The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Board - 080520 Agenda PacketORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 AGENDA ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD Wednesday, August 5, 2020 Regular 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__IrutyNBQVSgYBsGThaEhw 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 SUMM ARY BY STAFF ON TECHNOLOGY PROTOCOLS FOR MEETING Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator 2. CALL TO ORDER 3. 3 – 4 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. Planning Calendar for August and September 4. 5 – 8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 5, 2020 Regular Meeting Minutes 5. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 6. PUBLIC CHARGE Introduction to the Public Charge The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and future needs of its residents and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. Public Charge The Planning Board pledges 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 public fail to No. Page(s) Agenda Item observe this charge, the Chair will take steps to restore order and 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. 7. CHAIR COMMENTS 8. 9 – 16 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 review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on County-initiated amendments to the COCA and FLUM in the vicinity of the southern portion of the Hillsborough Area Economic Development District. The amendments related to COCA affect 17 parcels (in whole or part) encompassing 84 acres. The amendments related to the FLUM affect 20 parcels (in whole or part) encompassing 89 acres. The COCA proposed land use category is Suburban Office and the FLUM proposed category is Economic Development. This item is scheduled for BOCC public hearing on September 15, 2020. Presenter: Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor 9. 17 – 38 ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT (GENERAL USE REZONING) - To review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on a County-initiated action to rezone 8 parcels totaling 45.96 acres from MPD-CZ (Settler’s Point) to EDH-4 (Economic Development Hillsborough Office/Retail) (1 parcel 32.76 acres in size) or EDH-2 (Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office) (7 parcels totaling 13.2 acres). The parcels are located in Hillsborough Township, south of Interstate 40 and east of Old Highway 86. This item is scheduled for BOCC public hearing on September 15, 2020. Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 10. 39 – 328 ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT (MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – RESEARCH TRIANGLE LOGISTICAL PARK) - To 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 is scheduled for BOCC public hearing on September 15, 2020. Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 11. 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). August 2020 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 HOLIDAY OFFICES CLOSED 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Planning Board 7:00 pm* Virtual Meeting 9 10 11 12 123 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Notes: * Planning Board Member Attendance Required - Virtual Meeting 3 September 2020 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 BOCC Business Meeting Planning Board 7:00 pm* Virtual Meeting 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 HOLIDAY OFFICES CLOSED BOCC Work Session 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 BOCC Business Meeting 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Notes: * Planning Board Member Attendance Required Virtual Meeting 4 MEETING MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 FEBRUARY 5, 2020 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Representative; David Blankfard (Vice-Chair), Hillsborough 6 Township Representative; Adam Beeman, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Kim Piracci, Eno Township 7 Representative; Susan Hunter, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township 8 Representative; Randy Marshall, At-Large Representative; Hunter Spitzer, At-Large Representative; Carrie Fletcher, 9 Bingham Township Representative 10 11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Melissa Poole, Little River Township Representative; Gio Mollinedo, At-Large Representative; 12 Hathaway Pendergrass, At-Large Representative 13 14 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 15 16 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 17 Chair Lydia Wegman called the meeting to order 18 19 AGENDA ITEM 2: ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 20 21 MOTION by Hunter Spitzer, seconded by Lydia Wegman and Randy Marshall, nominating David Blankfard to be 22 Chair. There were no other nominations and the motion was approved unanimously 23 24 MOTION by Adam Beeman, seconded Randy Marshall, nominating Adam Beeman to be Vice-Chair. There were no 25 other nominations and the motion was approved unanimously 26 27 AGENDA ITEM 3: INFORMATION ITEMS 28 29 a. Planning Calendar for February and March 30 31 AGENDA ITEM 4: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 32 December 4, 2019 33 34 David Blankfard: Are there any changes or corrections? 35 36 MOTION by Hunter Spitzer to approve the December 4, 2019 Meeting Minutes. Seconded by Adam Beeman. 37 VOTE: Unanimous 38 39 AGENDA ITEM 5: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA. 40 41 There were none 42 43 AGENDA ITEM 6: PUBLIC CHARGE 44 45 INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC CHARGE 46 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 47 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development law of 48 the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 49 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner, which considers the present and future 50 needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to 51 and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every 52 effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our 53 deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 54 5 55 PUBLIC CHARGE 56 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 57 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 58 fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 59 public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 60 regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting 61 until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 62 63 AGENDA ITEM 7: CHAIR COMMENTS 64 65 There were none 66 67 AGENDA ITEM 8: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT – EROSION CONTROL PERMITS - To 68 make a recommendation to the BOCC on proposed amendments to the UDO pertaining to the West Fork on the Eno 69 reservoir to address concerns over reservoir setbacks. This item was introduced at the November 6, 2019 ORC 70 meeting and is scheduled for BOCC public hearing on March 10, 2020. 71 72 PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 73 74 Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract and proposed changes to the UDO and provided the Board within an updated 75 Attachment 4, an updated copy of the proposed amendment package. 76 77 Lydia Wegman: Does this amendment allow someone to expand an existing septic system or residence closer to the 78 reservoir? 79 80 Michael Harvey: No. Under Section 4.2.2 (F) you can make repairs to existing residences and septic systems and 81 even expand same but you cannot, in my mind, go closer to the actual reservoir. We do, however, want to recognize 82 the legal viability of the development and not penalize property owners for abiding by applicable rules at the time they 83 located their residences or septic systems. 84 85 Adam Beeman: Is there a discrepancy in the maps provided in the package? It seems the reservoir actually 86 includes property north of Carr Store Road. 87 88 Michael Harvey: The reservoir does extend north of Carr Store Road correct. That is why we have the revised 89 map(s) in your packet. Sorry for the confusion. 90 91 Hunter Spitzer: Why is the Town of Hillsborough not required to own the required buffer area? 92 93 Michael Harvey: (If you are referring to the required 150 ft. and 300 ft. setbacks for buildings and septic systems) 94 State law does not mandate the Town own the area required to comply with the established setbacks. That is one 95 reason for the amendment. 96 97 Craig Benedict: There probably should have been an easement required to ensure the area was protected by the 98 Town. And the Town had to negotiate with these property owners to secure the property necessary to accommodate 99 the reservoir. 100 101 Michael Harvey: This is one reason the County has regulations governing what constitutes existing development and 102 existing parcels when addressing compliance with required reservoir setbacks. 103 104 Patricia Roberts: Can someone replace an existing manufactured home with a stick built or modular residence? 105 Michael Harvey: There is nothing in the UDO that would prevent that. All the property owner would have to do is 106 comply with applicable setback standards. 107 108 6 Michael Harvey: What this amendment does is establish a key date as it relates to the enforcement of the reservoir 109 setback from the West Fork on the Eno. The amendment establishes the date for staff to ascertain what constitutes 110 an existing lot and existing development when enforcing the required structure and septic setbacks. The UDO 111 contains waiver provisions for an existing lot so that property owners who own a parcel established prior to the 112 development or designation of a reservoir site with respect to locating a structure and septic system. Unfortunately 113 this amendment will not address everyone’s issues along the Eno. For example we have a property owner who has 114 subdivided his lot several times from 1997 to today. His property will not qualify as an existing lot under this 115 provision. The County staff chose the proposed date that made sense as it relates to the enforcement of reservoir 116 setbacks. February 12, 1997 is the date the West Fork on the Eno reservoir was established as it relates to 117 identifying the point where the 150 ft. structure and 300 ft. septic setback are taken from. 118 119 I am asking the Board to approve the Statement of Consistency in Attachment 3 and recommend the adoption of the 120 revised Attachment 4, which establishes the key critical date with respect to what constitutes existing development 121 and an existing lot along the West Fork on the Eno of February 12, 1997. 122 123 Hunter Spitzer: Is there a way to amend the proposal to change the dates for what constitutes a legal lot and existing 124 development to a different date? I am concerned there may be some property owners who will not qualify with the 125 February 12, 1997 date and we will make more structures nonconforming. 126 127 Michael Harvey: I am not comfortable with that. The intent of the identified sections is to define what qualifies as 128 existing development and an existing lot as it relates to when a reservoir was established. From the date a reservoir 129 is established, people who subdivide their property are obligated to abide by applicable reservoir setbacks for 130 structures and septic systems. I will remind all parties there is nothing in this section preventing a property owner 131 from seeking a variance from the Board of Adjustment if they believe the strict interpretation of the UDO infringes on 132 their development or redevelopment of their property. 133 134 Hunter Spitzer: That only covers regulated subdivisions correct? 135 136 Michael Harvey: All property, created through the regulated, expedited, exempt subdivision processes, are required 137 to abide by the established setbacks when they develop their property. This is handled as part of the zoning 138 compliance permit process, which is separate from the subdivision process, and would include compliance with the 139 150 ft. setback for all structures and the 300 ft. setback for all septic systems from a reservoir. You are correct, 140 however, it is likely a property owner engaging in an exempt subdivision will not be aware of the potential impacts of 141 their action as it relates to complying with applicable reservoir setbacks. Unfortunately that is not something staff can 142 address. We can continue to advise property owners of the issue but cannot require they take the consequences 143 into account when deciding to proceed with an exempt subdivision. 144 145 Craig Benedict: Some of these issues hit home for property owners when the Town began clearing property to allow 146 for the raising of the reservoir. It became clearer to those property owners just where the edge of the reservoir was 147 going to be and that led to questions of us on anticipated impacts. 148 149 Patricia Roberts: Will these people have to purchase flood insurance? 150 151 Michael Harvey: There is nothing in the UDO mandating property owner purchase flood insurance. There is existing 152 special flood hazard area along the reservoir. It is typically up to the lending institution if flood insurance will be 153 required. Again I want to clarify this amendment package, in and of itself, does not create the need for flood 154 insurance. I will not bore you with my 20 minute presentation on why you should purchase flood insurance 155 regardless of your property’s location within a special flood hazard area. 156 157 Randy Marshal: The aerial photo still shows trees along the reservoir area. Has clearing begun? 158 159 Michael Harvey: Yes clearing has already occurred and is nearly completed. My last conversation with the Town on 160 this matter led me to believe the majority of clearing activities had already occurred but that additional work may be 161 necessary. I am of the opinion work on the dam is being finalized and there is still roadwork that has to be completed 162 7 for the project. Unfortunately all I have access to is 2016/17 aerial photo data so it does not show the existing of 163 clearing activities that have already occurred. 164 165 MOTION by Randy Marshal to approve the statement of consistency, and the updated text amendment package 166 as provided by staff. Seconded by Lydia Wegman. 167 VOTE: Unanimous 168 169 AGENDA ITEM 9: ADJOURNMENT 170 Meeting was adjourned by consensus 171 172 173 174 175 David Blankfard, Chair 176 8 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 5, 2020 Action Agenda Item No. 8 SUBJECT: 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. Hillsborough/Orange County COCA Land Use Plan Amendment Map 2. Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Map 3. Resolution Amending COCA Land Use Plan and Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan 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 review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on County-initiated amendments to the: • Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan, and • Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The amendments to these long-range plans work together to expand the southern boundary of the Hillsborough Economic Development area. BACKGROUND: Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough have been discussing potential expansion of the Hillsborough Economic Development area for several years as the County continued work towards investing approximately $1.5 million in a sewer “trunk line” south of Interstate 40 and west of Old Highway 86. With an eye towards maximizing the use of the sewer line, there is interest in designating additional lands that could be served via a “gravity sewer line” for non-residential purposes. In addition, Orange County evaluates the amount of land available for economic development and due to lands being developed as the UNC Hospital and Durham Technical Community College over the last few years, the limited supply in this area was considered for expansion. At its June 6, 2017 meeting, the BOCC approved amendments to the Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) to expand the Hillsborough Primary Service Area. All parties have since approved the WASMPBA amendment; the Town of Hillsborough Board was the last party to approve in October 2017. Because of language included in the approval resolutions, the WASMPBA 9 amendment is to become effective when the joint land use plan is amended to reflect the expanded Urban Service Area and assigned a future land use classification. Two related amendments are being proposed to prescribe the land uses that will be allowed in the expanded area for Economic Development. 1. The Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan is a joint land use document that defines the locations of future land use categories to help achieve a desired and coordinated pattern of development over time. The COCA Land Use Plan includes several urban-style land use categories that are more specific than those provided in the County’s Comprehensive Plan, which covers a much larger geographic area. Implementation of the COCA Land Use Plan is achieved through consistency with the County’s Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, application of County zoning, and a coordinated approach to rezoning. The amendment proposes a “Suburban Office Complex” land use in the expansion area which would designate the area for office and employment, businesses in a campus setting, and limited supporting services. The proposed amendment also reflects the expansion of the Town’s Urban Service Boundary consistent with the WASMPBA to provide water and sewer service to the area. As part of a joint land use plan, this amendment requires approval by the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County. The Town of Hillsborough has already taken action and unanimously approved the amendment as follows. Town of Hillsborough Approval Process: March 15, 2018 – Town Public Hearing and Planning Board recommendation March 26, 2018 – Hillsborough Town Board adopted 2. The Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) defines the location of future land use categories, consistent with any joint land use plans, and is designed to accommodate a particular combination of general land uses. The FLUM helps achieve a desired pattern of development over time and is implemented primarily through zoning. The proposed amendment to this plan would change the expansion area from a Rural Residential land use to an Economic Development Transition Activity Node, which would designate the area for light industrial, distribution, office, service/retail uses, and flex space (typically one-story buildings designed, constructed, and marketed as suitable for use as offices but able to accommodate other uses such as a warehouse, showroom, manufacturing assembly, or similar operations). The County has not initiated any rezoning at this time. Currently, the area is zoned Rural Residential (R-1). However, approximately 12-acres of the Research Triangle Logistics Park (RTLP) are located in the amendment area discussed herein. Any rezoning that comes forward in the future will require a subsequent public hearing and finding that it is consistent with the plans. Public Information Session Planning staff held an on-line public information session on July 21, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. to review the County-initiated amendments to land use plans and zoning atlas, rezoning being a separate item processed concurrently. There were 11 attendees (6 public, Town of Hillsborough Planning Director, OC Economic Development Director, 2 OC Planning Board, and 1 OC Planning staff) and 7 Orange County (OC) staff “panelists” to help with presentation of the material, Questions and Answers, as well as the behind-the-scene orchestration of the Zoom 10 Webinar meeting platform that is necessary. With one exception, all questions and comments were related to the developer-initiated rezoning and Research Triangle Logistics Park development proposal, which was not the focus of the session as the developer had held the required Neighborhood Information meeting a few days before the session for the County- initiated proposals. These questions and comments, such as noise pollution and impact on property values, will be addressed by the developer through the process of Planning Board and BOCC consideration. The one substantive question with regard to the County-initiated amendments to the land use plans was whether or not County staff had considered any other land use classifications to apply to the County’s Future Land Use Map other than Economic Development Transition Activity Node. The Planning Director responded that the Commercial- Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN) was considered because it shares a nearly-identical definition to the Economic Development Transition Activity Node in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element; the classifications could be considered in the future for combining into one, although currently, there are no plans or intent to combine. Following is a link to additional information about the public information session, including a PowerPoint presentation: https://www.orangecountync.gov/1722/Current-Interest-Projects Planning Director’s Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the Resolution contained in Attachment 3, indicating consistency with the County’s land use and economic development goals. 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 purpose. 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. Review the proposed amendments to the: a. Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan, and b. Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, 2. Deliberate on the proposal as desired, 3. Consider the Planning Director’s recommendation, and 4. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the Resolution (Attachment 3) in time for a September 15, 2020 Public Hearing. 11 17 Parcels (in whole/in part)84 acres !"_$ WATERSTONEDR OAK RIDGE DR G LA D Y S L N DAVIS RD DESTINY DR SERVICERD W SCARLETTMOUNTAIN R D SUMMITTRAILDRRI P P Y L N OLDNC86OLDNC86ALICELOOP Proposed Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central OrangeCoordinated Area Land Use Plan Natural Resources Proposed Suburban Office Expanded Urban ServiceBoundary PendingHillsborough Current Urban ServiceBoundary Existing Land Use Plan Employment Mixed Res Neighborhood Mixed Use Neighborhood Mixed Use Permanent Open Space Suburban Office ¯Orange County Planning and InspectionsBrian Carson (1/26/2018) 0 400Feet 1 in = 650 feet 12 !"_$ 20 Parcels (in whole/in part)89 acres WATERSTONE DR VALLIEHILNOAK RIDGEDR G LA D Y S L N DAVIS RD DESTINY DR SERVICERD W SCARLETTMOUNTAINRD OLD NC 86OLDNC86PHOEBEDRALICELOOP Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Resource Protection Areas Overlay Water Supply Watersheds Overlay Parcels Proposed Economic Development Transition JPA Rural Residential Rural Buffer City Limits Activity Node Economic Development Transition ¯Orange County Planning and InspectionsBrian Carson (1/26/2018) 0 400Feet 1 in = 650 feet 13 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: • Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan, • 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: • 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 • 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: • 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 • 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 Attachment 3 14 9873108103 Entire MICHAEL WILLIAM SUDYK 3.51 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 businesses, and mitigate 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 locations of public transportation, 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 services are available. (See also Economic 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 15 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 16 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 5, 2020 Action Agenda Item No. 9 SUBJECT: Zoning Atlas Amendment – Parcels off Old NC Highway 86 (District 2 of Settlers Point MPD-CZ) DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Project Vicinity Map 2. Notification Materials and Certification 3. Statement of Consistency 4. Ordinance Amending Zoning Atlas Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597 PURPOSE: To review and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on Planning Director initiated Zoning Atlas Amendments for parcels within the Hillsborough Township of Orange County. Specifically, staff is proposing to rezone 8 parcels, totaling approximately 46 acres south of Interstate 40 and east of Old NC Highway 86, originally part of the Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) district known as Setters Point. A map of the subject parcels is contained in Attachment 1. BACKGROUND: On January 23, 2018 the Orange County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) approved a zoning atlas amendment creating a MPD-CZ district referred to as Settlers Point. Materials from this meeting are available at: http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/weblink/0/doc/49647/Page1.aspx. The approved MPD-CZ, composed of 10 parcels and totaling 195 acres of land, created a master planned mixed use project with two distinct development areas, specifically: • District 1: Parcel Identification Number(s) 9863-71-8857 and 9863-91-6573 supporting development of Industrial/manufacturing/research land uses: 17 and • District 2: Parcel Identification Number(s) 9873-11-4636, 9873-11-5415, 9873-11- 7506, 9873-11-9450, 9873-11-7247, 9873-10-7937, 9873-20-2388, and 9873-10-4310 supporting development of Office/retail/commercial land uses: Development on these properties is required to comply with a master set of conditions (i.e. access management standards, building setback/size limits, open space requirements, site plan submittal and review requirements, etc.). These conditions are designed to complement one another, 18 allowing for development of the 10 parcels consistent with the approved MPD-CZ. Since approval, no development activity has occurred. ISSUE: The County has been approached by a developer proposing a new MPD-CZ district involving the 2 parcels within ‘District 1’ as well as a 12 acre parcel with frontage on Davis Road. Staff has determined the 8 parcels in ‘District 2’ will have great difficulty complying with the MPD-CZ development standards with the elimination of the 2 parcels in District 1. In order to ensure the 8 parcels have development potential, staff has determined they need to be rezoned and is proposing the following: 1. Rezone parcels (PINs: 9873-11-4636, 9873-11-7506, 9873-11-5415, 9873-11-9450, 9873- 11-7247, and 9873-10-7937), labeled as number(s) 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 on the map above: FROM: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. TO: Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. 2. Rezone parcel (PIN 9873-10-4310), labeled as number 10 on the map above: FROM: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point, Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District, Rural Residential (R-1). TO: Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2), Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District, Rural Residential (R-1). 3. Rezone parcel (PIN 9873-20-2388), labeled as number 9 on the map above: FROM: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. TO: Economic Development Hillsborough Office/Retail (EDH-4) and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. Staff’s proposal will return these 8 properties back to their original zoning designation in place prior to the approval of the MPD-CZ. If approved, development of these properties will be regulated consistent with the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) rather than the various conditions associated with the approval of the MPD-CZ for Settlers Point. Analysis: As required under Section 2.8.5 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to: ‘cause an analysis to be made of the application’ and pass that analysis on to the reviewing body. In analyzing this proposal, the Planning Director offers the following: 1. The proposal is consistent with goals/policies outlined within the Comprehensive Plan concerning development, including: a. Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern, and designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County’s population and economy consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives. b. Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and features and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community character. 19 c. Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system. 