ of full storage and appropriate transition. Service Road and Site Driveway A,B,C Intersections: We concur with the recommendation to construct each of these accesses as a two lane- two-way approach operated under stop sign control. Each access will need to provide a minimum internal protected stem length of 100’ Davis Road and Site Driveway D intersections: We concur with the recommendation to construct this access as a two lane-two-way approach operated under stop sign control. Provide a minimum internal protected stem length of 100’. The following improvement is required to better accommodate commercial vehicle maneuvers and to ensure safe and efficient operation at this location: x Construct and exclusive westbound right turn with 100’ of full storage and appropriate transitions. 44 Multi-modal and Streetscape Enhancements: Any locally stipulated multi-modal enhancements including but not limited to sidewalk, bike lanes, bus pull offs, lighting, landscaping etc. on State maintained routes are subject to NCDOT requirements and approval through the encroachment process. General Requirements: It is necessary to obtain an approved driveway permit and/or encroachment agreement(s) prior to performing work on the NCDOT right of way. As a condition of the permit, the permitee shall be responsible for design and construction of the above stipulated improvements in accordance with NCDOT requirements. An approved permit will be issued upon receipt of approved roadway and signal construction plans, inspection fee, and any necessary performance and indemnity bonds. The applicant shall dedicate any additional right of way necessary to accommodate the required road improvements or future improvements as stipulated. Intersection radii and geometry shall be designed to accommodate turning movements of the largest anticipated vehicle. All pavement markings shall be long life thermoplastic. Pavement markers shall be installed if they previously existed on the roadway. The permitee shall be responsible for the installation and relocation of any additional highway signs that may be necessary due to these improvements and shall comply with the requirements of the MUTCD. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, C. N. Edwards Jr., PE District Engineer Cc: J.M. Mills, PE, Division Engineer D. M. McPherson, Division Traffic Engineer Brian Thomas, PE, Regional Traffic Engineer Doumit Ishak, PE, Congestion Management Regional Engineer Orange County Town of Hillsborough 45 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300 Raleigh, North Carolina 27606-3563 August 5, 2020 File: 171002240 Attention: Mr. Chuck Edwards, PE, District Engineer NCDOT Division 7, District 1 115 East Crescent Square Drive P. O. Box 766 Graham, NC 27253 Dear Mr. Edwards, Reference: Research Triangle Logistics Park TIA Supplement This supplement is to respond to a memo dated 7/31/2020 providing NCDOT comments on the Research Triangle Logistics Park TIA. Based on the comments, we are recommending a change in the proposed access at the intersection of SR 1009 (Old NC 86) and the service road. Instead of operating with the existing condition, an unsignalized full movement intersection, this memorandum will summarize the impacts of converting the service road to a right in / right out with a left over. Therefore, all traffic exiting the site heading north to access I-40 or continue north will have to turn left out of Davis Road. The following sections respond directly to the comments in the NCDOT Memorandum. Committed NCDOT Projects As noted, there are two proposed State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Projects in proposed development’s study area, U-5845 and I-3306A. According to the 2020 – 2029 STIP, project U-5845 (South Churton Street Widening) is proposed to start right of way acquisition in State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2022 and construction would be started in SFY 2025. This project will install traffic signals at the Old NC 86 ramps (eastbound and westbound) accessing I-40. A southbound right turn lane is recommended at the westbound on-ramp and an additional southbound left turn lane and a northbound right turn lane are recommended at the eastbound on-ramp. These improvements are noted in the attached figure from the U-5845 Capacity Analysis Report prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates (Figure ES-1). Due to current NCDOT funding issues, most projects are currently on hold and this project schedule is subject to change. This project is funded with $15 Million in Build NC Bonds that were noted to be paid back in 2025 – 2039. Project I-3306 will widen Interstate 40 to six-lanes and install ITS along a 20.7-mile corridor. The section of the project in the vicinity of the proposed development, I-3306 AA (I-40 from I-85 to NC 86), is scheduled to start right of way acquisition and utilities in SFY 2021 with construction scheduled to start in SFY 2023. As noted earlier, schedules are being re-evaluated as a result of the funding crisis, but this project is reported to be a top priority for Orange County. As part of this study, improvements are recommended at the I-40 / 46 August 5, 2020 Mr. Chuck Edwards, PE, District Engineer Page 2 of 15 Reference: Research Triangle Logistics Park TIA Supplement Old NC 86 interchange. The I-3306 Traffic Capacity Analysis prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates recommends that signals be installed at both ramps with an additional southbound left turn lane and an exclusive northbound right turn lane at the eastbound ramp. The improvements are illustrated in the attached Figure 7A. The I-3306A Public Meeting Map (Sheet 2 of 6) from the January 24, 2019 illustrates improvements at the intersection, but they are not consistent with the recommendations in the Capacity Report. According to this figure, traffic signals are not being shown at the ramps. A southbound right turn at the I-40 westbound on-ramp is shown on the plan as well as a northbound right turn lane and an additional receiving lane on the I-40 eastbound ramp. Although there will be two receiving lanes on the ramp, the plan does not show dual southbound left turns even though the volume of traffic making this movement is extremely high. The interchange portion of the Public Hearing Map is attached to this supplement. Analysis Results and Mitigation Requirements: Old NC 86 and Waterstone Drive / Rippy Lane Intersection: All parties are all in agreement that no improvements are required. Old NC 86 & I-40 Westbound Ramps According to the TIA that was completed for Settler’s Point, signal warrant analyses were conducted for this intersection and it was noted that warrants were met for signalization in the no build condition. Due to the data collection restrictions caused by the Covid Pandemic, the same data were used for the Research Triangle Logistics Park, so the same results would apply to this study. The section of Settler’s Pointe discussing signal warrants is attached. As noted in the TIA, we recognize that there is an increase in delay for the westbound approach at the Old NC 86 intersection with the I-40 WB ramp. It is not unusual for a minor approach at an unsignalized intersection to have an unacceptable level of service. According to the NCDOT Congestion Management Capacity Analysis Guidelines, “a poor level of service on a side street does not always result in a recommendation for signalization if v/c ratios and queuing are acceptable”. The v/c ratio for the westbound left turn is 0.59 and 0.65 in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Based on SimTraffic models, although there will be delay on the ramp, there is sufficient storage to ensure that traffic accessing Old NC 86 will be stored on the ramp with no impacts on I-40. Additionally, it should be noted that the TIA assumed full build out of Waterstone while the development is only partially built out. Therefore, delay estimates are very conservative. The U-5845 project will install a signal at this location. Therefore, based on this additional information, we do not recommend improvements at this location as a result of the proposed development. 