2. The rezoning provides the property owners with a viable path forward to make reasonable use of their properties; Staff held a public information session reviewing the proposed amendments in an on-line meeting on July 21, 2020. Five members of the public, two Planning Board members, several staff members, and representatives of the proposed project in “District 1” attended the on-line session. No comment(s) were received on the proposed atlas amendment. Public Notifications: In accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO, notices were mailed via first class mail to property owners within 1,000 ft. of the subject parcels providing the date/time of both the public information meeting and the Planning Board meeting where the proposal is to be reviewed. These notices were mailed on July 10, 2020, 25 days before the Planning Board meeting. Staff also posted the subject parcels with signs indicating the date/time of the Planning Board’s review of the rezoning request on July 24, 2020, 12 days before the Planning Board meeting. Courtesy Review: This request was submitted to the Town of Hillsborough as part of our courtesy review program. To date, no comments have been received. Planning Director’s Recommendation: As required under Section 2.8.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) the Planning Director shall: ‘… cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration’. The Director has determined the proposed atlas amendments are necessary to ensure each parcel has development option(s) and that rezoning said parcels back to their original zoning designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. As a result, the Director recommends approval of the Statement of Consistency, indicating the amendments are reasonable and in the public interest, contained in Attachment 3 and the proposed zoning atlas amendment ordinance contained in Attachment 4. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments who have determined that the approval or denial of the request would not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. Costs associated with advertising, including the public hearing notice and mailings, are covered within the Department’s budget. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board: 1. Receive the rezoning application, 2. Deliberate on the proposal as desired, 3. Consider the Planning Director’s recommendation, and 4. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 3) and the proposed ordinance (Attachment 4) in time for the September 15, 2020 BOCC meeting. 20 Attachment 1 : These 8 parcels are zoned MPD-CZ Rezoning Proposal and were approved as part of the Settlers Point application (i.e. District 2). Staff is recommending these parcels be rezoned consistent with their original designations (i.e. EDH- 2 or EDH-4). This will return the parcels to their original zoning (i.e. the zoning that existed prior to the approval of the MPD-CZ) and allow development consistent with the provisions of the UDO. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PINOWNER1_LASTOWNER1_FIRSTOWNER2_LAST OWNER2_FIRST ADDRESS19862998894 FACILITY CARE SERVICES INC 19 HARRIER CIRCLE9863916573 BAILEYCHRISTY D ETALCLAYTON JOHN O7510 COUNTRY LANE9872095945 LEELARRY B 3503 OLD NC 869872098324 BRYANTTHEODORE LBRYANT BEVERLY N 2000 WOODVIEW DR9872187626 BRYANTTHEODORE LBRYANT BEVERLY N 9016 ALBATROSS CT9872191961 CHILDRESSMICHAELCHILDRESS KARLA101 GLADYS LN9872193459 BRYANTTHEODORE LBRYANT BEVERLY N 9016 ALBATROSS CT9872196844 SUDYKMICHAEL WILLIAM 418 DARBY CREEK LANE9872198336 BRYANTTHEODORE LBRYANT BEVERLY N 9016 ALBATROSS CT9872286779 BRYANTTHEODORE LBRYANT BEVERLY A 2000 WOODVIEW DR9872287311 REA LANDCOM INC PO BOX 523289872292222 BRYANTTHEODORE LBRYANT BEVERLY N 9016 ALBATROSS CT9872298289 BRYANTTHEODORE LBRYANT BEVERLY N 9016 ALBATROSS CT9872383673 EADSDERRICK B 1608 SCARLETT MOUNTAIN RD9872483693 EADSDERRICK B 1608 SCARLETT MOUNTAIN RD9872491050 JORDANKAREN S 1622 SCARLETT MOUNTAIN RD9872494705 CAPKOV VENTURES INC PO BOX 168159873006678 BESTVIVIAN 4018 WRENN RD9873007189 BOXTERJOHN JRMARTIN SHANNON 3423 OLD NC 869873008345 SHOREJOSEPH SSHORE SARAH C 3501 OLD NC 869873009867 BAREFOOTSUSAN D TRUSTEEWAGONER CYNTHIA D TRUSTEE3319 OLD NC HWY 869873014031 BARLOW RANT B JR 3315 OLD NC 869873017657 HORTON TODD L 225 JOHN HORTON RD9873017820 SCARLETTE LOUISE J 3209 OLD CH HILLSBOROUGH RD9873018382 SHAKHLOUL AMANDA B SHAKHLOUL TAMER G 3303 OLD NC 86 S9873019000 BARLOW RANT B JR 3315 OLD NC 869873100408 WALKER ROWDY B 1877 FLYING W TRL9873100657 WAY DAN E 3401 OLD NC 869873104230 SUDYK MICHAEL W SUDYK GEORGE W 3412 COUNTRY CLUB DR9873104310 BROOKS BEATRICE S 3410 OLD NC 869873107608 FONTENELLE BARBARA R FONTENELLE JOHN P 116 OLLIE DR9873107937 KAUFMANN STEVEN L KAUFMANN JESSE S 2304 DAVIS RD9873108103 SUDYK MICHAEL WILLIAM 418 DARBY CREEK LANE28 9873110686 HORTONTODD L 225 JOHN HORTON RD9873110739 HORTONTODD L 225 JOHN HORTON RD9873111777 HORTONTODD L 225 JOHN HORTON RD9873114636 DODSONMICHAEL J P O BOX 10819873115415 DODSONMICHAEL J P O BOX 10819873116137 BARLOWRANT B JR 3315 OLD NC 869873117247 FUQUAYCATHY WBESSOIR CYNTHIA W 8519 HAW RIVER RD9873117506 DODSONMICHAEL J P O BOX 10819873119450 DODSONPAUL C 3224 OLD NC 869873202388 AYERSROBERT J ETALAYERS LUCILLE1031 JONES FERRY RD9873320287 UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINAHOSPITALS AT CHAPEL HILL #319 211 FRIDAY CENTER DR9873410162 WOODSEDGE PROPERTIES LLC 4522 LITTLE RIVER CH RD29 ADDRESS2CITYSTATE ZIPCODE ROCHESTER NY14623 ROUGEMONT NC27572 HILLSBOROUGH NC27278 DURHAMNC27704 RALEIGHNC27613 HILLSBOROUGH NC27278 RALEIGHNC27613 MORRISVILLE NC27560 RALEIGHNC27613 DURHAMNC27704 DURHAMNC27717 RALEIGHNC27613 RALEIGHNC27613 HILLSBOROUGH NC27278 HILLSBOROUGH NC27278 HILLSBOROUGH NC27278 CHAPEL HILL NC27516 DURHAMNC27705 HILLSBOROUGH NC27278 HILLSBOROUGH NC27278 Hillsborough NC27278 HILLSBOROUGH NC27278 APEXNC27523 HILLSBOROUGH NC27278 HILLSBOROUGH NC27278 HILLSBOROUGH NC27278 Hillsborough NC27278 HILLSBOROUGH NC27278 GASTONIANC28056 HILLSBOROUGH NC27278 BELLE CHASSE LA 700374134 HILLSBOROUGH NC 272787321 MORRISVILLE NC2756030 APEXNC27523 APEXNC27523 APEXNC27523 HILLSBOROUGH NC 272781081 HILLSBOROUGH NC 272781081 HILLSBOROUGH NC27278 OAK RIDGENC27310 HILLSBOROUGH NC 272781081 HILLSBOROUGH NC27278 PITTSBORONC27312STE 2043CHAPEL HILL NC27517 HURDLE MILLS NC2754131 FACILITY CARE SERVICES INC 19 HARRIER CIRCLE ROCHESTER, NY 14623 CHRISTY D BAILEY ETAL JOHN O CLAYTON 7510 COUNTRY LANE ROUGEMONT, NC 27572 LARRY B LEE 3503 OLD NC 86 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 THEODORE L BRYANT BEVERLY N BRYANT 9016 ALBATROSS CT RALEIGH, NC 27613 MICHAEL WILLIAM SUDYK 418 DARBY CREEK LANE MORRISVILLE, NC 27560 MICHAEL CHILDRESS KARLA CHILDRESS 101 GLADYS LN HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 REA LANDCOM INC PO BOX 52328 DURHAM, NC 27717 DERRICK B EADS 1608 SCARLETT MOUNTAIN RD HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 VIVIAN BEST 4018 WRENN RD DURHAM, NC 27705 KAREN S JORDAN 1622 SCARLETT MOUNTAIN RD HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 CAPKOV VENTURES INC PO BOX 16815 CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516 SUSAN D BAREFOOT TRUSTEE CYNTHIA D WAGONER TRUSTEE 3319 OLD NC HWY 86 Hillsborough, NC 27278 JOHN BOXTER JR SHANNON MARTIN 3423 OLD NC 86 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 JOSEPH S SHORE SARAH C SHORE 3501 OLD NC 86 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 LOUISE J SCARLETTE 3209 OLD CH HILLSBOROUGH RD HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 RANT B BARLOW JR 3315 OLD NC 86 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 TODD L HORTON 225 JOHN HORTON RD APEX, NC 27523 ROWDY B WALKER 1877 FLYING W TRL Hillsborough, NC 27278 AMANDA B SHAKHLOUL TAMER G SHAKHLOUL 3303 OLD NC 86 S HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 RANT B BARLOW JR 3315 OLD NC 86 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 BEATRICE S BROOKS 3410 OLD NC 86 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 DAN E WAY 3401 OLD NC 86 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 MICHAEL W SUDYK GEORGE W SUDYK 3412 COUNTRY CLUB DR GASTONIA, NC 28056 MICHAEL WILLIAM SUDYK 418 DARBY CREEK LANE MORRISVILLE, NC 27560 BARBARA R FONTENELLE JOHN P FONTENELLE 116 OLLIE DR BELLE CHASSE, LA 700374134 STEVEN L KAUFMANN JESSE S KAUFMANN 2304 DAVIS RD HILLSBOROUGH, NC 272787321 MICHAEL J DODSON P O BOX 1081 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 272781081 CATHY W FUQUAY CYNTHIA W BESSOIR 8519 HAW RIVER RD OAK RIDGE, NC 27310 PAUL C DODSON 3224 OLD NC 86 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 ROBERT J AYERS ETAL LUCILLE AYERS 1031 JONES FERRY RD PITTSBORO, NC 27312 32 HOSPITALS AT CHAPEL HILL #319 UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA 211 FRIDAY CENTER DR STE 2043 CHAPEL HILL, NC 27517 WOODSEDGE PROPERTIES LLC 4522 LITTLE RIVER CH RD HURDLE MILLS, NC 27541 33 STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE MAP AMENDMENT WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A Planning Director initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas to rezone 8 parcels as follows: Lot Number Parcel Identification Number (PIN) Township Owner of Record Current Zoning District Proposed Zoning District 1 9873-11-4636 Hillsborough Michael Dodson Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. 2 9873-11-7506 Hillsborough Michael Dodson Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. 3 9873-11-5415 Hillsborough Michael Dodson Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. 4 9873-11-9450 Hillsborough Paul Dodson Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. 5 9873-11-7247 Hillsborough Cathy Fuquay Cynthia Bessoir Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. 6 9873-10-7937 Hillsborough Steven and Jesse Kaufman Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. 7 9873-10-4310 Hillsborough Beatrice Brooks Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District Rural Residential (R-1) Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. Rural Residential (R-1) 8 9873-20-2388 Hillsborough Robert and Lucille Ayers ETAL Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District Economic Development Hillsborough Office/Retail (EDH-4) Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. Attachment 3 34 The Planning Board finds: a. The requirements of Section 2.8 of the UDO have been deemed complete; and, b. Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 153A-341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within the record denoting that the amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan. 1. The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it supports the following 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives: Objective ED-1.5: Identify barriers to development of desirable businesses and local businesses, and mitigate these barriers. The atlas amendment is consistent with this goal and objective as it eliminates the need for the parcels to comply with development criteria associated with a previously approved Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) district. This district, commonly referred to as Settlers Point, is being modified. These 8 parcels will have difficulty meeting established development conditions/standards due to the proposed modification. By rezoning these parcels, the County will be providing opportunities for each lot to be developed consistent with applicable County land use standards as embodied within the UDO. c. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it: 1. Modifies existing non-residential zoning designations in an effort to provide each property owner with an opportunity/path forward for the reasonable development of their property. 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 35 Rezoning Proposal: These 8 parcels are zoned MPD-CZ and were approved as part of the Settlers Point application (i.e. District 2). Staff is recommending these parcels be rezoned consistent with their original designations (i.e. EDH-2 or EDH-4). This will return the parcels to their original zoning (i.e. the zoning that existed prior to the approval of the MPD-CZ) and allow development consistent with the provisions of the UDO. 36 Ordinance #: ________ 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS WHEREAS, Orange County has initiated amendments to the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning consists of the following: Lot Number Parcel Identification Number (PIN) Township Owner of Record Current Zoning District Proposed Zoning District 1 9873-11-4636 Hillsborough Michael Dodson Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. 2 9873-11-7506 Hillsborough Michael Dodson Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. 3 9873-11-5415 Hillsborough Michael Dodson Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. 4 9873-11-9450 Hillsborough Paul Dodson Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. 5 9873-11-7247 Hillsborough Cathy Fuquay Cynthia Bessoir Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. 6 9873-10-7937 Hillsborough Steven and Jesse Kaufman Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. 7 9873-10-4310 Hillsborough Beatrice Brooks Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District Rural Residential (R-1) Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. Rural Residential (R-1) Attachment 4 37 8 9873-20-2388 Hillsborough Robert and Lucille Ayers ETAL Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District Economic Development Hillsborough Office/Retail (EDH-4) Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. WHEREAS, the proposal has been found to be consistent with the 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 of the UDO have been deemed complete, and WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County Zoning Atlas is hereby amended to rezone the areas described above and depicted on the attached maps. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption. Upon motion of Commissioner ________________________, seconded by Commissioner ________________________, the foregoing ordinance was adopted this ________ day of ___________________, 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 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 38 39 x x 40 x x x x x x x x 41 x x x 42 43 x 44 x x x x 45 x x x x 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 &RQFHSW3UHOLPLQDU\3URGXFWLRQ&RS\ULJKW$OOGHVLJQVDQGGUDZLQJV DUH WKH VROH SURSHUW\ RI'H1\VH &RPSDQLHV ,QF DQG PD\QRW EH UHSURGXFHG SXEOLVKHGFKDQJHGRUXVHGLQDQ\ZD\ZLWKRXWZULWWHQ SHUPLVVLRQ DQG FRQVHQW ,QDGGLWLRQ DOO LGHDV FRQWHQWV RISURSRVDOV DQG DOO VSHFLILFDWLRQV RIDQ\SURMHFWHQWHUHGLQWRZLWK'H1\VH&RPSDQLHV ,QF DUH DOO ULJKWVUHVHUYHG7KHGHVFULEHGLQIRUPDWLRQPD\ QRW EH XVHG LQ VHFXULQJ SULFHFRPSDULVRQV 9LRODWRUV ZLOO EHSURVHFXWHGWRWKHIXOOH[WHQWRIWKHODZ0DQDJHPHQW&RPSDQ\2SSRUWXQLW\1XPEHU'H1\VH5HSUHVHQWDWLYH'HVLJQHU'DWH5HYLVLRQ'DWH3URSHUW\1DPH $GGUHVV)LOHSDWK5HVHDUFK7ULDQJOH/RJLVWLFV3DUN?0DVWHU6LJQ3ODQY&XVWRPHU6LJQDWXUH5HTXLUHGMGUV-'HZ5LFKDUG6ZDUW]5HVHDUFK7ULDQJOH/RJLVWLFV3DUN5DOHLJK1&1$7KLVGUDZLQJDQGWKHLQWHOOHFWXDOSURSHUW\LWUHSUHVHQWVDUHWKHVROHSURSHUW\RI'H1\VH&RPSDQLHV,QFQRSRUWLRQRILWPD\EHUHSURGXFHGFUHDWHGRUXVHGIRUSULFLQJZLWKRXWZULWWHQSHUPLVVLRQ5HVHDUFK7ULDQJOH/RJLVWLFV3DUN&RS\ULJKW$OOGHVLJQVDQGGUDZLQJVDUHWKHVROHSURSHUW\RI'H1\VH&RPSDQLHV,QFDQGPD\QRWEHUHSURGXFHGSXEOLVKHGFKDQJHGRUXVHGLQDQ\ZD\ZLWKRXWZULWWHQSHUPLVVLRQDQGFRQVHQW,QDGGLWLRQDOOLGHDVFRQWHQWVRISURSRVDOVDQGDOOVSHFLILFDWLRQVRIDQ\SURMHFWHQWHUHGLQWRZLWK'H1\VH&RPSDQLHV,QFDUHDOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG7KHGHVFULEHGLQIRUPDWLRQPD\QRWEHXVHGLQVHFXULQJSULFHFRPSDULVRQV9LRODWRUVZLOOEHSURVHFXWHGWRWKHIXOOH[WHQWRIWKHODZ5DOHLJK1&6LJQDJH&RQFHSWV126 &RQFHSW3UHOLPLQDU\3URGXFWLRQ&RS\ULJKW$OOGHVLJQVDQGGUDZLQJV DUH WKH VROH SURSHUW\ RI'H1\VH &RPSDQLHV ,QF DQG PD\QRW EH UHSURGXFHG SXEOLVKHGFKDQJHGRUXVHGLQDQ\ZD\ZLWKRXWZULWWHQ SHUPLVVLRQ DQG FRQVHQW ,QDGGLWLRQ DOO LGHDV FRQWHQWV RISURSRVDOV DQG DOO VSHFLILFDWLRQV RIDQ\SURMHFWHQWHUHGLQWRZLWK'H1\VH&RPSDQLHV ,QF DUH DOO ULJKWVUHVHUYHG7KHGHVFULEHGLQIRUPDWLRQPD\ QRW EH XVHG LQ VHFXULQJ SULFHFRPSDULVRQV 9LRODWRUV ZLOO EHSURVHFXWHGWRWKHIXOOH[WHQWRIWKHODZ0DQDJHPHQW&RPSDQ\2SSRUWXQLW\1XPEHU'H1\VH5HSUHVHQWDWLYH'HVLJQHU'DWH5HYLVLRQ'DWH3URSHUW\1DPH $GGUHVV)LOHSDWK5HVHDUFK7ULDQJOH/RJLVWLFV3DUN?0DVWHU6LJQ3ODQY&XVWRPHU6LJQDWXUH5HTXLUHGMGUV-'HZ5LFKDUG6ZDUW]5HVHDUFK7ULDQJOH/RJLVWLFV3DUN5DOHLJK1&1$7KLVGUDZLQJDQGWKHLQWHOOHFWXDOSURSHUW\LWUHSUHVHQWVDUHWKHVROHSURSHUW\RI'H1\VH&RPSDQLHV,QFQRSRUWLRQRILWPD\EHUHSURGXFHGFUHDWHGRUXVHGIRUSULFLQJZLWKRXWZULWWHQSHUPLVVLRQ7KDQN\RXIRU\RXUEXVLQHVV)ROORZLQJ\RXZLOOILQGGUDZLQJVWKDWKDYHEHHQJHQHUDWHGIRU\RXUUHYLHZDQGFRQVHQW7KHVHGUDZLQJVUHSUHVHQWRXULQWHUSUHWDWLRQVRI\RXUUHTXHVW$VWKHFXVWRPHU\RXZLOODVVXPHDOOILQDQFLDOUHVSRQVLELOLW\IRUSURGXFWVPDQXIDFWXUHGLQFRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKHVLJQHGGUDZLQJV3OHDVHUHDGFDUHIXOO\EHIRUHVLJQLQJ3OHDVHLQVSHFWWKHVHGUDZLQJVFDUHIXOO\PDNLQJVXUHWKH\DUHDQH[DFWFRPSOHWHDQGDFFXUDWHUHIOHFWLRQRIZKDW\RXDUHZDQWLQJXVWREXLOG$PRXQWLQJGHWDLOPD\DOVREHLQFOXGHG0DNHFHUWDLQWKDWLWPDWFKHVWKHH[SHFWHGFRQGLWLRQVRIWKHVLWHDQGDQVZHUVDQ\FRQFHUQVWKDW\RXRUDQ\RI\RXUFRQWUDFWRUVPD\KDYH,IWKHGUDZLQJVPHHWZLWK\RXUDSSURYDOSOHDVHVLJQWKHPWRLQGLFDWH\RXUDSSURYDO,I\RXKDYHDQ\TXHVWLRQVRUFRQFHUQVSOHDVHFRQWDFW\RXU'H1\VH5HSUHVHQWDWLYHDQGWKH\ZLOOEHPRUHWKDQKDSS\WRDVVLVW\RX,I\RXKDYHFKDQJHVSOHDVHPDUNXSWKHGUDZLQJVDQGJHWWKHPEDFNWRXVVRWKDWZHFDQPDNHWKHQHFHVVDU\DGMXVWPHQWV8SRQDSSURYDOWKHVHGUDZLQJVZLOOEHSXWLQWRPDQXIDFWXULQJDQGDQHVWLPDWHGFRPSOHWLRQGDWHZLOOEHJHQHUDWHGDQGIRUZDUGHGWR\RX$QHVWLPDWHGFRPSOHWLRQGDWHLVRQO\JHQHUDWHGXSRQUHFHLSWRI\RXUVLJQHGDSSURYDO,WLVLPSRUWDQWWKDW\RXDSSURYHWKHVHGUDZLQJVLQDWLPHO\PDQQHUWRHQVXUHSURPSWFRPSOHWLRQRI\RXUSURMHFW<RXZLOOILQGD&RS\ULJKWORFDWHGRQWKHWRSULJKWKDQGFRUQHURIHDFKRIWKHIROORZLQJSDJHV3OHDVHQRWHWKDWWKHVHGRFXPHQWVPD\QRWEHXVHGWRVHFXUHSULFLQJRUELGVZLWKRXWWKHH[SUHVVZULWWHQFRQVHQWIURPD'H1\VH5HSUHVHQWDWLYH$UWIRU$SSURYDO127 &RQFHSW3UHOLPLQDU\3URGXFWLRQ&RS\ULJKW$OOGHVLJQVDQGGUDZLQJV DUH WKH VROH SURSHUW\ RI'H1\VH &RPSDQLHV ,QF DQG PD\QRW EH UHSURGXFHG SXEOLVKHGFKDQJHGRUXVHGLQDQ\ZD\ZLWKRXWZULWWHQ SHUPLVVLRQ DQG FRQVHQW ,QDGGLWLRQ DOO LGHDV FRQWHQWV RISURSRVDOV DQG DOO VSHFLILFDWLRQV RIDQ\SURMHFWHQWHUHGLQWRZLWK'H1\VH&RPSDQLHV ,QF DUH DOO ULJKWVUHVHUYHG7KHGHVFULEHGLQIRUPDWLRQPD\ QRW EH XVHG LQ VHFXULQJ SULFHFRPSDULVRQV 9LRODWRUV ZLOO EHSURVHFXWHGWRWKHIXOOH[WHQWRIWKHODZ0DQDJHPHQW&RPSDQ\2SSRUWXQLW\1XPEHU'H1\VH5HSUHVHQWDWLYH'HVLJQHU'DWH5HYLVLRQ'DWH3URSHUW\1DPH $GGUHVV)LOHSDWK5HVHDUFK7ULDQJOH/RJLVWLFV3DUN?0DVWHU6LJQ3ODQY&XVWRPHU6LJQDWXUH5HTXLUHGMGUV-'HZ5LFKDUG6ZDUW]5HVHDUFK7ULDQJOH/RJLVWLFV3DUN5DOHLJK1&1$7KLVGUDZLQJDQGWKHLQWHOOHFWXDOSURSHUW\LWUHSUHVHQWVDUHWKHVROHSURSHUW\RI'H1\VH&RPSDQLHV,QFQRSRUWLRQRILWPD\EHUHSURGXFHGFUHDWHGRUXVHGIRUSULFLQJZLWKRXWZULWWHQSHUPLVVLRQ&RORUV )LQLVKHV&RORUVVKRZQKHUHPD\QRWH[DFWO\PDWFKPDQXIDFWXUHUVFRORUFKDUWVZDWFKRUDFWXDOVDPSOH&OLHQWWRHLWKHUSURYLGHVDPSOHVRUVSHFLILFDWLRQVIRUFXVWRPFRORUVSULRUWRSURGXFWLRQRUDSSURYH'H1\VHFRORUVDPSOHVRUFRORUVSHFLILFDWLRQV6FDOHµ ·µ6LGH%¶´¶´¶´¶´ 7%'7%'0DWWKHZV63³%UXVKHG$OXPLQXP´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µ ·µ¶´¶´¶´7%'7%'0DWWKHZV63³%UXVKHG$OXPLQXP´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µ ·µ¶´¶´&RORUV )LQLVKHV&RORUVVKRZQKHUHPD\QRWH[DFWO\PDWFKPDQXIDFWXUHUVFRORUFKDUWVZDWFKRUDFWXDOVDPSOH&OLHQWWRHLWKHUSURYLGHVDPSOHVRUVSHFLILFDWLRQVIRUFXVWRPFRORUVSULRUWRSURGXFWLRQRUDSSURYH'H1\VHFRORUVDPSOHVRUFRORUVSHFLILFDWLRQV7%'7%'0DWWKHZV63³%UXVKHG$OXPLQXP´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µ ·µ&RORUV )LQLVKHV&RORUVVKRZQKHUHPD\QRWH[DFWO\PDWFKPDQXIDFWXUHUVFRORUFKDUWVZDWFKRUDFWXDOVDPSOH&OLHQWWRHLWKHUSURYLGHVDPSOHVRUVSHFLILFDWLRQVIRUFXVWRPFRORUVSULRUWRSURGXFWLRQRUDSSURYH'H1\VHFRORUVDPSOHVRUFRORUVSHFLILFDWLRQV7%'7%'0DWWKHZV63³%UXVKHG$OXPLQXP´&&&&&OLHQW$UWZRUNYHFWRU%HEDV1HXH)RQWV8VHG:KLWH'LUHFWLRQDO6LJQ ¶´#6*-%*/("»#6*-%*/(#»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³%UXVKHG$OXPLQXP´&&&&6FDOHµ ·µ:KLWH7UDIILF6LJQV5(6(59('3$5.,1*0$;,0803(1$/7<*6"--05)&348*--#&508&%3&4&37&%3&4*%&/51"3,*/(0/-:&6WDQGDUG'27&RORUV132 &RQFHSW3UHOLPLQDU\3URGXFWLRQ&RS\ULJKW$OOGHVLJQVDQGGUDZLQJV DUH WKH VROH SURSHUW\ RI'H1\VH &RPSDQLHV ,QF DQG PD\QRW EH UHSURGXFHG SXEOLVKHGFKDQJHGRUXVHGLQDQ\ZD\ZLWKRXWZULWWHQ SHUPLVVLRQ DQG FRQVHQW ,QDGGLWLRQ DOO LGHDV FRQWHQWV RISURSRVDOV DQG DOO VSHFLILFDWLRQV RIDQ\SURMHFWHQWHUHGLQWRZLWK'H1\VH&RPSDQLHV ,QF DUH DOO ULJKWVUHVHUYHG7KHGHVFULEHGLQIRUPDWLRQPD\ QRW EH XVHG LQ VHFXULQJ SULFHFRPSDULVRQV 9LRODWRUV ZLOO EHSURVHFXWHGWRWKHIXOOH[WHQWRIWKHODZ0DQDJHPHQW&RPSDQ\2SSRUWXQLW\1XPEHU'H1\VH5HSUHVHQWDWLYH'HVLJQHU'DWH5HYLVLRQ'DWH3URSHUW\1DPH $GGUHVV)LOHSDWK5HVHDUFK7ULDQJOH/RJLVWLFV3DUN?0DVWHU6LJQ3ODQY&XVWRPHU6LJQDWXUH5HTXLUHGMGUV-'HZ5LFKDUG6ZDUW]5HVHDUFK7ULDQJOH/RJLVWLFV3DUN5DOHLJK1&1$7KLVGUDZLQJDQGWKHLQWHOOHFWXDOSURSHUW\LWUHSUHVHQWVDUHWKHVROHSURSHUW\RI'H1\VH&RPSDQLHV,QFQRSRUWLRQRILWPD\EHUHSURGXFHGFUHDWHGRUXVHGIRUSULFLQJZLWKRXWZULWWHQSHUPLVVLRQ6FDOHµ ·µ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´6WRS6LJQ´6WRS6LJQ´'LUHFWLRQDO'LUHFWLRQDO'LUHFWLRQDO6WRS6LJQ´6WRS6LJQ´6WRS6LJQ´6WRS6LJQ´%XLOGLQJ'LUHFWRU\+DQGLFDSSHG3DUNLQJ%OGJ$+DQGLFDSSHG3DUNLQJ%OGJ%+DQGLFDSSHG3DUNLQJ%OGJ&+DQGLFDSSHG3DUNLQJ%OGJ'%OGJ$GGUHVV/HWWHU%OGJ$%OGJ$GGUHVV/HWWHU%OGJ%%OGJ$GGUHVV/HWWHU%OGJ&%OGJ$GGUHVV/HWWHU%OGJ'134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 ©SI-1HILLSBOROUGH INDUSTRIAL SITEFORBARRISTER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATIONEXISTING SLOPE EXHIBITI-40 & OLD N.C. 86EXISTINGSERVICEROAD #3NORTH153 154 Research Triangle Logistics Park Traffic Impact Analysis 155 156 157 158 x x x x x x x x x 159 x x x 160 iii 161 iv 162 v RECOMMENDATIONS Old NC 86 at Waterstone Drive / Rippy Lane Old NC 86 at I-40 Westbound Ramps Old NC 86 at I-40 Eastbound Ramps x Old NC 86 at Service Road x x Old NC 86 at Davis Road x Service Road at Warehouse A Driveway x Service Road at Warehouse B Driveway x Service Road at Warehouse C Driveway x Davis Road at Warehouse D Driveway x 163 vi 164 7 1.0 INTRODUCTION 165 8 166 9 167 10 2.0 INVENTORY OF TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 2.1 STUDY AREA x x x x x x x x x 2.2 EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS 168 11 2.3 PLANNED PROJECTS 169 12 170 13 3.0 TRIP GENERATION 4.0 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION 4.1 SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION x x x x x x 5.0 TRAFFIC VOLUMES 171 14 x x x x x 5.1 FUTURE TRAFFIC GROWTH 5.2 APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC 5.3 NO-BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES 5.4 TOTAL BUILD TRAFFIC WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 172 15 173 16 174 17 175 18 176 19 177 20 178 21 179 22 180 23 6.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS !DQG!DQG !DQG!DQG !DQG!DQG !DQG!DQG 181 24 x x x x x x x x x x x x x 182 25 6.1 2020 EXISTING CAPACITY ANALYSIS 183 26 6.2 2023 NO-BUILD CAPACITY ANALYSIS 184 27 6.3 2023 BUILD CAPACITY ANALYSIS x x x 185 28 186 29 6.4 2023 BUILD-IMPROVED CAPACITY ANALYSIS x x x 187 30 188 31 7.0 SIMTRAFFIC OPERATIONS 189 32 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Old NC 86 at Waterstone Drive / Rippy Lane Old NC 86 at I-40 Westbound Ramps Old NC 86 at I-40 Eastbound Ramps x Old NC 86 at Service Road x x Old NC 86 at Davis Road x Service Road at Warehouse A Driveway x Service Road at Warehouse B Driveway x Service Road at Warehouse C Driveway x Davis Road at Warehouse D Driveway x 190 33 191 34 9.0 CONCLUSIONS x x x 192 35 10.0 REFERENCES APPENDIX x x x x x x 193 RTLP HILLSBOROUGHINDUSTRIAL PARKPREPARED FORBARRISTER CONSTRUCTIONCOVER SHEETC0.0©NC CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: F-0102© 2020 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.PROJECT LOCATIONNTSLOCATIONPROJECTSURVEYOR:KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.421 FAYETTEVILLE ST., SUITE 600RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27601PHONE: (919) 653-2927ATTN.: CHRIS BOSTIC, P.E.chris.bostic@kimley-horn.comCIVIL ENGINEER:SITE DEVELOPER:PROJECT OWNER AND CONSULTANTMURPHY GEOMATICS10505 LEAFWOOD PLACERALEIGH, NC 27613PHONE: (919) 280-8189ATTN.: JONATHAN MURPHY, PLSraleigh@murphygeomatics.comTERRA EQUITY, INC.MERIDIAN BUILDING3810 SPRINGHURST BLVD., SUITE 120LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 40241PHONE: (502) 412-2800ATTN.: FRANK CSAPOfcsapo@BarristerCG.comNC CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: F-0102CONDITIONAL ZONING MASTER PLAN FOR:I-40 AND OLD N.C HWY 86HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278ORANGE COUNTYA DEVELOPMENT BY:TERRA EQUITY, INC.SITE PLAN IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES -ACTUAL PLANS MAY MATERIALLY VARY194 RTLP HILLSBOROUGHINDUSTRIAL PARKPREPARED FORBARRISTER CONSTRUCTIONEXISTING CONDITIONSC1.0©Know what'sRNORTHEXISTING CONDITIONS LEGEND195 PROPOSED100 YEARFLOOD PLAINPROPOSED100 YEARFLOOD PLAINEXISTINGSERVICEROAD #3NORTHABCDRTLP HILLSBOROUGHINDUSTRIAL PARKPREPARED FORBARRISTER CONSTRUCTIONOVERALL PRELIMINARYSITE PLANC2.0©Know what'sRSITE PLANS ARE CONCEPTUALIN NATURE AND SUBJECTCHANGE.884,800 S.F.342,720 S.F.710,080 S.F.313,600 S.F.LOT AREA51.91 AC.LOT AREA38.93 AC.LOT AREA51.46 AC.LOT AREA19.21 AC.EXISTINGPROPERTY LINEEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEEXISTINGRIGHT-OF-WAYEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEEXISTINGPROPERTY LINE TOBE RELOCATEDEXISTINGPROPERTY LINE TOBE RELOCATEDPROPOSEDPROPERTY LINEPROPOSEDPROPERTY LINEPROPOSEDPROPERTY LINENOTES:MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) OF 0.65MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 60'196 NORTHRTLP HILLSBOROUGHINDUSTRIAL PARKPREPARED FORBARRISTER CONSTRUCTIONPRELIMINARY SITELAYOUT BUILDING 'A'C2.1©Know what'sR197 RTLP HILLSBOROUGHINDUSTRIAL PARKPREPARED FORBARRISTER CONSTRUCTIONPRELIMINARY SITELAYOUT BUILDING 'B'C2.2©Know what'sRNORTH198 NORTHRTLP HILLSBOROUGHINDUSTRIAL PARKPREPARED FORBARRISTER CONSTRUCTIONPRELIMINARY SITELAYOUT BUILDING 'C'C2.3©Know what'sR199 NORTHRTLP HILLSBOROUGHINDUSTRIAL PARKPREPARED FORBARRISTER CONSTRUCTIONPRELIMINARY SITELAYOUT BUILDING 'D'C2.4©Know what'sR200 PROPOSED100 YEARFLOOD PLAINPROPOSED100 YEARFLOOD PLAINRTLP HILLSBOROUGHINDUSTRIAL PARKPREPARED FORBARRISTER CONSTRUCTIONENVIRONMENTALFEATURES MAPC3.0©Know what'sRNORTHPROPOSEDSTORMWATERFACILITYPROPOSEDSTORM WATERFACILITYPROPOSEDSTORM WATERFACILITYPROPOSEDSTORM WATERFACILITYPROPOSEDSTORM WATERFACILITYPROPOSEDSTORM WATERFACILITYALL PROPOSED STORM WATERFACILITIES ARE CONCEPTUALAND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.201 PROPOSEDSANITARY SEWERMANHOLEPROPOSED 8"SANITARY SEWERPROPOSED 8"WATER LINEPROPOSED 8"SANITARY SEWERPROPOSED 12"SANITARY SEWERPROPOSED 8"WATER LINEPROPOSED 8"SANITARY SEWERRTLP HILLSBOROUGHINDUSTRIAL PARKPREPARED FORBARRISTER CONSTRUCTIONWATER AND SEWER MAPC4.0©Know what'sRNORTHUTILITY LEGENDALL UTILITY LOCATIONSARE CONCEPTUAL ANDSUBJECT TO CHANGE.SUFFICIENT WATER FLOW ANDPRESSURE FOR FIRE FLOWSWILL BE PROVIDED AT TIME OFCERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.202 RTLP HILLSBOROUGHINDUSTRIAL PARKPREPARED FORBARRISTER CONSTRUCTIONINTERNALROADWAYS MAPC5.0©Know what'sRNORTHALL INTERNAL ROADWAYSSHALL BE PRIVATE203 50' PERIMETERBUILDINGBUFFERAREA=±6.3 AC.50' PERIMETERBUILDINGBUFFERAREA=±6.3 AC.50' PERIMETERBUILDINGBUFFERAREA=±6.3 AC.50' PERIMETERSTRUCTUREBUFFERAREA=±11.0 AC.50' PERIMETERSTRUCTUREBUFFERAREA=±11.0 AC.100' MTC BUFFERWITH 50% BREAKTO ALLOW FORSITE DRIVEWAYCONNECTION FROMSERVICE ROADAREA=±3.6 AC.UNDISTURBEDMTC BUFFERAREA=±8.7 AC.UNDISTURBEDMTC BUFFERAREA=±8.7 AC.100' PERIMETERSTRUCTUREBUFFERAREA=±11.0 AC.50' PERIMETERSTRUCTUREBUFFERAREA=±2.3 AC.100' PERIMETERSTRUCTUREBUFFERAREA=±11.0 AC.FLOODPLAIN BUFFERTO REMAINPROPOSED100 YEARFLOOD PLAINPROPOSED100 YEARFLOODPLAINFLOODPLAIN BUFFER TO REMAIN50' PERIMETER STRUCTURE BUFFERUNDISTURBED MTC BUFFER100' MTC BUFFER WITH 50% BREAK50' PERIMETER BUILDING BUFFER(SEE PLANTING DETAIL BELOW)100' PERIMETER STRUCTURE BUFFERLEGENDLAND USE BUFFER25' LAND USEBUFFER30' LAND USEBUFFERRTLP HILLSBOROUGHINDUSTRIAL PARKPREPARED FORBARRISTER CONSTRUCTIONBUFFERS PLANC6.0©Know what'sRNORTHBUILDING 'A'BUILDING 'B'BUILDING 'C'BUILDING 'D'204 Stream Buffer 80ftRegulatory floodway1% Annual Chance ofFlooding (Previouslyreferred to as the 100-year flood zone) 0.2% Annual Chance ofFlooding (Previouslyreferred to as the 500-year flood zone) Floodplain Buffer 80ft AddressesSTATUS ActiveRetired Parcel_LinesLINE_CODE Conflict LineOld Lot LineParcel LineUSGS Stream Soils Survey StreamOC Updated StreamParcelsStreets (625) 55.5 700.44 206.66 1.01A 513.36 150.0910.01A 4 351.5 (159)15 230.87 47 317.08 P103/172 135.18(200)240.35 (1390) P80/128 203.30 92.19SR 1009P93 / 5 5 100 D ESTINEYDR29.3655.84200(400) 7 3 106.98 1 3.16A (1010)OLD NC 86 2.84A 387 . 2 4 100P79/117 210 2 1.37A (420)(105)198.10 67.844.72A308.33(315)393.852.10A 525 (160) 64.07 2 P76/127 3.7240(190)2.64A UNDERHI L L DR 280.94 8.01A POWER (100) 30.60 3.54A 159.80(90)107.27 UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST 2 16 . 4 0 (850 ) 210.32 35.91 (259)2 133.8 1 (120)354.661 34.861 1 7 9 . 1 7 1.73A 234.56P76/127468.04(20,370 SF) 129.90 4449.9180.11 86.41A 2A (620) 270.66 179.842.33A 161.281.04A 15 192.38 3 2.22A 13A525.7114 1 5 3.87A 137.86(200)230.37 1.74A 243.52226.12271.34 141.17 SR 1009 674.77 258.17 (405) 6 1 6 9 . 2(140)2 113.98 71.34(289) 13.99 783.11 8.08 A 3 (3 3 0 ) 302.5 1.7A 100 58.52 2.91A 3.27A 478.42357.3910010.09A 5 15.65A448.17 (625) TOWNSHIP CREEK277.36(930) 2-B668.13365.66 115.68238.2 230.73 29.36 1.22A 1.27 A 158.18 199.489 (305) (550)96.14 3.56A 1.29A 295.45 85150 522.58 2 412.5415.25 175.28977.81 7.16A 301.63161.55(300)34.739.85672.41 302.93479.78 (420) 5 1 38.26 (30) 9 3 ( 4 0 7 ) 125.08 285.71 58.4 4 (1460) 3.33A 2 REV 11.43A 38.5030.93 13.43A 130.93(80)EASEM'T) 4 2.20A 355.09 125.08 482.24 240.98 696.06 CALC 10.01A 3 499.92567.95PRIVATE 0.65A 463.0235.65 B 1.01A 78. 