47 August 5, 2020 Mr. Chuck Edwards, PE, District Engineer Page 3 of 15 Reference: Research Triangle Logistics Park TIA Supplement Old NC 86 & I-40 Eastbound Ramps Similar to the adjacent ramp intersection, the TIA that for Settler’s Point included a signal warrant analyses for this intersection. It was noted that warrants were met for signalization in the no build condition. Due to the data collection restrictions caused by the Covid Pandemic, the same data were used for the Research Triangle Logistics Park, so the same results would apply to this study. A signal was recommended at this location due to the excessive delays for the overall intersection and the eastbound approach in the no-build condition. There is a significant southbound left turn movement (exceeds 500 under the existing condition) coming from Hillsborough and the Waterstone Development. The reported delays and queues from Synchro are assuming a very conservative analysis with protected only movements and optimized splits. With the proposed left-over at the Service Road, a greater amount of green time can be given to the southbound left since it will not be an issue to queue beyond the Service Road. Additionally, it should be noted that the TIA assumed full build out of Waterstone while the development is only partially built out. Therefore, delay estimates are very conservative. The I-3306A project will install additional lanes while the U-5845 project will install a traffic signal and additional turn lanes at this location. Therefore, based on this additional information, we recommend that the developer install a temporary signal with wood poles at this location to accommodate traffic until the planned projects construct additional turn lanes and a signal in the final configuration can be installed. Old NC 86 and Service Road Intersection: Based on the current spacing of intersections and issues noted , the development will revise the access at this location to provide a right in / right out with a left over into the site. Just north of the service road, there is a residential parcel that has a property line which appears to extend almost to the edge of pavement and may prohibit widening of pavement in this area. This is shown on the attached public hearing map. Therefore, the following improvements are recommended at this location assuming that they can be accomplished within the existing right of way by shifting the existing lanes and restriping the pavement. x Restripe Old NC 86 in the vicinity of the Service Road to provide the following within the existing edges of pavement: An exclusive northbound left-turn lane with the amount of full-width storage with appropriate transitions to the greatest extent possible within the existing pavement. An exclusive southbound right-turn lane with 100 feet of full-width storage or a lesser amount to the greatest extent possible with appropriate transitions within the existing pavement. 48 August 5, 2020 Mr. Chuck Edwards, PE, District Engineer Page 4 of 15 Reference: Research Triangle Logistics Park TIA Supplement Old NC 86 and Davis Road Intersection: Since we only have peak hour traffic volumes for this location, it was verified that this location will meet the peak hour warrant for signalization. Based on this, a traffic signal should be installed at this location. With the traffic signal, all approaches operate at a Level of Service C or better in both peak hours and there are no excessive queues. Additional turn lanes were noted in the TIA review, but based on the results, the traffic signal mitigates the impact of the proposed development with acceptable levels of service on all approaches. Service Road and Site Driveways A, B, and C: NCDOT concurred with the recommendations in the TIA. It is noted that a 100’ minimum internal protected stem should be provided at each driveway. Davis Road and Site Driveway D: It is anticipated that almost all commercial vehicles will enter via the Service Road, so most vehicles entering at Driveway D will be employees in personal vehicles. Due to the very low volume of westbound through traffic, we are requesting that this location have a shared through / right turn lane on Davis Road. In the morning, it is anticipated that there will be 24 vehicles turning right at this location with 81 vehicles going through. In the afternoon, 8 vehicles are expected to turn right with 176 travelling through. It is noted that a 100’ minimum internal protected stem should be provided at this driveway. Multi-modal and Streetscape Enhancements: These were not included in the TIA. Any enhancements required by Orange County will be coordinated with NCDOT. An updated traffic analysis has been performed and is included in the attachments. 49 August 5, 2020 Mr. Chuck Edwards, PE, District Engineer Page 5 of 15 Reference: Research Triangle Logistics Park TIA Supplement Regards, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Matt Peach, PE, PTOE Senior Transportation Engineer Phone: 919-865-7375 Matt.Peach@Stantec.com Attachement: 1. Improvements Figure from U-5845, 2. U-5845 Public Hearing Map, 3. Improvements Figure From I-3306A, 4. I-3306 A Public Hearing Map, 5. Signal Warrants Section from Settler’s Pointe TIA, 6. Revised Site Trip Distribution as result of Revised Access, 7. Revised Site Trips as a result of Revised Access, 8. Revised Recommended Improvements 9. Synchro Reports 10. Revised LOS Summary Table 50 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300 Raleigh, North Carolina 27606-3563 Attachment 1: Improvements Figure from U-5845 51 52 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300 Raleigh, North Carolina 27606-3563 Attachment 2: U-5845 Public Hearing Map 53 54 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300 Raleigh, North Carolina 27606-3563 Attachment 3: Improvements Figure from I-3306A 55 56 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300 Raleigh, North Carolina 27606-3563 Attachment 4: I-3306A Public Hearing Map 57 58 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300 Raleigh, North Carolina 27606-3563 Attachment 5: Signal Warrants Section from Settler’s Pointe TIA 59 Settler’s Pointe Development – Traffic Impact Analysis 59 6.0 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS As outlined in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), a traffic si gnal should not be installed unless traffic volumes and intersection characteristics meet a set of warrants or requirements. The MUTCD outlines nine warrants, which are listed below. Warrant 1: Eight-Hour Traffic Volume Warrant 2: Four-Hour Traffic Volume Warrant 3: Peak Hour Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volume Warrant 5: School Crossing Warrant 6: Coordinated Signal System Warrant 7: Crash Experience Warrant 8: Roadway Network Warrant 9: Intersection Near Roadway Grade Crossing An analysis was conducted at two major intersections north of the Settler’s Pointe development as part of the 2020 Build Analysis: I-40 Westbound Ramps and Old NC 86 I-40 Eastbound Ramps and Old NC 86 For both intersections, thirteen-hour (6 AM to 7 PM) traffic counts were completed on October 18, 2016. Using Highway Capacity Software (HCS) with 2016 existing traffic conditions, the intersection of Old NC 86 at I-40 Westbound Ramps meets the following signal warrants: Warrant 1: Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 3B: Peak Hour (Peak-Hour Vehicular Volumes) Warrant 6: Coordinated Signal System Additionally, the I-40 E astbound Ramps meet Warrant 3 B: Peak Hour (Peak-Hour Vehicular Volumes), and Warrant 6 (Coordinated Sig nal System) under the 2016 existing traffi c conditions. Traffic volumes were then grown out to 2020 with a 1% annual growth rate and the adjacent development volumes were added to the AM and PM peak hours. The following signal warrants were met at both intersections in 2 020 and should be considered for signalization based on projected adjacent development traffic: Warrant 1B: Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume (Interruption in Continuous Traffic) Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 3B: Peak Hour (Peak-Hour Vehicular Volumes) Warrant 6: Coordinated Signal System 60 Settler’s Pointe Development – Traffic Impact Analysis 60 Also, an analysis was conducted at the Service Road intersection at Old NC 86 for the 2020 Build Analysis; however, since trip generation practices only provide peak hour turn movements, the only da ta available for a warr ant analysis was for A M and PM peak hour s. For this intersection, the 2020 Build volumes generated by the pro posed site were utilized for the AM and PM peak hour traffic. Data was not formally collecte d at this int ersection with the other study intersections, but the turn counts colle cted at the nearby I-40 eastbound ramps were provided via a video recording, and a review of the video indicated that there were no peak hour turn movements in or out of the Service Road. The Service Road provides public street access to tracts of land that are presently vacant, so this is a reasonable conclusion. Using HCS with 2020 p rojected traffic conditions, the intersection of Old NC 86 at the Service Road met the following signal warrants: Warrant 3B: Peak Hour (Peak-Hour Vehicular Volumes) Warrant 6: Coordinated Signal System In similar fashion, the 2 022 Build volumes generated by th e proposed site were uti lized for the AM and PM peak hour traffic for the following intersections: Old NC 86 and proposed Retail Drive Old NC 86 and Davis Road Peak hour (AM and PM) turn move ment count data was co llected for the Davis Road and Old NC 86 intersection on t he same day as the oth er study intersections, October 18, 2016. The existing turn movement counts were then grown out to 2022 using a 1% annual growth rate, and the proposed trips generated by the residentia l retirement driveway connection to the existing intersection added to form the basis for the AM and PM count data. For the proposed retail driveway, the projected volumes for the through move ments represent the 2022 background traffic, plus the trips generated by the site itself. Similar to the scenario with the Service Road, the only data used for the warrant