6 2 290.61 2A 1 6 4 .5 199.8889.61351.60 2 4.21A 203.30 4 105.811.22 A GRAP E VIN E LN1.36A 3.18A DUKE 115.03413.64 2.63A (850) 82.1 139.58 P94/98 31.51127.72(160) 1 1 286.74 73.61 (294) 4.50A 1770.01 1A (490) A REV 2 P94/38 292.57 2A 2 134.92 (240) 274.08(460)1 484.7990.372A 44.4 3 3.87A 1 686.443 REV 1 (665)147.12 158.34263.96 (225) 60 (265) 1.63A D216.46170.7 105.56 (1110)602.91 8 1.17 A P94/9813 (390)6 180.35 463.05151.83(110) 148.88 525.9107.62 392.38(135)2 379.95 300.48443.90 5 0 'PRI VATE616.58 AP92/1131.00A 50.55OAKRIDGEDRIVE(PRIVATE)9.32456.605.20A 405 . 2 7 (210)85.6870.6798.483.64A 2A P81/104 233.96 (300) 310.64 10.01A 1.50A 152.31199.9866.70 290.2651.51 238.01 (300)12.46A 87.252.45A 206.171.36 A 13 2-A 281.11 2 1 REV 6 266.813.23A 97.64 COMPANY (118)(175)690 2A 369.23C 6 P103/172 51.36 23.03A 1.41A 253.89 50' PRIVATE E A S E M E N T 210.78 (242)200A 259.34249.29(1 9 0 ) 6 953.03311.97(629)234.36209.05 50'PRV E AS E 29 9.9 4353.83(835 )(100)10.06A 8 TOWNSHIP 220.93764.96(100)190.02388.47 (90) 39.97 3.28A 157.56 I-40 274.5545.19 (OPEN SPACE 232.9 234.3 1 2 441.81 115.73 395.74 523.02LI NNETDR7 3.11A 10.01A 3.26A 11.43A (180)238.436 6 . 2 2 712.38581.78149.16 175.64 (200) (200 ) 25.05A 600 P108/152 25.49A (1100) 2001.27 676.65 157.15 60' EASE (610) 307.82 60' P R V E A S E 416.78 (275) 112.80A 631.39 223.21143 . 6 7 178.24 2.7A (260)(250)61.78197.62 (50) OLD HERITAGE CT60'1.23A1A 1.14A 1A .98A .97A 1.19A 1.04A 19.10A W S C A R L E T T M O U N T A I N R D 60' P R V E A S E SR 1129 (305)SR 1009B 253.45130P94/38SOUTHERN CONFERENCE OF THE OLDRT8667.4993.5586.87 15.65A121.57113.65CEMETERY 34.15652.97 165. 9 3 194.4 101 . 9 5 4 . 6 3 102 101 P119/68 A(2370)P120/178 P120/178 50' PRIVATE EASEMENT P120/1786.01A A1 (12 0 ) 1A 10.44A A2 13.84A P120/178 PIN 9862998894 PIN 9863916573PIN 9863718857 OLDNC86D A V IS R D JEDI WAYGRAPEVINE LNI40EENT261 LINNET DRGLADYS LN OLDHERITAGECT R I P P Y L N I40W EXIT261 W A T E R S TO NE DR I 40 W ENT 261 DES TINYDR I40EEXIT261 W SCARLETT MOUNTAIN RDOAKRIDGEDR I 40 EI 40 W SERVICERD 790 0 790395 Feet1 inch = 638 feet . Attachment 1 - Project Vicinity Map 205 Regulatory floodway1% Annual Chance ofFlooding (Previouslyreferred to as the 100-year flood zone) 0.2% Annual Chance ofFlooding (Previouslyreferred to as the 500-year flood zone) Major TransportationCorridor OverlayUSGS Stream Soils Survey StreamOC Updated StreamParcelsStreetsZoningWater Body Watershed Lower EnoUnprotectedWatershed JordanLakeUnprotected WatershedOLDNC 86DAVIS RD I 40 EENT 261 JEDI WAY I 40 WEXIT 261 ROSETTECTG L A D Y S LN W A T E R S T O N E D R LINNETDRRIPPY LN GRAPEVINEL NDESTINYDR W SCARLETT MOUNTAINRD I 40 W ENT 261 I40EEXIT261 I40 EI40W OAKRIDGEDR SERVICERD HI MPD-CZ HI R1 EDH-2 RB MPD-CZ MPD-CZ MPD-CZ EDH-5 EDH-5 740 0 740370 Feet1 inch = 600 feet . PIN 9863718857 Current Zoning: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) - Settlers PointMajor Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay PIN 9863916573 Current Zoning: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) - Settlers PointMajor Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay PIN 9862-99-8894 Current Zoning: Rural Residential (R-1)Rural Buffer (RB) - NOTE: RB zoned portion of property is along Davis Road and is approxiamtely 26,000 sq.ft. of the 12 acre parcel. 206 Stream Buffer 80ftRegulatory floodway1% Annual Chance ofFlooding (Previouslyreferred to as the 100-year flood zone) 0.2% Annual Chance ofFlooding (Previouslyreferred to as the 500-year flood zone) Floodplain Buffer 80ft10 Year TransitionEDD Transition Rural ResidentialRural BufferCity LimitsUSGS StreamSoils Survey StreamOC Updated Stream ParcelsStreets OLDNC86DAVIS RD ROSETTE CTJEDI WAYOLD HERITAGE CTGRAPE V I NE L NLI NNETDRGLADYS LN I40EENT261 R I P P Y L N W A T E R S T O N E DR I40 W EXIT261 I 40 W ENT 261 I40EEXIT261 DESTINYDRWSCARLETTMOUNTAINRD OAKRIDGEDR I 40 E SERVICERD I 40 W 820 0 820410 Feet1 inch = 667 feet . 2 parcels (PINs 9863718857 and 9863916573)located within Economic DevelopmentTransition Activity NodeIntended for high-intensitynon-residential development Attachment 2 - Future Land Use Map PIN 9862998894is located within the Rural Residentialland use category. Staff has initiateda separate action to change thedesignation to Economic DevelopmentTransition Activity Node. 207 ?k ?ª Aæ ?r I§ K© !"c$!"_$ !"c$ !"_$ ?ª Ir Ir KÊ ?r . ?k ?ª Aæ ?r I§ K© !"c$!"_$ !"c$ !"_$ ?ª Ir Ir KÊ ?r Legend Urban Designated Rural Designated Rural Buffer City Limits Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction Chapel Hill/Carrboro Transition(Not part of Growth ManagementSystem) 1 inch = 3 miles 0 1 2 3Miles Urban and Rural Designated AreasGrowth Management System Urban Designated - Property located within Transition Areas as identified in the Land Use Plan. Rural Designated - Property not located in Urban Designated areas Orange County Planning and Inspections DepartmentGIS Map Prepared by Brian Carson.Growth Management System adopted by BOCC 11/5/03Printed 9/20/2017 208 Settlers Point (approved) RTLP Proposal EDH-5 zoning 1 Project Size 195 acres (8,494,200 sq.ft.) as follows: • District 1: 149 acres (+/-) • District 2: 46 acres (+/- ) 161 acres (7,013,160 sq.ft.) of property. N/A Floor Area Ratio (FAR) – the maximum floor area permitted for each square foot of land area • District 1: 1,248,000 sq.ft. of building area – roughly 8,375 sq.ft. of floor area per acre. • District 2: 261,800 sq.ft. of building area – roughly 5,700 sq.ft. of floor area per acre. 2,250,000 sq.ft. of building area proposed – roughly 14,000 sq.ft. of floor area per acre. 0.65 or 28,314 sq.ft. of floor area per acre of property. Minimum Required Open Space 81.6 acres (30% of project).2 41 acres (25% of project). Minimum Open Space Ratio of 0.40 or 17,424 sq.ft. of open space area per acre of property3 Minimum Required Pedestrian/Landscape Ratio - Pedestrian paths developed throughout the project – required landscaping part of open space. Pedestrian paths developed throughout the project – required landscaping part of open space. 0.05 or 2,178 sq.ft. of pedestrian access and/or landscaped area per acre of property. Maximum Allowable Height 60 ft. 60 ft. 40 ft. (additional height allowed with increased front and side yard setbacks – up to 60 ft.) Stormwater Project approval indicated compliance with applicable County standards detailed in Section 6.14 of the UDO. This would include compliance with nutrient reduction standards. Applicant indicates Project will comply with applicably County standards detailed in Section 6.14 of the UDO. This would include compliance with nutrient reduction standards. Compliance with UDO required. Erosion Control County standards (Section 6.15) County standards (Section 6.15) Compliance with UDO required. 1 Properties were previously zoned EDH-5. Staff is including standards for this district to aid comparing allowable intensity of development. 2 This included property east of Old NC Highway 86 in what was District 2. 3 Per the Article 10 Definitions of the UDO, the open space ration area includes: parking and vehicular access areas and it can also include balconies, and roofs improved for recreation. Attachment 4 209 Settlers Point (approved) RTLP Proposal EDH-5 zoning Setbacks - structures: Perimeter (external to project) 100 ft. (non EDD zoned property) 100 ft. building setback and 50 ft. parking lot/access road setback (western/southern property line) 50 ft. setback (eastern property line) N/A 4 External Road 50 ft. 25 ft. (Service Drive) 100 ft. (Davis Road) N/A Front 25 ft. (internal roads) Not specified 50 ft. Side 25 ft. Not specified 20 ft. Rear 25 ft. Not specified 40 ft. Land Use Buffers: • 100 ft. perimeter buffer; • 50 ft. buffer along Old NC Highway 86; • 25 ft. buffer along Service Road; • 30% of a buildings perimeter shall be landscaped. • 50 ft. buffer along western and southern property lines; • 25 ft. buffer along eastern property line; • 25 ft. buffer along Service Road and Davis Road; • 20% of a buildings perimeter shall be landscaped. • 100 ft. perimeter buffer for adjacent properties not zoned EDD; • Buffers based on land use, range from 20 ft. to 100 ft. (Interstate Highway – MTC buffer) Parking • Overall parking standard: 1 space for every 300 sq.ft. of building area Overall parking standard: 1 space per 750 sq.ft. of office space and 1 space per 3,000 sq.ft. of additional indoor area. Parking based on land use – range would require: • Retail and Office: 1 space for every 200 sq.ft. gross floor area; • Manufacturing: 1 space per employee on largest shift; • Delivery Service: 1 space for every employee on max shift plus 1 space per 800 sq.ft. of gross floor area 4 Per Section 6.8.12 (C) of the UDO, a 100 ft. vegetative buffer is required to be provided at the boundary of all Economic Development districts. 210 Settlers Point (approved) RTLP Proposal EDH-5 zoning Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District – requires 100 ft. buffer along the Interstate Project would comply with Section 6.6.4 (A) (5), which allows for a 50% break in the required buffer along the Interstate frontage. Applicant indicates Project will comply with Section 6.6.4 (A) (5), which allows for a 50% break in the required buffer along the Interstate frontage. A break in the MTC buffer is permitted consistent with Section 6.6.4 (A) (5) of the UDO. 211 1 DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE DATE: June 18, 2020 TIME: 9:30 am LOCATION: Virtual Meeting MEETING NOTES In attendance: Michael Harvey, Pat Mallett, Molly Boyle, and Tyler Sliger (Current Planning); Steve Brantley, Amanda Garner, and Sam Speicher (Economic Development); James Bryan (County Attorney’s Office); Chris Hirni (DEAPR); Steve Kaltenbach (Erosion Control); Tina Love (Admin Support); Joan Melton and Phil Vilaro (Environmental Health); Chris Sandt (Staff Engineer); Jeff Scouten (Solid Waste); Tom Ten Eyck (Transportation Planner) I. Review Meeting Notes: June 4th, 2020 • No comments. Notes approved. II. SUB20-0019 (Sykes): Expedited Minor Subdivision • Planner: Michael Harvey • Applicant: Scott Dorsett • PIN: 9853-91-8906 • Location: 3012 Orange Grove Rd. Proposal: Creating three lots. Submitted Documents: 1. Final Plat DAC Decision: Approved DAC Notes: • Michael Harvey (CP) said the proposal meets expedited subdivision requirements. • Phil Vilaro (EH) confirmed that David Ward has issued two Improvement Permits for the proposed new lots. III. SUB20-0020 (Walters): Expedited Minor Subdivision • Planner: Michael Harvey • Applicant: Susan Walters • PIN: 0805-75-4794 • Location: 6815 Ebenezer Church Rd. Proposal: Creating two lots. Submitted Documents: 1. Site Assessment 2. Final Plat 212 2 DAC Decision: Approved with Conditions DAC Notes: • Phil Vilaro (EH) explained that the existing house to the south was originally permitted in Durham County in the 1970s, but it is in Orange County. Whether that’s a result of improper surveying/staking or a county line adjustment is unclear. • Michael Harvey (CP) noted that the proposed flag staff does not meet the UDO requirements. It needs to be at least 35’ wide. Phil Vilaro said 35’ could potentially work for Environmental Health. He needs to go revisit the site to assess. IV. MA20-0003 (Research Triangle Logistics Park): Map Amendment (MPD-CZ) • Planner: Michael Harvey • Applicant: Frank Csapo • PIN: 9863-71-8857 ; 9863-91-6573 ; 9862-99-8894 • Location: none listed, off of Southern Dr. Proposal: Rezone properties, west of Old NC Highway 86, to a new Master Plan Development (MPD) Conditional Zoning district allowing for the eventual development of non- residential land uses including: manufacturing, warehousing and supply chain fulfillment, information sciences and engineering, health technology, research and laboratories, etc. Project will involve extending utilities (i.e. water and sewer from the Town of Hillsborough) under Interstate 40 to serve the project. (NOTE: 2 of the parcels were part of the Settlers Point MPD-CZ reviewed and approved in 2018 by the County. This request also involves rezoning a 12/13 acre parcel on Davis Road (PIN 9862998894) to be part of the project.) Submitted Documents: 1. Master Plan set DAC Decision: Further Review Required DAC Notes: • The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is available on the T drive for Tom Ten Eyck. • Michael Harvey (CP) said the applicant is attempting to have the 100 year floodplain reduced on the parcel, which requires review and approval from FEMA. • The applicant is aiming for the following milestones: Neighborhood Information Meeting in July, Planning Board in August, and BOCC in September. • If the BOCC approves this project, it will nullify the Settlers Point MPD-CZ and the associated access management plan. 213 1 Michael Harvey From:Thomas Ten Eyck Sent:Thursday, June 25, 2020 3:05 PM To:Michael Harvey Cc:Tom Altieri Subject:Re: TIA for Research Triangle Logistics Park Attachments:Exhibit H - Traffic Impact Analysis - RTLP - June 5, 2020.pdf Michael, I've attached my copy of the 'marked up' TIA here, but for ease of reading, here's the highlights:  There may be an issue with the description of "2,2510,200 sq. feet of warehouse" that is presented in the executive summary (and main body of the report). My understanding is that this development could include a myriad of light manufacturing, warehousing, fulfillment services and research labs (among others) and that simply having one "type" of use (i.e. warehouses) would have different traffic patterns from business with 9-to-5 operational hours (and predictable peak times).  The predicted new trips generated is 3,648 per average weekday with 320 AM peak trips and 326 PM peak trips. These AM/PM "peaks" represent only 18% of all trips, which seems small for peaks. And, similarly to what I stated above, if the entire development is warehouses (with more than AM and PM peaks), this could cause issues with some of the lower-performing LOS intersections (and overall greater rates of congestion in the area).  A dedicated right-turn lane on southbound Old NC 86 is not recommended as there does not appear to be enough ROW to construct the lane, but this is the connection to three (A, B and C) of the four total driveways that will be constructed (the fourth, D, will be on Davis Rd.). These are also the first three driveways that will be constructed, so it seems like a dedicated right turn off of Old NC 86 might be important to functional operation of this area (especially since it's current use based on counts has been zero).  