analysis at the Retail Drive intersection and Davis Road intersection warrant analysis was the peak hour turn movement counts. Using HCS with 2022 projected traf fic conditions, the intersection of Old NC 86 at the Retail Drive met the following signal warrants: Warrant 3B: Peak Hour (Peak-Hour Vehicular Volumes) Warrant 6: Coordinated Signal System Additionally, the intersection of Old NC 86 at Davis Road met the following signal warrant: Warrant 3B: Peak Hour (Peak-Hour Vehicular Volumes) HCS reports for the signal warrant analysis are located in Appendix D. 61 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300 Raleigh, North Carolina 27606-3563 Attachment 6: Revised Site Trip Distribution as result of Revised Access 62 63 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300 Raleigh, North Carolina 27606-3563 Attachment 7: Revised Site Trips as a result of Revised Access 64 65 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300 Raleigh, North Carolina 27606-3563 Attachment 8: Revised Recommended Improvements 66 67 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300 Raleigh, North Carolina 27606-3563 Attachment 9: Synchro Reports 68 HCM 6th TWSC 110: Old NC 86 & I-40 WB Ramp 08/05/2020 Hillsborough Industrial Site 7:00 am 03/19/2020 2023 Build-Improved AM Synchro 10 Report Stantec Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 93 4 470 93 517 0 0 915 95 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 93 4 470 93 517 0 0 915 95 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - Free - - None - - None Storage Length - - - 225 - 0 225 ----- Veh in Median Storage, # - 2 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 103 4 522 103 574 0 0 1017 106 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1289 1903 - 1123 0 - - - 0 Stage 1 780 780 - - - - - - - Stage 2 509 1123 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.636.53-4.13----- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 5.53 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.83 5.53 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 4.019 - 2.219 ----- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 168 68 0 620 - 0 0 - - Stage 1 451 405 0 - - 0 0 - - Stage 2 569 280 0 - - 0 0 - - Platoon blocked, %-- - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 140 0 - 620 ----- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 140 0 - - - - - - - Stage 1 376 0 - - - - - - - Stage 2 569 0 - - - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 86.6 1.8 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTWBLn1WBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)620 - 140 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.167 - 0.77 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 12 - 86.6 0 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 - 4.7 - - - 69 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 120: Old NC 86 & I-40 EB Ramp 08/05/2020 Hillsborough Industrial Site 7:00 am 03/19/2020 2023 Build-Improved AM Synchro 10 Report Stantec Page 4 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 157 4 153 0000453996313770 Future Volume (vph) 157 4 153 0000453996313770 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft)0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft)100 100 100 100 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.976 Flt Protected 0.953 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot)0 1775 1583 00001818 0 1770 1863 0 Flt Permitted 0.953 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm)0 1775 1583 00001818 0 1770 1863 0 Right Turn on Red No No No No Satd. Flow (RTOR) Link Speed (mph)55 55 45 45 Link Distance (ft)1173 557 452 723 Travel Time (s)14.5 6.9 6.8 11.0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)174 4 170 00005031107014190 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 178 170 000061307014190 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No Yes No No Yes No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft)0 0 24 24 Link Offset(ft)0000 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 2 Detector Template Left Thru Right Thru Left Thru Leading Detector (ft)20 100 20 100 20 100 Trailing Detector (ft)0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft)0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft)20 6 20 6 20 6 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft)94 94 94 Detector 2 Size(ft)6 6 6 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 70 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 120: Old NC 86 & I-40 EB Ramp 08/05/2020 Hillsborough Industrial Site 7:00 am 03/19/2020 2023 Build-Improved AM Synchro 10 Report Stantec Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Detector Phase 4 4 4 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)7.0 7.0 7.0 12.0 7.0 12.0 Minimum Split (s)25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 11.5 25.0 Total Split (s)25.0 25.0 25.0 45.0 50.0 95.0 Total Split (%)20.8% 20.8% 20.8%37.5% 41.7% 79.2% Maximum Green (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 38.0 45.5 88.0 Yellow Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 All-Red Time (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s)-2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 Total Lost Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 2.5 5.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None C-Min None C-Min Walk Time (s)7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s)18.1 18.1 40.0 49.4 91.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.33 0.41 0.77 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.71 1.01 0.96 0.29 Control Delay 60.5 65.2 76.7 57.7 3.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 60.5 65.2 76.7 57.7 3.7 LOS E E E E A Approach Delay 62.7 76.7 37.5 Approach LOS E E D Intersection Summary Area Type:Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 1 (1%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.01 Intersection Signal Delay: 53.3 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.4%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 120: Old NC 86 & I-40 EB Ramp 71 HCM 6th TWSC 130: Old NC 86 & Service Road 08/05/2020 Hillsborough Industrial Site 7:00 am 03/19/2020 2023 Build-Improved AM Synchro 10 Report Stantec Page 7 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 11 29 552 340 189 Future Vol, veh/h 0 11 29 552 340 189 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 50 - - 100 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 12 32 613 378 210 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 378 588 0 - 0 Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy - 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy - 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 669 987 - - - Stage 1 0 ----- Stage 2 0 ----- Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 669 987 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.5 0.4 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)987 - 669 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.033 - 0.018 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.8 - 10.5 - - HCM Lane LOS A - B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.1 - - 72 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 140: Old NC 86 & Davis Road 08/05/2020 Hillsborough Industrial Site 7:00 am 03/19/2020 2023 Build-Improved AM Synchro 10 Report Stantec Page 8 Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 219 23 40 362 287 65 Future Volume (vph) 219 23 40 362 287 65 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.987 0.975 Flt Protected 0.957 0.995 Satd. Flow (prot)1759 0 0 1853 1816 0 Flt Permitted 0.957 0.935 Satd. Flow (perm)1759 0 0 1742 1816 0 Right Turn on Red No No Satd. Flow (RTOR) Link Speed (mph) 45 45 45 Link Distance (ft)1029 1406 754 Travel Time (s)15.6 21.3 11.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)243 26 44 402 319 72 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 269 0 0 446 391 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No Yes Yes No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right Median Width(ft)12 0 0 Link Offset(ft)0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft)16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 1 2 2 Detector Template Left Left Thru Thru Leading Detector (ft)20 20 100 100 Trailing Detector (ft)0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft)0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft)20 20 6 6 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft)94 94 Detector 2 Size(ft)6 6 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 4 2 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 73 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 140: Old NC 86 & Davis Road 08/05/2020 Hillsborough Industrial Site 7:00 am 03/19/2020 2023 Build-Improved AM Synchro 10 Report Stantec Page 9 Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Minimum Split (s)25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Total Split (s)26.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 Total Split (%)43.3% 56.7% 56.7% 56.7% Maximum Green (s) 19.