The three "exceptions" that do not meet LOS D or better for average intersections are all predicted on a "typical" AM and PM peak time (and then down time in-between). Not sure that this will be the case if the majority/entirety of the development is warehousing.  All consultant recommendations seem sensible and realistic.  The turn movements were calculated in October of 2016; I'm not sure how valid this data may still be (I have no frame of reference for how old is "too old").  Page 31, Table 8: Old NC 86 at I-40 EB has an issue with maxing out the 200-feet of available storage in AM; none of the recommendations call for an additional lane or improvement for this beyond a traffic light.  The overall conclusions (page 34) identify the problems with LOS E and LOS F for these particular intersections, but offer no solutions. Turning north from WB I-40 onto Old NC 86 is simply going to be slow, turning east from Old NC 86 onto EB I-40 is going to be slow, and turning out of the Service Road (which houses three of the total four driveways for the development) onto Old NC 86 is going to be slow. That's it. Michael, this is my first analysis, so please let me know if anything else needs elaboration or if you have any other feedback for me. Hoping this is enough to start. 214 2 Thank you! Sincerely, Tom TE Tom Ten Eyck Transportation/Land Use Planner II Orange County Planning & Inspections Department 131 West Margaret Lane, Suite 201 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Phone: 919-245-2567 E-mail: tteneyck@orangecountync.gov Website: www.orangecountync.gov From: Michael Harvey Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 2:17 PM To: Thomas Ten Eyck Cc: Tom Altieri Subject: RE: TIA for Research Triangle Logistics Park If you could share your preliminary comment(s) it would be appreciated MDH From: Thomas Ten Eyck Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 2:17 PM To: Michael Harvey Cc: Tom Altieri Subject: TIA for Research Triangle Logistics Park Michael, Good afternoon! I hope this muggy Thursday finds you well. I've taken a look at Exhibit H (TIA for RTLP) and shared some of my primary thoughts with Nish and Tom A. I just wanted to follow up with you to see if you had received any feedback from NCDOT that you wanted us to double-check or if you had any particular comments on aspects of the plan for which you wanted our feedback. I'm out on vacation all week next week, so I won't be in attendance to next week's DAC meeting, but I am totally able to focus my attention on any questions you have for us and to report back to you. I will have access to internet next week, so I may be slow but can still be responsive. Be well, and have a great rest of the day! 215 3 Sincerely, Tom TE Tom Ten Eyck Transportation/Land Use Planner II Orange County Planning & Inspections Department 131 West Margaret Lane, Suite 201 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Phone: 919-245-2567 E-mail: tteneyck@orangecountync.gov Website: www.orangecountync.gov 216 1 Michael Harvey From:Tom King <Tom.King@hillsboroughnc.gov> Sent:Friday, June 12, 2020 9:27 AM To:Michael Harvey; Margaret Hauth Cc:Travis Myren; Craig Benedict; Tom Altieri; Shannan Campbell; Marie Strandwitz Subject:[EXTERNAL MAIL!] RE: Receipt of rezoning petition - Research Triangle Logistics Park (RTLP) Thanks, Michael. I’m copying our Economic Development Planner & Utilities Director here as they may be interested in this as well form their perspectives. Tom King, AICP, CZO Senior Planner P.O. Box 429 101 East Orange Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 Phone: (919) 296‐9472 Fax: (919) 644‐2390 E‐mail: Tom.king@hillsboroughnc.gov Website: www.hillsboroughnc.gov Please limit total message size to 5 MB or smaller to ensure the message reaches me. Pursuant to NCGS Chapter 132, Public Records, this electronic mail message and any attachments hereto, as well as any electronic mail message(s) that may be sent in response to it *may* be considered public record and as such are subject to request and review by anyone at anytime. From: Michael Harvey <mharvey@orangecountync.gov> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 9:07 AM To: Margaret Hauth <Margaret.Hauth@hillsboroughnc.gov>; Tom King <Tom.King@hillsboroughnc.gov> Cc: Travis Myren <tmyren@orangecountync.gov>; Craig Benedict <cbenedict@orangecountync.gov>; Tom Altieri <taltieri@orangecountync.gov> Subject: Receipt of rezoning petition ‐ Research Triangle Logistics Park (RTLP) Be advised the County has received an application proposing the rezoning of approximately 161 acres of property, south of Interstate 40 and west of Old NC Highway 86, to a new Master Plan Development (MPD) Conditional Zoning district designation. The request, case number MA20‐0003, involves the following: PINs: 9863‐71‐8857 ; 9863‐91‐6573 ; 9862‐99‐8894 217 2 The project, which involves 2 parcels that were part of District 1 of the Settlers Point Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning district approved by the County in 2018, proposing the construction of over 2,250,000 square feet of health technology, information sciences and engineering, advanced manufacturing, light manufacturing, scientific research and laboratories, logistics, warehousing and supply chain fulfillment land uses. At this time, provision of public utilities (i.e. water and sewer) will be handled by the Town of Hillsborough consistent with a utility line extension project staffs been working on for several years. Consistent with our existing courtesy review agreement, we are providing copies of the submittal for your review. Project files can be accessed via our new on‐line Permit Information Portal (PIP) in the following manner: 218 3 STEP ONE – Go to the County website at: https://www.orangecountync.gov/ You will notice a button on the right had side of the screen entitled Permitting Information Portal . You will click on this link: 219 4 220 5 STEP TWO – Clicking on the link will take you to the Permitting Information Portal webpage. Once there, you will click on the link to access the portal: Click on this link 221 6 STEP THREE – Clicking on the link will take you to the Permitting Information Portal. Click on this link to initiate the ‘search’ function 222 7 To search for a project, click on the search button (indicated above) STEP FOUR: Enter the project case number (MA20‐0003) and you will be taken to the case. Once there, hit the attachment tab and you will be able to access PDF copies of the submittal. Enter case number (M and then hit ‘search’ 223 8 224 9 225 10 If you have difficulty accessing the materials, staff can provide an electronic copy (CD) on Monday June 15, 2020. 226 11 Staff looks forward to hearing from you. Michael D. Harvey AICP, CFM, CZO Current Planning Supervisor Orange County 131 West Margaret Lane Suite 201 PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 245‐2597 Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 132, correspondence sent and received from this account is a public record and may be disclosed to third parties. SERVICE IMPACTS FROM COVID‐19 PLEASE NOTE: Orange County, North Carolina issued an amendment to the Declaration of a State of Emergency. The amendment orders the public to Stay at Home to prevent further spread of COVID‐19. The Order will take effect on Friday, March 27th, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. and will remain in effect until July 3, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. The Stay at Home Order shall be reviewed periodically to determine whether it should be extended, modified, or rescinded. For the latest information and guidance relating to Orange County’s COVID‐19 response, visit https://www.orangecountync.gov/Coronavirus Effective immediately, the following adjustments have been made to protect employees and the general public and to ensure that service levels can be maintained throughout the duration of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Office Hours: Current Planning offices shall be open from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. daily for the receipt of applications and handling of previously scheduled appointments. Until further notice, members of the general public needing to see a planner will need to schedule an appointment to do so. Planning staff can be reached at the following:  Michael Harvey, Supervisor: (919) 245‐2597 or mharvey@orangecountync.gov  Patrick Mallett, Planner 2: (919) 245‐2577 or pmallett@orangecountync.gov  Molly Boyle, Planner 1: (919) 245‐2599 or mboyle@orangecountync.gov  Tyler Sliger, Planning Technician: (919) 245‐2598 or tsliger@orangecountync.gov Meetings: Meeting(s) shall occur by appointment only during revised operating hours listed above. Please note staff will observe appropriate social distancing requirements and staff 6 feet away from parties attending a meeting at all times. Plan Review: Applications for development projects shall be accepted:  Electronically via e‐mail; 227 12  By Mail sent to: Orange County Planning ATTN: Current Planning Division PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278  Dropped off in person during the revised operating hours listed above. PLEASE NOTE: Applications physically dropped off at Planning offices shall be placed in an appropriately labeled drop box and shall not be handed by staff until appropriate social distancing protocols can be observed. Staff will be unable to review and discuss the proposal with you at the time of submittal. Submittal of Fees: Fees can be submitted with the application (mail and in person). Those applicant’s needed to pay using a credit card shall be contacted by staff to process a payment over the phone. PLEASE NOTE: Until further notice, cash shall not be accepted/handled by staff. Permits: Permits shall be processed as quickly as possible. Please note deficiencies in the application submittal will impact staff’s ability to process the development request. Inspections: Inspections shall be completed either on a first come basis or via appointment. If staff is required to meet applicants in the field, appropriate social distancing policies shall be adhered to. Communications: Current Planning staff can be reached at the e‐mail addresses and phone numbers listed above. 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 1 Michael Harvey From:Jeff Scouten Sent:Saturday, June 27, 2020 8:25 AM To:Michael Harvey Cc:Matthew Taylor Subject:RE: TRLP COnditional Zoning - proposed solid waste conditions Michael, The proposed conditions relating to solid waste & recycling will be OK for the initial high‐level review and approval of the rezoning case. However, I would still like to have the opportunity to request more specific notes as more detailed site plans and/or construction plans are submitted. Thanks. Jeff Scouten Environmental Enforcement Supervisor Orange County Solid Waste Management 1207 Eubanks Road Chapel Hill, NC 27516-7177 919-968-2788 (Office) Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 132, correspondence sent and received from this account is a public record and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Michael Harvey Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 1:44 PM To: Jeff Scouten; Matthew Taylor Subject: TRLP COnditional Zoning - proposed solid waste conditions Genelmen: hope you both are well. As you may recall from the June 18, 2020 DAC meeting we began to discuss RTLP (case number MA20‐0003) the new Settlers Point mixed use project. The applicant has proposed the following condition(s) on the project relating to disposal of solid waste: SOLID WASTE. The following standards shall be observed with respect to the management of solid waste: a. The developer shall adhere to the proper disposal methodology for solid waste management. b. The applicant shall provide external space for collection of solid waste and recyclable materials. Materials collected shall be at least equivalent to the services provided by Orange County Solid Waste. c. Waste collection areas shall be located in such a manner as to provide convenient access for users of the facility and safe passage for service vehicles. d. The developer shall be required to place the following additional notes on any approved site plan: i. Any gate design will include gate retainers. 255 2 ii. If any vehicles are parked in the refuse or recyclables collection vehicle access area, the containers will not receive service until the next scheduled collection day. iii. Orange County will not be responsible for any pavement damage that may result from service vehicles. iv. By Orange County Ordinance, clean wood waste, scrap metal and corrugated cardboard, all present in construction waste, must be recycled. v. By Orange County Ordinance, all haulers of construction waste must be properly licensed. e. In cases where waste collection areas are located across property lines or district lines for shared areas, the developer shall prepare and record a joint access agreement (and a shared dumpster agreement) to assure that (both parties may use) the proposed trash/recycling area and that it can be serviced across property lines. f. The developer shall reserve space within all solid waste collection areas for segregated grease rendering/recycling collection facilities and shall provide space for segregated food waste collection near the delivery entrance for any building that houses, proposes to include, or may at some future date incorporate a restaurant, cafeteria, bar, or other food service facility at any time. g. All solid waste containers, dumpsters, recycling bins, etc. shall be located within an enclosure, buffered in accordance with the standards contained herein, and meeting the following criteria: i. Loading areas shall be designed and situated not to negatively affect adjacent properties. ii. Solid waste enclosures shall be so located as to not impact internal traffic flow, iii. Loading zones shall not be located within areas designated as housing for solid waste facilities. I am interesting to hear if you have any concerns over these proposed conditions. Many thanks! Michael D. Harvey AICP, CFM, CZO Current Planning Supervisor Orange County 131 West Margaret Lane Suite 201 PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 245‐2597 Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 132, correspondence sent and received from this account is a public record and may be disclosed to third parties. SERVICE IMPACTS FROM COVID‐19 PLEASE NOTE: Orange County, North Carolina issued an amendment to the Declaration of a State of Emergency. The amendment orders the public to Stay at Home to prevent further spread of COVID‐19. The Order will take effect on Friday, March 27th, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. and will remain in effect until July 3, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. The Stay at Home Order shall be reviewed periodically to determine whether it should be extended, 256 3 modified, or rescinded. For the latest information and guidance relating to Orange County’s COVID‐19 response, visit https://www.orangecountync.gov/Coronavirus Effective immediately, the following adjustments have been made to protect employees and the general public and to ensure that service levels can be maintained throughout the duration of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Office Hours: Current Planning offices shall be open from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. daily for the receipt of applications and handling of previously scheduled appointments. Until further notice, members of the general public needing to see a planner will need to schedule an appointment to do so. Planning staff can be reached at the following: Michael Harvey, Supervisor: (919) 245‐2597 or mharvey@orangecountync.gov Patrick Mallett, Planner 2: (919) 245‐2577 or pmallett@orangecountync.gov Molly Boyle, Planner 1: (919) 245‐2599 or mboyle@orangecountync.gov Tyler Sliger, Planning Technician: (919) 245‐2598 or tsliger@orangecountync.gov Meetings: Meeting(s) shall occur by appointment only during revised operating hours listed above. Please note staff will observe appropriate social distancing requirements and staff 6 feet away from parties attending a meeting at all times. Plan Review: Applications for development projects shall be accepted: Electronically via e‐mail; By Mail sent to: Orange County Planning ATTN: Current Planning Division PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dropped off in person during the revised operating hours listed above. PLEASE NOTE: Applications physically dropped off at Planning offices shall be placed in an appropriately labeled drop box and shall not be handed by staff until appropriate social distancing protocols can be observed. Staff will be unable to review and discuss the proposal with you at the time of submittal. Submittal of Fees: Fees can be submitted with the application (mail and in person). Those applicant’s needed to pay using a credit card shall be contacted by staff to process a payment over the phone. PLEASE NOTE: Until further notice, cash shall not be accepted/handled by staff. Permits: Permits shall be processed as quickly as possible. Please note deficiencies in the application submittal will impact staff’s ability to process the development request. Inspections: Inspections shall be completed either on a first come basis or via appointment. If staff is required to meet applicants in the field, appropriate social distancing policies shall be adhered to. Communications: Current Planning staff can be reached at the e‐mail addresses and phone numbers listed above. 257 MEMORANDUM To: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, Planning and Inspections Dept. From: Christian Hirni, DEAPR Land Conservation Manager Peter Sandbeck, DEAPR Cultural Resources Coordinator Date: July 6, 2020 Re: Research Triangle Logistics Park Thank you the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed Research Triangle Logistics Park Commercial and Industrial rezoning proposal and draft site plans. The subject property is compiled of three separate parcels (PIN’s 9863-71-8857, 9863-91-6573, 9862-99-8894), located south of Hillsborough on the south side of an unnamed frontage road to I-40; spanning to the north side of Davis Road at the intersection with Old NC 86. Two of the parcels were part of the Settlers Point MPD-CZ reviewed and approved in 2018 by the County. All three Parcels drain into Cates Creek which flows directly to the Eno River. DEAPR comments on subdivisions are generally intended to a) address any concerns with respect to potential impacts on important natural or cultural resources, and b) identify any areas that might be desirable for possible dedication to the County for public recreation/open space pursuant to Section 7.11.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Natural Resources Review Comments: The planned development would set aside areas of open space consisting of protected riparian buffers along Cates Creek, an Eno River tributary stream, roadside buffers adjacent to the service road and Davis Road, and adjacent property buffers along all aspects of the property boundaries. All parcels remain wooded although Parcel 1 has been recently harvested per state forestry standards in the last two years. Parcel 2 in the site plans of the property remains wooded and includes a portion of a site identified as the Cates Creek Hardwood Forest in An Inventory of Mafic Natural Areas in the North Carolina Piedmont (Oakley, et al., 1995) and recognized again in the Orange County Inventory Update in 2004 (Sorrie, Shaw, et al., 2004). The natural area contains a large, mature, high quality oak-hickory forest dominated by Carolina shagbark hickory, white ash, post oak, and white oak. The entire site is comprised of around 160 acres, of which Parcel 2 of the Research Triangle Park site plan contains a very small portion (approx. 5.6 acres). With the presence of a Natural Heritage site on the property, it is in the County’s and the public interest to have this area protected in its current condition, as an extension of the site’s open space, and to assist the landowner toward that end. If the landowners wish the area to remain in private ownership, they could grant a conservation easement to the County. As the easement “grantee” the County would be responsible for monitoring the site at least once each year to make sure that the terms of the easement are not violated. Advance notice would be provided to the landowners before County staff entered the property. 258 If the owners or their agents are interested in exploring this option, I would be happy to sit down with them to discuss potential pros and cons. Cultural Resources Review Comments: There are no previously identified historic properties or resources located on the subject parcel. As with any development, care should be taken to locate, identify and protect any potential human burial sites or cemeteries. The current Cemetery Census does not show any identified burials on this parcel. Anyone who encounters what appears to be a burial or grave should immediately contact the Orange County Cultural Resources Coordinator at 919-245-2517. If you have questions please contact Christian at x-2514 or Peter at x-2517. 259 UtCates CreekUt I 40 DAVIS RD RIPPY LN SERVICE R D I 40 W ENT 261 I 40 E EXIT 261 OLD NC 86 GRAPEVINE LNJEDI WAYI 40 Legend Roads RTLP Development Boundary Natural Heritage Area Streams Tax Parcels ¶ 0 350 700 1,050 1,400175 Feet Research Triangle Logistics Park- NHA Area Map Tract Information Landowner: Proposed RTLP Development Boundary Lat: 36' 02.07" Long: 79' 06.25" Date: 6/30/2020 Image: 2017 Aerial Photo Created By: Christian Hirni Acres: ~160 260 UtCates Creek Ut Ut Cates Creek UtUtUt Ut UtU t Ut Ut I 4 0 OLD NC 86 DAVIS RD RIPPY LN SERVICE RD DESTINY DR OAK R I DGE D R I 4 0 W E X I T 2 6 1 I 40 E E X I T 2 6 1 SC A R L E T T M O U N T A IN R D I 40 W ENT 261 WATERST ONE DR I 40 E EN T 2 6 1 COLLEGE PARK RDRED HAT RDODE TURNER RD COUNTY SEAT DR LINNET DROLD HERITAGE CT TWISTED CT GRAPEVINE LNROSETTE CTJEDI WAYI 4 0 Legend Roads RTLP Development Boundary Natural Heritage Area Streams Tax Parcels ¶ 0 660 1,320 1,980 2,640330 Feet Research Triangle Logistics Park- NHA Context Map Tract Information Landowner: Proposed RTLP Development Boundary Lat: 36' 02.07" Long: 79' 06.25" Date: 6/30/2020 Image: 2017 Aerial Photo Created By: Christian Hirni Acres: ~160 261 kimley-horn.com 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600, Raleigh, NC 27601 919 677 2000 July 14, 2020 Michael D. Harvey Current Planning Supervisor Orange County 131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 201 Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Conditional Zoning Atlas Amendment – Master Plan Development (MPD) for Research Triangle Logistics Park (RTLP) – First Round Comments Attached please find the Applicant’s written responses to comments from Orange County issued on June 20,2020 for the above referenced project. The responses are transmitted to you with the following information: ⚫ One Revised digital 24”x36” Master Plan Set (under separate cover) ⚫ One Revised digital project Binder ⚫ One digital copy of Duke Energy transmission line easement. Please contact me at (919) 653-2927 or Chris.Bostic@kimley-horn.com should you or your staff have any questions concerning our responses. Sincerely, Chris Bostic, P.E. Project Manager 262 Page 2 kimley-horn.com 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600, Raleigh, NC 27601 919 677 2000 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 1. Comment: Page 1 – Approximately 20 acres of the parcel, north of Interstate 40, is not part of the application and will remain zoned as currently depicted on the official County Zoning Atlas. Response: Correct, no area north of I-40 is part of the rezoning. 2. Comment: Page 2 – I.A.1 – The narrative and exhibits make reference to stormwater ‘best management practices’ or BMPs for the Project. Please update such references to ‘stormwater control measures’ or SCMs per current State and County guidelines. Response: All occurrences of BMPs have been updated to SCMs as requested. 3. Comment: Page 2 – I.A.2 - There are no references in the narrative to proposed parking standards (i.e. required number of spaces per sq.ft. of proposed land use, loading space design requirements, shared parking, compact parking standards, drive-isle standards, etc.) for the Project. Please modify the narrative to either indicate the Project will comply with the provisions of Section 6.9 Parking, Loading, and Circulation of the UDO or propose a comparable parking standard for consideration. Response: The parking standards to be used are as follows: Minimum Vehicular Parking Requirements: 1 space per 750s.f. of office space + 1 space per 3,000s.f. of additional indoor area and have been noted in the binder. 4. Comment: Page 2 – I.A.2.i - A condition of approval for the Settlers Point MPD-CZ project indicated at minimum of 1% of all required parking be designed to accommodate electrical charging stations. Staff believes there will be similar interest for the Project. Response: There is no plan to make electric parking a requirement of this project at this time. 5. Comment: Page 3 – I.A.2.ii – A condition of approval for the Settlers Point MPD-CZ project required the creation/designation of 100 parking spaces to serve as sup porting ‘park and ride’ activities. While the nature of this project is different from Settlers Point, staff believes there will be discussion at both the Planning Board and County Commissioner level on requiring a similar condition. Response: Due to the nature of this project, there will be no park and ride facilities provided. 263 Page 3 kimley-horn.com 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600, Raleigh, NC 27601 919 677 2000 6. Comment: Page 3 – I.A.3 - Section 6.7.5 (D) of the UDO requires the issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit when any non-residential land use within an MPD-CZ is developed: ... ‘within 200 ft. of a property line of an existing dwelling unit located on a lot smaller than 2 acres in size. This section specifically applies to MPD-CZ development(s) within the Hillsborough Economic Development District. This provision may impact portions of the Project as currently denoted on the master plan, specifically development on the 12-acre parcel (PIN 9862-99-8894) as adjacent parcels, each with a residential land use, are under 2 acres in size. Response: We understand this comment is pending further discussion. 7. Comment: Page 3 – I.A.4 - The Project will be required to comply with provisions of Section 6.10 Roadway Improvements and Multi-modal Transportation of the UDO. Response: We understand the public streets will comply with this section of the UDO; however the internal streets are private and will not be held to this standard. 8. Comment: Page 3 – I.A.5 - Staff is continuing to review language on utility permitting and connection standards with the Town of Hillsborough staff and will provide additional feedback as soon as possible. Response: Noted. 9. Comment: Page 3 – I.B.1 - Page 4 Final Paragraph: There is language within the narrative discussing the submittal of the Conditional Zoning Atlas amendment package, which could confuse the average reader. You should consider revising the language as follows: Given the scope of the project, we believe it is appropriate to submit the project through the County’s Master Plan Development (MPD) Conditional Zoning process, the purpose of which is to: …provide for unified large scale subdivisions, non- residential, and mixed use developments that promote economical and efficient land use, improved /ev'e/ of amenities, appropriate and harmonious variety, creati ve design, and a better environment through the approval of a general Master Plan. In accordance with the provision of Section 2.9.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), we are proud to submit the this request to rezone a total of 161.21 acres of property, further defined in Section 1 -2 of the document, to a MPD Conditional Zoning designation for development as the RTLP consistent with proposed development standards. 264 Page 4 kimley-horn.com 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600, Raleigh, NC 27601 919 677 2000 This includes the rezoning of approximately 148.8 acres of property previously zoned MPD-CZ by the County as part of the Settlers Point project. Approval of this request will, in effect, eliminate the County’s previous action to approve the Settlers Point project in January of 2018. 12.35 acres of land and submit the cumulative (being 161.216 acres) properties identified herein as being part of the RTLP project to MPD-CZ and allow for the development of the project consistent with recommended development standards. Response: This change is acceptable and has been incorporated into the revised document. 