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 Yellow Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 All-Red Time (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 Total Lost Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Min C-Min C-Min Walk Time (s)7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s)16.2 33.8 33.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.56 0.56 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.45 0.38 Control Delay 23.1 10.6 8.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 23.1 10.6 8.3 LOS C B A Approach Delay 23.1 10.6 8.3 Approach LOS C B A Intersection Summary Area Type:Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 60 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 50 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.57 Intersection Signal Delay: 12.8 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.4%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 140: Old NC 86 & Davis Road 74 HCM 6th TWSC 180: Davis Road & Warehouse D Dvwy.08/05/2020 Hillsborough Industrial Site 7:00 am 03/19/2020 2023 Build-Improved AM Synchro 10 Report Stantec Page 17 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 176 81 24 66 4 Future Vol, veh/h 12 176 81 24 66 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 13 196 90 27 73 4 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 117 0 - 0 326 104 Stage 1 - - - - 104 - Stage 2 - - - - 222 - Critical Hdwy 4.12---6.426.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1471 - - - 668 951 Stage 1 - - - - 920 - Stage 2 - - - - 815 - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1471 - - - 661 951 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 661 - Stage 1 - - - - 911 - Stage 2 - - - - 815 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0 11 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1471 - - - 673 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - - - 0.116 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 - - 11 HCM Lane LOS A A - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.4 75 HCM 6th TWSC 110: Old NC 86 & I-40 WB Ramp 08/05/2020 Hillsborough Industrial Site 4:00 pm 03/19/2020 2023 Build-Improved PM Synchro 10 Report Stantec Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 70 4 580 144 500 0 0 868 159 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 70 4 580 144 500 0 0 868 159 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - Free - - None - - None Storage Length - - - 225 - 0 225 ----- Veh in Median Storage, # - 2 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 78 4 644 160 556 0 0 964 177 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1358 2017 - 1141 0 - - - 0 Stage 1 876 876 - - - - - - - Stage 2 482 1141 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.636.53-4.13----- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 5.53 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.83 5.53 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 4.019 - 2.219 ----- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 152 58 0 610 - 0 0 - - Stage 1 406 366 0 - - 0 0 - - Stage 2 588 275 0 - - 0 0 - - Platoon blocked, %-- - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 112 0 - 610 ----- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 112 0 - - - - - - - Stage 1 300 0 - - - - - - - Stage 2 588 0 - - - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 96.5 2.9 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTWBLn1WBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)610 - 112 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.262 - 0.734 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 13 - 96.5 0 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1 - 4 - - - 76 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 120: Old NC 86 & I-40 EB Ramp 08/05/2020 Hillsborough Industrial Site 4:00 pm 03/19/2020 2023 Build-Improved PM Synchro 10 Report Stantec Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 121 4 66 0000522925114260 Future Volume (vph) 121 4 66 0000522925114260 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft)0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft)100 100 100 100 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.980 Flt Protected 0.954 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot)0 1777 1583 00001825 0 1770 1863 0 Flt Permitted 0.954 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm)0 1777 1583 00001825 0 1770 1863 0 Right Turn on Red No No No No Satd. Flow (RTOR) Link Speed (mph)55 55 45 45 Link Distance (ft)1173 557 452 723 Travel Time (s)14.5 6.9 6.8 11.0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)134 4 73 00005801025684730 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 138 73 000068205684730 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No Yes No No Yes No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft)0 0 24 24 Link Offset(ft)0000 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 2 Detector Template Left Thru Right Thru Left Thru Leading Detector (ft)20 100 20 100 20 100 Trailing Detector (ft)0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft)0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft)20 6 20 6 20 6 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft)94 94 94 Detector 2 Size(ft)6 6 6 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 77 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 120: Old NC 86 & I-40 EB Ramp 08/05/2020 Hillsborough Industrial Site 4:00 pm 03/19/2020 2023 Build-Improved PM Synchro 10 Report Stantec Page 6 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Detector Phase 4 4 4 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)7.0 7.0 7.0 12.0 7.0 12.0 Minimum Split (s)25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 14.0 25.0 Total Split (s)25.0 25.0 25.0 51.0 44.0 95.0 Total Split (%)20.8% 20.8% 20.8%42.5% 36.7% 79.2% Maximum Green (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 44.0 37.0 88.0 Yellow Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 All-Red Time (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s)-2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 Total Lost Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None C-Min None C-Min Walk Time (s)7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s)16.2 16.2 47.0 41.9 93.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.39 0.35 0.78 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.34 0.96 0.92 0.32 Control Delay 58.0 50.5 58.0 59.2 5.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 58.0 50.5 58.0 59.2 5.6 LOS E D E E A Approach Delay 55.4 58.0 34.8 Approach LOS E E C Intersection Summary Area Type:Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 4 (3%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.96 Intersection Signal Delay: 45.2 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.8%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 120: Old NC 86 & I-40 EB Ramp 78 HCM 6th TWSC 130: Old NC 86 & Service Road 08/05/2020 Hillsborough Industrial Site 4:00 pm 03/19/2020 2023 Build-Improved PM Synchro 10 Report Stantec Page 8 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 28 13 614 423 70 Future Vol, veh/h 0 28 13 614 423 70 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 50 - - 100 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 31 14 682 470 78 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 470 548 0 - 0 Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy - 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy - 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 594 1021 - - - Stage 1 0 ----- Stage 2 0 ----- Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 594 1021 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.4 0.2 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1021 - 594 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 - 0.052 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.6 - 11.4 - - HCM Lane LOS A - B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 - - 79 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 140: Old NC 86 & Davis Road 08/05/2020 Hillsborough Industrial Site 4:00 pm 03/19/2020 2023 Build-Improved PM Synchro 10 Report Stantec Page 9 Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 261 39 45 367 312 139 Future Volume (vph) 261 39 45 367 312 139 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.983 0.959 Flt Protected 0.958 0.995 Satd. Flow (prot)1754 0 0 1853 1786 0 Flt Permitted 0.958 0.911 Satd. Flow (perm)1754 0 0 1697 1786 0 Right Turn on Red No No Satd. Flow (RTOR) Link Speed (mph) 45 45 45 Link Distance (ft)1029 1406 754 Travel Time (s)15.6 21.3 11.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)290 43 50 408 347 154 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 333 0 0 458 501 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No Yes Yes No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right Median Width(ft)12 0 0 Link Offset(ft)0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft)16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 1 2 2 Detector Template Left Left Thru Thru Leading Detector (ft)20 20 100 100 Trailing Detector (ft)0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft)0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft)20 20 6 6 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft)94 94 Detector 2 Size(ft)6 6 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 4 2 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 80 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 140: Old NC 86 & Davis Road 08/05/2020 Hillsborough Industrial Site 4:00 pm 03/19/2020 2023 Build-Improved PM Synchro 10 Report Stantec Page 10 Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Minimum Split (s)25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Total Split (s)25.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Total Split (%)41.7% 58.3% 58.3% 58.3% Maximum Green (s) 18.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 Yellow Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 All-Red Time (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 Total Lost Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Min C-Min C-Min Walk Time (s)7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s)17.5 32.5 32.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.54 0.54 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.50 0.52 Control Delay 24.6 11.8 15.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 24.6 11.8 15.3 LOS C B B Approach Delay 24.6 11.8 15.3 Approach LOS C B B Intersection Summary Area Type:Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 60 Offset: 52 (87%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 50 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.65 Intersection Signal Delay: 16.5 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.0%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 140: Old NC 86 & Davis Road 81 HCM 6th TWSC 180: Davis Road & Warehouse D Dvwy.08/05/2020 Hillsborough Industrial Site 4:00 pm 03/19/2020 2023 Build-Improved PM Synchro 10 Report Stantec Page 18 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.8 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 94 176 8 206 12 Future Vol, veh/h 4 94 176 8 206 12 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 4 104 196 9 229 13 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 205 0 - 0 313 201 Stage 1 - - - - 201 - Stage 2 - - - - 112 - Critical Hdwy 4.12---6.426.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1366 - - - 680 840 Stage 1 - - - - 833 - Stage 2 - - - - 913 - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1366 - - - 678 840 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 678 - Stage 1 - - - - 831 - Stage 2 - - - - 913 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 13.1 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1366 - - - 685 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0.354 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 - - 13.1 HCM Lane LOS A A - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 1.6 82 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300 Raleigh, North Carolina 27606-3563 Attachment 10: Revised LOS Summary Table 83 RESEARCH TRIANGLE LOGISTICS PARK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS iv Table ES-1: Level of Service & Delay Summary for Revised Access Scenario Intersection Approach Existing Intersection Control Proposed Intersection Control 2020 Existing 2023 No-Build 2023 Build 2023 Build-Improved AM Peak LOS (Delay in sec./veh.) PM Peak LOS (Delay in sec./veh.) AM Peak LOS (Delay in sec./veh.) PM Peak LOS (Delay in sec./veh.) AM Peak LOS (Delay in sec./veh.) PM Peak LOS (Delay in sec./veh.) AM Peak LOS (Delay in sec./veh.) PM Peak LOS (Delay in sec./veh.) Old NC 86 at I-40 WB Ramps Overall Intersection One-Way Stop Controlled Signalized A (1.0) A (1.6) A (1.0) A (1.7) A (5.5) A (5.2) WB Approach C (21.9) C (22.0) D (30.2) D (34.3) F (86.6) F (96.5) NB Left-Turn A (9.9) A (9.9) B (11.3) B (11.8) B (12.0) B (13.0) SB Approach A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) Old NC 86 at I-40 EB Ramps Overall Intersection One-Way Stop Controlled Signalized F (51.2) A (7.0) F (###) F (158.3) F (###) F (268.2) D (53.3) D (45.2) EB Approach F (###) F (54.6) F (###) F (###) F (###) F (###) E (62.7) E (55.4) NB Approach A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) E (76.7) E (58.0) SB Left-Turn (unsignalizid) SB Approach (Signalized) B (12.1) A (9.8) C (15.9) B (3.1) C (17.9) C (15.3) D (37.5) C (34.8) Old NC 86 at Service Road Overall Intersection One-Way Stop Controlled One-Way Stop Controlled A (0.2) A (0.2) A (0.2) A (0.2) A (1.6) A (7.5) A (0.3) A (0.4) EB Approach B (13.1) B (13.5) B (13.8) B (14.4) D (25.2) E (48.5) B (10.4) B (11.2) NB Left-Turn A (8.0) A (8.2) A (8.0) A (8.3) A (8.8) A (8.6) A (8.8) A (8.6) Old NC 86 at Davis Road Overall Intersection One-Way Stop Controlled Signalized A (4.8) A (2.3) A (5.2) A (2.4) A (7.2) A (4.6) B (12.8) B (16.5) EB Approach C (21.1) C (17.2) C (24.8) C (19.4) D (34.7) D (28.5) C (23.1) C (24.6) NB Left-Turn (unsignalized) NB Approach (Signalized) A (8.0) A (8.3) A (8.1) A (8.4) A (8.3) A (8.6) B (10.6) B (11.8) SB Approach A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (8.3) B (15.3) Davis Road at Warehouse D Driveway Overall Intersection One-Way Stop Controlled A (2.4) A (5.8) EB Approach A (0.5) A (0.3) SB Approach B (11.0) B (13.1) ###: Delay exceeds 300 seconds / vehicle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x 3RSXODWLRQ DQG HPSOR\PHQW SURMHFWLRQV WR ZLWK WKH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ 2UDQJH 'XUKDP:DNH&KDWKDPDQGVXUURXQGLQJFRXQWLHVLQFOXGLQJWKHLUPHPEHUMXULVGLFWLRQV DUHIXOO\GHYHORSHGDQGZLOOUHDFKPD[LPXPJURZWKEDVHGRQFXUUHQWODQGXVH UHJXODWLRQV x $OOFXUUHQWDQGIXWXUHIHGHUDODQGUHJLRQDOO\IXQGHGWUDQVSRUWDWLRQSURMHFWVOLNH,DQG ,ZLGHQHGZLGHQLQJDUHFRPSOHWHG x $OO H[LVWLQJ DQG FRPPLWWHG URDG LPSURYHPHQWV SURMHFWV DUH FRPSOHWHG LQFOXGLQJ ELNHSHGHVWULDQWUDQVLWDQGUDLOSURMHFWVDUHFRPSOHWHG x $OOIXWXUHWUDQVSRUWDWLRQSURMHFWVIURP±DVDSSURYHGLQWKH073DUH FRPSOHWHG x 'DWD DQDO\VLV DOWHUQDWLYH VFHQDULRV DQG UHVXOWV DUH FKHFNHGE\ PXOWLSOH VRXUFHV LQFOXGLQJ7ULDQJOH-&RXQFLORI*RYHUQPHQW8QLYHUVLW\RI1RUWK&DUROLQD'&+&032 DQG&DSLWDO$UHD0HWURSROLWDQ3ODQQLQJ2UJDQL]DWLRQ&$032 1&'27PHDVXUHV/HYHORI6HUYLFH/26DV³the relationship of travel demand compared to the roadway capacity of a roadway. Six levels of service identify the range of possible conditions. Designations range from LOS A, which represents the best operating conditions, to LOS F, which represents the worst operating conditions.”750DOVRSURYLGHV IXWXUH/267KH750/26LVWKHDGRSWHGUHFRUG&RQVXOWDQWVDOVRXVH/26WRDVVHVV FXUUHQW DQG IXWXUH WUDYHO FRQGLWLRQV /26 LV V\QRQ\PRXV WR OHWWHU JUDGHV IRU URDG SHUIRUPDQFH1&'27/26VWDQGDUGVVWDWH >ĞǀĞůŽĨ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ>ĞǀĞůŽĨ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ>ĞǀĞůŽĨ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ >ĞǀĞůŽĨ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ>ĞǀĞůŽĨ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ>ĞǀĞůŽĨ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ& ƌŝǀĞƌŽŵĨŽƌƚ͗ ,ŝŐŚ ƌŝǀĞƌŽŵĨŽƌƚ͗ ,ŝŐŚ ƌŝǀĞƌŽŵĨŽƌƚ͗ ^ŽŵĞdĞŶƐŝŽŶ ƌŝǀĞƌŽŵĨŽƌƚ͗ WŽŽƌ ƌŝǀĞƌŽŵĨŽƌƚ͗ ǆƚƌĞŵĞůǇWŽŽƌ ƌŝǀĞƌŽŵĨŽƌƚ͗ dŚĞ>ŽǁĞƐƚ 86 /26LVPHDVXUHGE\YROXPHRYHUWRWDOFDSDFLW\ZKHUH/26& DQG'!$Q\/26 WKDWLV$%RU&LVDFFHSWDEOHZKLOH/26'(DQG)LQGLFDWHLVVXHVZLWKWKHV\VWHP $FFRUGLQJWRWKH750LQWUDIILFYROXPHWUDYHOLQJDORQJ'DYLV5RDGLVSURMHFWHGWR LQFUHDVHWRYHKLFOHVSHUGD\ZKLFKLVVWLOORQO\RI'DYLG5RDG¶VWRWDOFDSDFLW\ $FFRUGLQJWRWKHFRQVXOWDQW¶V7,$IURP'DYLG5RDGVDZYHKLFOHVSHUGD\RU DERXWRIWKHURDG¶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¶WUDYHOODQHVPSKVSHHGOLPLW 7KHFRQVXOWDQW¶V7,$DVVXPHVDSSUR[LPDWHO\RIWUDIILFZLOOXVH2OG1&%\ WUDIILFRQ2OG1&ZLOOLQFUHDVHWRYHKLFOHVSHUGD\UHVXOWLQJLQ/26& 6KRXOGRIQHZWUDIILFJHQHUDWHGE\SURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWRQO\XVH2OG1&DQG QRWDQ\RWKHUURDGWUDIILFYROXPHZRXOGLQFUHDVHWRUHVXOWLQJLQ/26'RUZRUVH 6WDIILVDZDUHRIYDULRXVSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWVDORQJ2OG1&LQFOXGLQJ6KRSVDW/OR\G )DUPLQ&DUUERURDQGWKHIXWXUH'DQLHO%RRQHUHGHYHORSPHQWDQGWKHSRWHQWLDOLPSDFW WKH\FRXOGKDYHRQWKH&RXQW\¶VWUDQVSRUWDWLRQQHWZRUN 2UDQJH&RXQW\%RDUGRI&RXQW\&RPPLVVLRQHUVDSSURYHG2OG1&IRUPRGHUQL]DWLRQRQ )HEUXDU\ DV D &RXQW\ SULRULW\ DQG LW LV EHLQJ VXEPLWWHG IRU WKH VWDWH¶V 6WUDWHJLF 3ULRULWL]DWLRQ RI 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ 6327 SURFHVV WKURXJK 7ULDQJOH $UHD 5XUDO 3ODQQLQJ 2UJDQL]DWLRQ7$5326KRXOG1&'27IXQGWKLVLPSURYHPHQWLWFRXOGLQFUHDVHFDSDFLW\ DORQJWKLVVHJPHQWRIWKHURDGWRDSSUR[LPDWHO\WKHUHE\UHGXFLQJ/26WR%RU EHWWHUVKRXOGIXWXUHWUDIILFLQFUHDVHWRLQDVSURMHFWHG $EULHIEUHDNGRZQRIWKHDQDO\VLVLVSURYLGHGLQWKHDWWDFKHG6WDII$VVHVVPHQW1&'27 /HYHORI6HUYLFH'VWDQGDUGVFDQEHIRXQGRQOLQHKHUH )HHOIUHHWRFRQWDFWVWDIIZLWKDQ\TXHVWLRQV 87 ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚϭ^ƚĂĨĨƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞƐƚĂĨĨ͛ƐĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐ͕ƚŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚǁŝůůŶŽƚĐĂƵƐĞĂǀŝƐZŽĂĚƚŽƌĞĂĐŚĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇ͘/ƚŝƐƉŽƐƐŝďůĞĨŽƌKůĚEͲϴϲƚŽƌĞĂĐŚĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇ͕ďƵƚƚŚŝƐǁŽƵůĚŽŶůǇŽĐĐƵƌŝĨƐĞǀĞƌĂůŽƚŚĞƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐďĞŝŶŐĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚďǇŵƵůƚŝƉůĞũƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶƐŝŶKƌĂŶŐĞŽƵŶƚǇǁĞƌĞƚŽďƵŝůĚŽƵƚĂƚƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƚŝŵĞĂŶĚŶŽƌŽĂĚǁĂǇŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐǁĞƌĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚĂůŽŶŐKůĚEϴϲ͘^ƚĂĨĨŚĂƐƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌ͛Ɛd/͕EKdĚĂƚĂĂŶĚƚŚĞĚŽƉƚĞĚdƌŝĂŶŐůĞZĞŐŝŽŶĂůDŽĚĞů;dZDͿĂƐĂďĂƐŝƐĨŽƌƚŚŝƐĐŽŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶ͘ůůƚŚƌĞĞƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐŚĂǀĞĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĞĚƚŚŝƐĂƌĞĂĂƐ͗EKdZŽĂĚdZD&ƵƚƵƌĞdƌĂĨĨŝĐsŽůƵŵĞ&ƵŶĐƚŝŽŶĂůůĂƐƐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶEKdZŽĂĚŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝƐƚŝĐƐ;ϮŶĚƋƵĂƌƚĞƌϮϬϮϬͿ sŽůƵŵĞ;dͿdŽƚĂůĂƉĂĐŝƚǇ>K^;sŽůƵŵĞͬĂƉĂĐŝƚǇͿ>K^;Ͳ&ͿZKt^ƉĞĞĚ>ŝŵŝƚ>ĂŶĞtŝĚƚŚ^ŚŽƵůĚĞƌtŝĚƚŚWĂǀĞŵĞŶƚtŝĚƚŚ dŽƚĂůWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌĂǀŝƐZŽĂĚ;^ZͲϭϭϮϵͿϮϬϮϱ>ŽĐĂůŽůůĞĐƚŽƌ ϲϬ ϰϱ ϭϬ ϭ͘ϱ ϮϬ ϭϬϴϮ ϯϴϮ ϵϬϯϲ Ϭ͘ϭϮ ϮϬϯϱ>ŽĐĂůŽůůĞĐƚŽƌ ϲϬ ϰϱ ϭϬ ϭ͘ϱ ϮϬ Ϯϴϲϰ ϱϬϮ ϵϬϯϲ Ϭ͘ϯϮ ϮϬϰϱ>ŽĐĂůŽůůĞĐƚŽƌ ϲϬ ϰϱ ϭϬ ϭ͘ϱ ϮϬ ϯϰϵϲ ϲϬϴ ϵϬϯϲ Ϭ͘ϯϵ KůĚEͲϴϲ;^ZͲϭϬϬϵͿϮϬϮϱ DŝŶŽƌƌƚĞƌŝĂů ϲϬ ϰϱ ϭϭ ϭ͘ϱ ϮϮ ϳϰϲϴ ϭϰϲϴ ϭϬϬϰϱ Ϭ͘ϳϰ ϮϬϯϱ DŝŶŽƌƌƚĞƌŝĂů ϲϬ ϰϱ ϭϭ ϭ͘ϱ ϮϮ ϳϰϲϭ ϭϰϯϬ ϭϬϬϰϱ Ϭ͘ϳϰ ϮϬϰϱ DŝŶŽƌƌƚĞƌŝĂů ϲϬ ϰϱ ϭϭ ϭ͘ϱ ϮϮ ϵϮϵϲ ϭϵϮϮ ϭϬϬϰϱ Ϭ͘ϵϯ 88 ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚϭ ^ƚĂĨĨƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ dŚĞd/ƐƚĂƚĞƐ͗ xƵŝůĚŽƵƚʹϮϬϮϯ xdŽƚĂůĂŝůǇƚƌŝƉƐʹϯ͕ϲϰϴ;dͿ xϮϬϭϴdƌĂĨĨŝĐsŽůƵŵĞʹϮ͕ϯϬϬ;dͿĂǀŝƐZŽĂĚ͕ϲ͕ϱϬϬ;dͿKůĚEͲϴϲ x'ƌŽǁƚŚZĂƚĞʹϭй xdƌŝƉŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶʹĂǀŝƐZŽĂĚϱй͕KůĚEͲϴϲϭϱͲϱϬй ,ǇƉŽƚŚĞƚŝĐĂů^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͲͲƵƐŝŶŐd/ŝŶƉůĂĐĞŽĨdZD EKd ZŽĂĚ dZD &ƵƚƵƌĞ dƌĂĨĨŝĐ sŽůƵŵĞ &ƵŶĐƚŝŽŶĂů ůĂƐƐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ ϮϬϭϴ sŽůƵŵĞ sŽůƵŵĞ ;dͿ dŽƚĂů ĂƉĂĐŝƚǇ >K^ ;sŽůƵŵĞͬ ĂƉĂĐŝƚǇͿ ĂǀŝƐ ZŽĂĚ;^ZͲ ϭϭϮϵͿ ϮϬϮϱ >ŽĐĂůŽůůĞĐƚŽƌ ϮϯϬϬ ϮϰϴϮ ϵϬϯϲ Ϭ͘Ϯϳ ϮϬϯϱϮϳϯϭ ϵϬϯϲ Ϭ͘ϯϬ ϮϬϰϱϯϬϬϰ ϵϬϯϲ Ϭ͘ϯϯ KůĚEͲϴϲ ;^ZͲϭϬϬϵͿ ϮϬϮϱ DŝŶŽƌƌƚĞƌŝĂů ϲϱϬϬ ϳϮϮϵ ϭϬϬϰϱ Ϭ͘ϳϮ ϮϬϯϱϳϵϱϯ ϭϬϬϰϱ Ϭ͘ϳϵ ϮϬϰϱϴϳϰϴ ϭϬϬϰϱ Ϭ͘ϴϳ ,ǇƉŽƚŚĞƚŝĐĂů^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͲͲĂƐƐƵŵŝŶŐĂůůϯ͕ϰϲϴŶĞǁƚƌŝƉƐǁŽƵůĚďĞŽŶĂǀŝƐZŽĂĚKZ KůĚEͲϴϲKE>zďǇϮϬϮϯďƵŝůĚŽƵƚ͘EŽŶĞǁĞŵƉůŽǇĞĞƐ͕ǀĞŶĚŽƌƐ͕ĐƵƐƚŽŵĞƌƐ͕ĞƚĐ͘ŽŶ ŽƚŚĞƌƌŽĂĚƐ ĂǀŝƐ ZŽĂĚ;^ZͲ ϭϭϮϵͿ ϮϬϮϱ >ŽĐĂůŽůůĞĐƚŽƌ ϮϯϬϬ ϱϵϰϴ ϵϬϯϲ Ϭ͘ϲϲ ϮϬϯϱϲϱϰϯ ϵϬϯϲ Ϭ͘ϳϮ ϮϬϰϱϳϭϵϳ ϵϬϯϲ Ϭ͘ϴϬ KůĚEͲϴϲ ;^ZͲϭϬϬϵͿ ϮϬϮϱ DŝŶŽƌƌƚĞƌŝĂů ϲϱϬϬ ϭϬϭϰϴ ϭϬϬϰϱ ϭ͘Ϭϭ ϮϬϯϱϭϭϭϲϯ ϭϬϬϰϱ ϭ͘ϭϭ ϮϬϰϱϭϮϮϳϵ ϭϬϬϰϱ ϭ͘ϮϮ 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 From: Jon Lorusso <jonlorusso@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2020 12:48 PM To: Perdita Holtz; ALL_BOCC_MANAGER_CLERK Cc: Ashley Kesling Lorusso; jrupplin123@aol.com; Franklin Garland; jweaver@hillsboroughnc.gov Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!] Millstone Dr. Hi, Jon here with my daily "thoughts on the MPD-CZ rezoning". My wife works at a school on Millstone Dr. If you've ever tried to make a left out of of Millstone onto Old 86, you know it is *very* difficult. It's a dangerous intersection, at least as dangerous if not more so than Davis Rd. and Old 86. As mentioned at Wednesday's planning meeting, we're likely to see a large increase in traffic as a result of the RTLP site. The argument that this will not impact Old 86 north of 40 holds absolutely no water, and as members of the planning board I am sure you know that. Has any consideration been given to the addition of a signal at Millstone Dr. and Old NC 86? Without a new signal, there absolutely will be more accidents. Thanks once again for listening to my input. --jon 96 97 98 From: Jon Lorusso <jonlorusso@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 11:10 AM To: ALL_BOCC_MANAGER_CLERK <OCBOCC@orangecountync.gov>; Perdita Holtz <pholtz@orangecountync.gov>; Tina Love <tlove@orangecountync.gov>; Todd McGee <tmcgee@orangecountync.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!] jobs Hi, I would like to address the issue of jobs. It is hoped that the Research Triangle Logistics Park will employ 4500 people in, as the name suggests the logistics industry. Most of these jobs will consist of warehouse workers and truck drivers. As it so happens, these two jobs in particular are ripe for automation. This is not something will occur in the far off future. Warehouse automation has already begin, and trucking automation has already begun. Does this not undermine the very premise of providing good paying jobs to the residents of Orange County? If we must build something in this location, why can't it be something that will benefit the people who live here rather than out of state corporations? I have included a few slides that demonstrate my point. While I respect the planning board's position on the regulatory components of land use, has anyone considered the economic aspects of this plan? I believe it is vital to consider this project from all angles and try to anticipate all of the possible outcomes before making a decision. This is a major change and once in motion it will be difficult to reverse course. Thank you, --jon 99 100 101 From: Karen Fernandez <ksmithfernandez@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 4:41:47 PM To: Perdita Holtz Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!] Research Triangle Logistics Park Development Proposal Karen Smith Fernandez 3902 Ode Turner Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Ms. Holtz, I am writing in regard to the application to develop the Research Triangle Logistical Park south and west of the I-40 and Highway 86 intersection in Hillsborough. First, thank you for your skillful facilitation of a contentious meeting on August 5. I appreciate that the planning board members are volunteers and regret that not all of my neighbors were able to contain their emotions appropriately. I was not able to speak that evening and so am writing to the planning board via your email instead. I have written to my commissioners and will attend the future virtual meetings on this topic as well. I attended the Planning Board meeting of August 5 where the developer presented their proposed plan to the board and where several of my Orange County neighbors along Davis Drive, Ode Turner Road and Highway 86 expressed their opposition to this development. I, too, oppose this particular development in this location for the following reasons: 1) Reputation. Currently Orange County enjoys the reputation of a livable community with services that support both the reputation and the reality of being a livable community. This development which consists of several million feet of warehouses does not fit with our reputation or reality particularly in light of the fact that the lessors or purchasers of the warehouse facilities will be largely unknown. I understand that there are restrictions in place for the classification of this zoning district, but they do not appear to be so restrictive as to deter animal research or chemical research or other activities that may or may not “fit” the Orange County ethic. The vagueness of the usage, along with the appearance and impact of this huge warehouse complex seem out of place in our County. 2) Fit. Although not generally opposed to the zoning of this area as described in the Future Land Use Management Plan, I don’t feel that this type of development is the right fit. Not only am I concerned for the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County “brand” or reputation as described above, but I think we can do better in finding a project that is more aligned with the citizens of the County and Town. I understand that the developer projects 4500 potential new jobs, but these will be individuals and businesses from out of area largely, providing no direct service or benefit to residents. Storage, research, transportation, manufacture – any of these are possible, none of these are secured. With no ability to regulate the types of businesses that would use large warehouse spaces, we really don’t know who we are inviting into the neighborhood/county/town. We do not know what skills will be needed for these jobs, what types of jobs they will be or any other details. In fact, without knowing who the tenants of the warehouses will be, how can we be certain of the projected 4500 jobs becoming available. Many of these jobs will be taken, not be residents, but by individuals outside of the area who will commute. How does that specifically help the residents that you serve? If there are positive impacts, it would be helpful to have them spelled out for the citizens. 3) Traffic. 4500 cars/trucks per day. 200 cars/tractor trailers per hour. These are the numbers the developer’s traffic engineer gave in the presentation. The increase in traffic onto Davis Road, currently a residential street, due to the DOT requirement that the planned service road NOT be used for I-40 access is more than this street and neighborhood can tolerate. That, in combination with the need for some part of this traffic to access I-85, meaning that the traffic flow north on I-86, down Churton and 102 onto the I-85 access ramps, should give us all pause for traffic congestion and additional road maintenance. I am also concerned for the viability of the Hillsborough Church of Christ located directly across from the Davis Road access point If this project proceeds. 4) Crime and safety. Without knowing what types of businesses will be using this huge warehouse area, we can’t be sure what the project will bring to this side of the County except much more access and use from the I-40 and I-85 corridors. Is the County ready to increase patrols and enforcement to keep citizens that are literally at the back door of this development safe? Have studies been performed on the effect of this type of development on the crime rate in a residential area? Can we see those studies? Can we be assured that Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough will maintain their reputations as safe? Or that Orange County will be seen in a good light if/when crime increases? 5) Light pollution. A complex of this size will create a tremendous new source of light pollution that will affect citizens for miles around. If this, or any complex, is allowed to move forward please insert a condition that lighting must be downward facing. Please. 6) Noise. Again, we do not know what industry will reside in this type of complex, but we do know that a 100 foot vegetative barrier will not be enough to subdue the sound of tractor trailers moving about in proximity to a residential area during 3 shifts day and night. If this, or any complex, is allowed to move forward on this site, please require more substantial noise barriers to protect the residents from the din of trucks and traffic. Please do not hesitate to reach out to me if that would be helpful. Thank you for your attention and consideration of my concerns, and the concerns of Orange County residents. Respectfully, Karen Karen Smith Fernandez 919-259-2856 ksmithfernandez@gmail.com "In every crisis,doubt or confusion,take the higher path - the path of compassion,courage,understanding and love." –Amit Ray 103 From: Margo T. Pinkerton <BC@zapphoto.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 4:45 PM To: Tina Love <tlove@orangecountync.gov> Cc: Ronn Sieber (rdsieber@gmail.com) <rdsieber@gmail.com>; Mare Hermanson (Hermanson.mary@gmail.com) <Hermanson.mary@gmail.com>; Denny Hermanson (dennishermanson@gmail.com) <dennishermanson@gmail.com>; Arnie Zann (Arnie@BCphotoadventures.com) <Arnie@BCphotoadventures.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!] Opposed to PROCESSING OF NEW MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL ZONING DISTRICT (MPD-CZ) APPLICATION – RESEARCH TRIANGLE LOGISTICS PARK (RTLP) Importance: High To: Orange County Planning Board I am vehemently opposed to the above cited application for Research Triangle Logistics Park. When we bought our house in Cornwallis Hills in 2005, we thought we were buying in a residential neighborhood that was relatively quiet except for the I-40 traffic noise. With the advent of Waterstone, it is near impossible for the residents of Cornwallis Hills to exit via Lafayette Drive. When that development/complex was put in, we were assured we would get a traffic light. That was a lit, because while the wiring for it is there, it was never done. I must assume that the NC-DOT is waiting for a traffic fatality before they will do anything. Now, the County Planning Board wants to lower our property values, reduce our quality of life, and remove the relative peace and quiet of our neighborhood by adding RTLP at our borders and that of the residential neighborhoods on or near Davis Road. Already, traffic has made it noisy and unsafe at the junction of Lafayette Drive and Old-86. Impatient people regularly and illegally use the turning lane into Cates Creek Parkway as a passing zone. I have complained about this numerous times, and the NC-DOT will do nothing, citing parameters within which they have to work. The exit out of Lafayette Drive heading north onto Old-86 is impossible if one were to stay within the lines. One would have to come to nearly a dead stop in order to make the turn somewhat back over your left shoulder, something that is totally unsafe. Again, the NC-DOT doesn’t care. Now, the Planning Board must be looking at its pockets rather than at the citizens it is supposed to serve. You want to add more traffic to an already dangerous and congested corridor by bringing 18 wheelers from I-85 down Old-86, through Hillsborough’s Historic District, and past the Cornwallis Neighborhood to service this ill-conceived project that the developers and the Planning Board are trying to ram down our throats. This is totally unacceptable and frankly smacks of political skullduggery and corruption. And what you are planning to do at the entrance to Davis Road is totally unacceptable, too. No one is going to persuade me that there are not other sites better suited to this project, for example where US-70 meets I-40 at the western end, off Route 1144. Please do not lower our property values. Please allow us to maintain a residential feel to our neighborhoods. Pick a site away from residential areas. Work with the NC-DOT before the fact, not put the traffic in the hands of the NC-DOT after the fact as has been the case with recent, ill-conceived developments. And please point me to a site, such as that of the County Commissioners, where I can see a bio of each one of you. Orange County needs transparency. Sincerely, Margo T. Pinkerton Cornwallis Hills 104 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Chris Lamb <clamb2411@gmail.com> To: <planningdept@orangecountync.gov> Cc: Chris Lamb <clamb2411@gmail.com>, <ocbocc@orangecountync.gov> Bcc: Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 22:25:31 -0400 Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!] Development at Old 86 and Davis Rd/I40 Neighbor, Through social media I have learned that the rezoning approval for this project may have been fast-tracked, perhaps due to the current pandemic. I hope that this is not true. Given the challenges that the pandemic presents to all, this hardly seems the time to rush community decisions and limit the opportunity for discussion and input. I spent my childhood in a small rural, New England mill village, where the textile mill had long ago closed, and the business moved south for lower costs. I spent my teenage years in Houston, watching the boom and bust cycles of the oil and real-estate industries and the growth of a city w/o zoning. An I moved to North Carolina in '92 to watch the spams caused by the loss of textile and furniture jobs. Times change, land use changes, often and quickly. Since moving away from my childhood home, I have morned as the woods and fields I grew up roaming have been slowly developed. As a result, I find the rampant clearcutting and thoughtless development commonly seen here and around the country painful and unfortunate. However, I recognize that 'progress' can not be stopped and there are limits to the role of govenment. That said, I think it is the role of the county commissioners to speak and act on behalf of all their constituents, especially those most directly affected. How will the noise and traffic limit their ability to enjoy their own property, and therefore reduce it's value, tangibly and intangibly? How will their health be affected by the truck exhaust? I live a few miles away and fear the traffic will be a detriment to my air quality, increase the noise pollution and make my area a less pleasant place to live. How will the development reflect the long term values of the community? How often have we seen that land use changes over time? From the abandoned mills of my childhood to the dying stripcenters of the past few decades to the malls that are now dying.How many visitors and citizens will look forward to visiting Hillsborough if forced to drive by this neighbor, unattractive, noisy and polluting? How well will the traffic planning actually be done to protect the non-commercial traffic and neighbors? Why should we expect it to be any better or safer than the Walmart/Home Depot area w/o an upgrade to the bridge? Will it be any better than the connections to Old and New 86 from the hostpital and surrounding developments - unmetered intersections with poor visability and lights forcing unnecessary idling when a simple traffic circle would be superior? As well as the I40/15-501 interchange? Where an entrance ramp merge occurs at the same time as the third lane merges, a deadly and criminal arrangement. A safer alternative would have been to simply configure the right lane as an exit only lane and resolve multiple issues. How about drainage and water quality? The neighborhood across the street from us of about 20 houses went through a fair amount of planning, but nothing done in that process has protected my property and pond, which flows into Lake Ben Johnson, from the increased run-off coming from their roads and homes. Will the planning for containment during and after development be any better? Will it really be sufficient? In closing, I am urging you to vote against this project until a plan is presented that protects the health, safety, property values (of all types) and quality of life of the neighbors and community. And until a plan is presented that protects the character and values of the community and it's long term appeal and potential. And until a clear plan to really manage the runoff and water quality has been presented. Until there is a plan you are proud to discuss with citizens, there really isn't a option to approve it. Too long have we allowed narrow commercial and self interested parties freedom to do what they want while failing to provide the neighbors and community freedom from pollution, personal infringements and environmental destruction. It is long past time to stand up for what we will value in 50 or 100 years. No one will miss the mixed use development of their childhood. No one will appreciate the architecture and design, not now, not ever. There will be no value derived from the noise, air, and water pollution. No one will ever suggest visiting the development with their families for an evening stroll and no realtor will list it as a feature when selling adjact properties. We can't stop progress, but we can guide it and we can do what is right for the long term and insist that proper planning is completed before the project is approved. Chris Lamb OC resident since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n applicant initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas to rezone 3 parcels as follows: Parcel Identification Number (PIN) Township Owner of Record Current Zoning District Proposed Zoning District 9863-71-8857 Hillsborough Suzanne McGrady Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD- CZ) Settlers Point; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Research Triangle Logistics Park; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. 9863-91-6573 Hillsborough Christy Bailey –ETAL John Clayton Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD- CZ) Settlers Point; Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) - north of Interstate 40 Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Research Triangle Logistics Park; Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) – north of Interstate 40 Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. 9862-99-8894 Hillsborough Facility Care Services Inc. Rural Residential (R-1) Rural Buffer (RB) – approximately 26,000 sq.ft. along Davis Road Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Research Triangle Logistics Park; Rural Buffer (RB) – approximately 26,000 sq.ft. along Davis Road 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 th e amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan. 1. The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it supports the following 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives: x Objective LU-1.1: Coordinate the location of higher intensity / high density residential and non-residential development with existing or planned locations of public transportation, commercial and community services, and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e., Attachment 5 108 water and sew er, high-speed internet access, streets, and sidewalks), while avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural resources. This could be achieved by increasing allowable densities and creating new mixed-use zoning districts where adequate public services are available. (See also Economic Development Objectives ED-2.1, ED-2.3, ED-2.10, and Water and Wastewater Objective WW-2.) The atlas amendment is consistent with this goal and objective with the approval of a rezoning of property creating a district allowing for the development of high density 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 C ounty while continuing to protect adjacent and nearby land uses. The atlas amendment involves the appr oval of a mast er plan establishing a detailed list of allowable non-residential land uses to aid in the mar keting on an ar ea designated within the Comprehensive Plan as bei ng suitable for high intensity non- residential development. The expansion is consistent with County and Town of Hillsborough plans outlining those parcels suitable for service by water/sewer that are prime 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. ______________________________________________ David Blankfard, Chair Date 109 $XJXVW±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ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚϲ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¶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¶VUHYLVHGQDUUDWLYHIRUWKHSURMHFWGDWHG-XO\ UHTXHVWHGDIORRUDUHDUDWLR)$5OLPLWRIRUVTIWRI DOORZDEOHEXLOGLQJVTXDUHIRRWDJHDUHDIRUWKH3URMHFW7RDSSURYH WKLVUHTXHVWWKH7,$ZLOOKDYHWREHUHYLVHGXSGDWHG E +HLJKW L 3ULQFLSDOVWUXFWXUHVVKDOODELGHE\DKHLJKWOLPLWRIIW LL $FFHVVRU\6WUXFWXUHV :DWHUWRZHU 67$))&200(177KHQDUUDWLYHPDNHVUHIHUHQFHVWRµDFFHVVRU\ VWUXFWXUHV¶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nvironmental Assessment RI WKH 8'2 ,Q WKRVH FDVHV ZKHUH GHYHORSPHQW H[FHHGV HVWDEOLVKHG WKUHVKROGV D IRUPDO (QYLURQPHQWDO ,PSDFW6WDWHPHQW(,6PD\EHUHTXLUHGDOORZLQJIRUVLWHSODQDSSURYDO J ,QDGGLWLRQWRWKHVWDQGDUGVGHWDLOHGLQ6HFWLRQRIWKH8'2DOO ODQGVFDSLQJSODQVVKDOOLQFOXGHLQIRUPDWLRQGHQRWLQJWKHSURSRVHGPHWKRG RIFDUHLHXQGHUJURXQGVSULQNOHUVPDLQWHQDQFHSHUVRQQHOHWFIRUWKH GHYHORSPHQW K ,GHQWLILHGFRQIOLFWVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKODQGVFDSLQJVKDOOEHUHVROYHGSULRUWRWKH DSSURYDORIWKHVLWHSODQIRUDJLYHQSURMHFW5HTXLUHGSODQWLQJVVKDOOQRWEH UHGXFHGWRDFFRPPRGDWHDFRQIOLFWZLWKXWLOLWLHVRUURDGZD\LVVXHV L )RUDOOVLWHSODQVVXEPLWWHGIRUWKH3URMHFWWKH2UDQJH5XUDO9ROXQWHHU)LUH 'HSDUWPHQWVKDOOEHFRQVLGHUHGDPHPEHURIWKH&RXQW\'HYHORSPHQW $GYLVRU\&RPPLWWHH'$&DVRXWOLQHGLQ6HFWLRQRIWKH8'2 9 3(5)250$1&(67$1'$5'6 D 7KH3URMHFWVKDOOFRPSO\ZLWK6HFWLRQVWKURXJKRIWKH8'2 LQFOXVLYH E6ROLG:DVWH0DQDJHPHQW7KHIROORZLQJVSHFLILFVWDQGDUGVVKDOODSSO\ L ([WHUQDOVSDFHIRUFROOHFWLRQRIVROLGZDVWHDQGUHF\FODEOHPDWHULDOV 0DWHULDOVFROOHFWHGVKDOOEHFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH&RXQW\¶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µ3URMHFW¶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³6WXFNRQ´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µYLVXDO UHOLHI¶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viii. Building design/construction shall not unnecessarily preclude incorporation of alternative energy systems such as solar panels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´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¶VSHULPHWHUVKDOOEH ODQGVFDSHGZKLOHPDLQWDLQLQJWKHQHFHVVDU\VLGHZDON DUHD E 7KHVHDUHDVPD\FRQVLVWRIODZQSODQWHUVRUVKUXE DUHDV VR ORQJ DV WKH VKUXE DUHDV WKDW KDYH WR EH WZHQW\IRXULQFKHV´PLQLPXPLQZLGWKFRPSULVHD PLQLPXPRIWZHQW\SHUFHQWRIWKHWRWDOOLQHDU GLPHQVLRQDORQJWKHEXLOGLQJ¶VSHULPHWHU :LWKUHVSHFWWRLQWHUQDOVWUHHWODQGVFDSLQJWKHUHVKDOOEHRQH WUHHDWDRQHLQFK´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x *HQHUDO2IILFHDQG6HUYLFH8VHVVSDFHIRUHYHU\ VTIWRIJURVVIORRUDUHD x 0HGLFDO2IILFHVSDFHIRUHYHU\VTIWRIJURVV IORRUDUHD x 0DQXIDFWXULQJVSDFHSHUHPSOR\HHRQWKHVKLIW RIPD[LPXPHPSOR\PHQW x 5HWDLOVSDFHIRUHYHU\VTIWRIVTIWRI JURVVIORRUDUHD x :KROHVDOH 7UDGH VSDFH SHU HPSOR\HH RQ PD[LPXPVKLIWSOXVVSDFHV x 5HVHDUFKVSDFHSHUHPSOR\HH x 'LVWULEXWLRQ)XOILOOPHQW 2SHUDWLRQV VSDFH SHU HPSOR\HHRQWKHVKLIWRIPD[LPXPHPSOR\PHQW 8OWLPDWHO\ UHTXLUHG SDUNLQJ VWDQGDUGV QHHGV WR UHIOHFW DOORZDEOHODQGXVHVZLWKLQWKHSURMHFWLHWKHUHQHHGVWREH DSDUNLQJVWDQGDUGDGGUHVVLQJDOODQWLFLSDWHGODQGXVHVWREH GHYHORSHGZLWKLQWKH3URMHFW I6LJQDJHUHYLHZRIWKHDSSOLFDQW¶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¶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µ0LQLQJ¶LQJHQHUDOEH SURKLELWHG$VZULWWHQLWFRXOGEHDUJXHGQRQXUDQLXPPLQLQJ RSHUDWLRQVZRXOGEHDOORZHG L[ /DQGILOOV [ %RG\DOWHUDWLRQLHWDWWRRDUWLVWERG\SLHUFLQJHWF 124 [L &HPHWHU\ [LL &UHPDWRULD [LLL )XQHUDO+RPH [LY 3DZQVKRS3D\GD\/RDQ [Y -XQN6DOYDJH\DUG [YL 0DVVDJH%XVLQHVV [YLL 6H[XDOO\2ULHQWHG%XVLQHVV 9,, 87,/,7,(6 D 'HYHORSPHQWZLWKLQWKH3URMHFWVKDOOEHVHUYHGE\SXEOLFZDWHUDQGVHZHU VHUYLFHV DV SURYLGHG DQG PDLQWDLQHG E\ WKH 7RZQ RI +LOOVERURXJK DGGLWLRQDODQGRUDOWHUQDWLYHZDWHUDQGRUZDVWHZDWHUV\VWHPVVKDOOQRWEH SHUPLWWHG E $ZULWWHQVLJQHGDJUHHPHQWEHWZHHQDGHYHORSHU2UDQJH&RXQW\DQGWKH 7RZQRI+LOOVERURXJKVKDOOEH H[HFXWHGGHVFULELQJWKHWLPLQJSKDVLQJ GHVLJQDQGILQDQFLQJRISXEOLFZDWHUGLVWULEXWLRQDQGSXEOLFVDQLWDU\VHZHU FROOHFWLRQPDLQV F :DWHUV\VWHPVDQGZDWHUSUHVVXUHVKDOOFRPSO\ZLWKDOODSSOLFDEOH7RZQRI +LOOVERURXJK XWLOLW\ VWDQGDUGV EXLOGLQJ DQG ILUH FRGHV EDVHGRQ WKH SURSRVHGODQGXVH G 6L]LQJORRSLQJRIXWLOLW\OLQHVVKDOOEHEDVHGRQWKHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQW LQFOXGLQJ ZDWHU IORZ WHVW GDWD DQG VKDOO EH UHYLHZHG DQG DSSURYHG E\ &RXQW\ VWDII 7RZQ RI +LOOVERURXJK 3ODQQLQJ 'LUHFWRU DQG WKH 7RZQ RI +LOOVERURXJK8WLOLW\'LUHFWRU H )LUHIORZWHVWVRIDOOLQVWDOOHGK\GUDQWVVKDOOEHFRQGXFWHGLQFRRUGLQDWLRQ ZLWKWKH7RZQRI+LOOVERURXJKDQG2UDQJH&RXQW\(PHUJHQF\6HUYLFHVWR HQVXUHFRPSOLDQFHZLWKDSSOLFDEOH6WDWH)LUH&RGHVWDQGDUGV 9,,, 27+(5 a. No permanent fuel or chemical storage shall occur within 30 ft. of a floodplain/stream buffer established consistent with the provisions of Section 6.13 of the County UDO. b. A minimum of 2 electrical vehicle charging stations shall be installed for every building constructed on-site. Additional stations may be proposed as part of the site plan review process. 67$))&200(17$GGHGWRDGGUHVV3ODQQLQJ%RDUGFRPPHQWVIURP $XJXVWPHHWLQJ 125