10. Comment: Page 4 – I.B.2 - Section 1-2 Project Size and Location: Staff recommends including the following language under the subsection number 2 describing the rezoning of PIN 9863-91-6573: ‘APPLICANT NOTE: Approximately 20 acres of the parcel, which is located north of Interstate 40, are not pad of the application and will remain in the ownership of the current property owner and zoned EDH-2 consistent with current County regulations’. While all parties are aware of the distinction, the narrative should contain a definitive reference that the request only involves rezoning 60 acres of an 80 acre parcel. Response: Narrative has been revised as requested. 11. Comment: Page 4 – I.B.3 - Section 1-3 Current Land Uses: Include a reference to the Settlers Point project when identifying the parcels zoned MPD-CZ: PIN — 9863718857 Undeveloped MPD-CZ (formerly Settlers Point MPD-CZ) PIN — 9863916573 Undeveloped MPD-CZ (formerly Settlers Point MPD-CZ) This will help the general public to follow what is being proposed, and what was previously done. Response: The PIN information has been updated as requested. 12. Comment: Page 4 – I.B.4.i - Water/Sewer improvements: Provide language indicating the extension of applicable utility lines shall be in accordance with Town of Hillsborough’s utility extension protocols/policies. Staff recommends additional language be added defining/clarifying what a ‘looped’ water line system will entail. For example, where will the connection(s) be made (i.e. off Old NC Highway 86 near David Road, a new water line running parallel with Interstate 40 connecting to existing lines off Orange Grove Road, etc.). There also should be some mention of required permitting to install the new utility lines. This detail will need to be present on the utility master plan contained in Exhibit D as well. 265 Page 5 kimley-horn.com 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600, Raleigh, NC 27601 919 677 2000 Response: The binder has been updated accordingly. 13. Comment: Page 4 – I.B.4.ii – Road improvements: Add references to the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) contained in Exhibit H of the application. Response: TIA comments will be addressed globally upon receipt of direction from NCDOT. 14. Comment: Page 5 – I.B.5 - Section 2 — Land Use Program: The narrative makes a reference to 'County Planning staff’ referring to the Project as the ‘Research Triangle Logistics Park' or RTLP. This is the name you have chosen for the Project and is not a ‘staff' reference. Please revise existing language accordingly. Response: This revision has been made as requested. 15. Comment: Page 5 – I.B.6.i - The narrative should be revised to include additional detail(s) on proposed development activities, namely: A description/identification of each individual development area or ‘pod’ within the Project; This information should also be placed on the master plan set. Response: This information has been provided as requested. 16. Comment: Page 5 – I.B.6.ii-iv - The narrative should be revised to include additional detail(s) on proposed development activities, namely: -Anticipated number of buildings and their size for each development area or 'pod’; -An explanation on the anticipated number of parking spaces; -An explanation of loading berths/zones for each area or ‘pod’; This information should also be placed on the master plan set. Response: Please reference the schematic plan that shows the general location of these items. 17. Comment: Page 5 – I.B.7 - Section 2-1 Land Uses: Staff is concerned the proposed list of allowable and prohibited land uses does not following existing naming or organization conventions as detailed in Section 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses of the UDO. We suggest additional review of our recommendation(s) on the listing of land uses consistent with our June 1, 2020 email as contained in Attachment 1. Response: The list of allowable land uses shall remain as previously submitted , however, further discussion may be warranted. 266 Page 6 kimley-horn.com 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600, Raleigh, NC 27601 919 677 2000 18. Comment: Page 5 – I.B.8.i – There is no mention of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements within the narrative. As proposed, the FAR for the Project appears to be approximately (i.e. roughly 13,939 sq.ft. of floor area per acre with a cumulative total of 2,25 0,00 sq.ft. of floor space for the 161 acres located within the Project). As a comparison, the FAR for: • Settlers Point for District 1 was 0.20 (i.e. 8,712 sq.ft. of floor area per acre); • County UDO would potentially allow 0.65 (i.e. 28,314 sq.ft. of floor area per acre) if the MPD-CZ parcels were still zoned Economic Development Hillsborough Research and Manufacturing (EDH-5). The proposed FAR appears consistent with what has been historically allowed for the parcels making up the bulk of the Project. NOTE: The FAR should also be listed on the master plan set, specifically sheet(s) C.2. Response: The proposed FAR will be set at a maximum of 0.65 to match County standard. 19. Comment: Page 5 – I.B.8.ii – Number 1: Per Section 6.7.5 (C) (1) of the UDO, the maximum impervious surface level for the Project is 50%. After conferring with the Director, it has been recommended the narrative contain language discussing the cumulative/shared nature of the development (i.e. shared access roads, shared parking, common stormwater control measures, open space preservation, etc.) resulting in an overall reduction in the amount of land clearing/grading that will be required to accommodate the Project. This will result in an overall reduction in the anticipated environmental impact of the Project justifying additional impervious surface area. Response: As noted in the comment above, the improvements common to each building result in a relatively limited overall disturbance of the project as compared to the proposed built upon area which does result in a relatively limited environmental impact. 20. Comment: Page 6 – I.B.8.iii – Number 2: Staff recommends the minimum percentage of open/landscaped space for the Project be increased to a minimum of 30% of the Project or 48 acres. According to the ’graded area exhibit' of the Environmental Assessment (Exhibit G) anticipated open space for the project is approximately 41 acres or 25% of land area. The Director has indicated he is willing to allow for the 498,705 sq.ft. of land area reserved to serve as stormwater control measures to be included as part of the open space calculation. NOTE: The minimum open space requirement should be listed on the master plan set, specifically sheet(s) C.2. Response: The minimum open space requirement in the narrative has been increased to 25%. 267 Page 7 kimley-horn.com 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600, Raleigh, NC 27601 919 677 2000 21. Comment: Page 6 – I.B.8.iv – Number 3: Per Section 6.7.5 (C) (1) of the UDO the maximum height allowed for the Project is 60 ft. There are additional setback requirements for structures exceeding 40 ft. in height per Section 3.7 of the UDO. Staff recommends references in the narrative to a ‘6 story height limit’ be replaced with the following: Buildings within the development shall abide by the height limitations and allowances established within Section 3.7 Economic Development Districts — Economic Development Hillsborough Research and Manufacturing (EDH-5) of the UDO. Under no circumstances may a structure exceed 60 ft. in height. NOTE: Height allowances/restrictions should be listed on the master plan set, specifically sheet(s) C.2. Response: Narrative has been modified to address the 60’ limitation. 22. Comment: Page 6 – I.B.8.v – Number 4: Please include specific references to the Stream Buffer regulations as contained in the UDO (i.e. Section 6.13). Further, we recommend including language within this section referencing your submittal of a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for review, which may result in a reduction of land area encumbered by identified floodplain. This is to address potential concern(s) the submitted master plan (i.e. the overall preliminary site plan map — Sheet C-2) denotes potential development activity in areas currently identified as b eing within special flood hazard area, where development activity is specifically prohibited in accordance with Section 6.21 of the UDO. Response: We have modified the narrative as requested. 23. Comment: Page 7 – I.B.9.i – Number 1 Noise: Language should indicate the Project shall comply with the County's Noise Ordinance, as enforced by the Sheriff’s Office, and Section 6.4.3 of the UDO. Response: We have updated this language. 24. Comment: Page 7 – I.B.9.ii – Orange County Solid Waste staff members have agreed, in concept, with the language contained in Section 2-2-2 (6) of the narrative. A recommended condition of approval will be: 'All solid waste and recycling collection methods, facilities, areas, etc. shall be reviewed during formal site plan review by Orange County Solid Waste. Site specific development conditions 268 Page 8 kimley-horn.com 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600, Raleigh, NC 27601 919 677 2000 associated with solid waste/recycling collection and disposal will be addressed at that time’ There is a typo under 6 (d) (v) of the narrative, specifically the word ‘and’ appe ars at the end of the proposed standard that does not appear to belong. Response: Narrative has been updated as requested. 25. Comment: Page 7 – I.B.9.iii – Number 7 Erosion Control: Please revise the narrative and make specific reference the Project will comply with the provisions of Section 6.15 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control of the UDO. Response: The narrative has been revised as requested. 26. Comment: Page 7 – I.B.9.iv – Orange County Erosion Control and Stormwater Management staffs are reviewing the proposed conditions under Section 2-2-2 of the narrative. General observation(s): 1. If it is your intention to make use of nutrient buy-down tools, the narrative should contain language denoting same. 2. County riparian/floodplain buffer requirements are more restrictive that State riparian standards. Language in Section 8 (a) of the narrative should be modified to indicate riparian buffers shall be maintained consistent with the provision(s) of Section 6.13 of the UDO. This change will also ensure consistency with language contained in Section 2-2-3 (1) (a) of the narrative. Response: 1. Narrative notes that the project has the option to utilize a nutrient buydown. 2. This language has been modified as requested. 27. Comment: Page 7 – I.B.10 – Section 2-2-3 General Performance Standards — Environmental: The narrative needs to contain a summary of the findings of the Environmental Assessment (Exhibit G). Specifically, an analysis of the information demonstrating compliance with applicable standards (i.e. Section 6.16.3 (B) of the UDO). This analysis is vital to documenting your rationale for arguing an Environmental Impact Statement, as detailed in Section 6.16.4 of the UDO, is not required for the Project. Response: The environmental section of the narrative has been updated with justification as requested. 28. Comment: Page 8 – I.B.11 – Staff recommends you add language indicating the 'examples' contained within the narrative are for illustrative purposes only and do not represent actual client(s) or tenants. The rationale is the listing of a specific company 269 Page 9 kimley-horn.com 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600, Raleigh, NC 27601 919 677 2000 or business could become an unnecessary focus of discussion/criticism during review of the Project. Response: Language added as requested. 29. Comment: Page 8 – I.B.12 – Section 2-3-2 Landscaping and Preservation Design: i. General: The section should provide detail on the landscape and buffer management standards for the Project, including: 1. Amount of proposed foliage within identified landscaped areas. Section 6.8.7 (F) of the UDO, the County establishes various buffer types outlining the number/species of foliage required within every 100 linear ft. of property. The narrative will need to define what level of landscaping is going to be required consistent with this standard. ii. Number 2: Language should be modified to indicate formal landscape plans shall be submitted as part of each individual site plan for review and approval consistent with approved standards for the Project. iii. Number 5: 1. Specify planting of a canopy tree within required tree islands; 2. Tree(s) should be, at a minimum, 1 '7 inch caliper at dbh at time of installation; 3. Tree planting area should be increased from 162 sq.ft. (9 ft. by 18 ft. as suggested) to a minimum of 200 sq.ft. to ensure adequate area for installation. As a reminder Section 6.8.7 (D) (2) (b) requires terminal landscape islands within parking lots to be 300 sq.ft. in area; 4. Each terminal island or ‘tree grate area’ as detailed in the narrative should contain 1 canopy tree and shrubs for coverage. Staff recommends inclusion of a typical ‘tree grate area’ design schematic showing the ‘tree grate area' design as well as the anticipated installation of proposed foliage. iv. Number 6: 1. All parking areas should have a vegetative buffer, at least 10 ft . in width, separating parking from adjacent open space, vehicular use areas, property lines, etc. For reference purposes, staff is recommending compliance with Section 6.8.7 (D) (1) of the UDO. If it is your intention to allow existing/preserved foliage to satisfy this requirement, please indicate same within the narrative and on Sheet C-6 of the master plan set; 2. Staff is not of the opinion a 5% building perimeter landscaping requirement will be sufficient and recommends continued discussion. For reference purposes, current regulations would require the following (Section 6.8.7 (C)) A minimum of a five foot landscape area must be planted around the entire foundation of non - residential structures to 270 Page 10 kimley-horn.com 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600, Raleigh, NC 27601 919 677 2000 blend the architecture into the site and to accent entrances. Vegetation of varying heights and textures shall be placed along walls and fences to soften the planes. If a landscape area around the foundation is not possible, as in the case of existing buildings and parking, landscape planters should be incorporated into the store frontage. This can be done by means of raised planters, sidewalk cutouts, or portable planters. v. Number 7: As previously indicated, the County requires landscaping to be installed/preserved to meet a specified level of intensity (i.e. minimum foliage per every 100 linear ft.). Staff requests additional review of establishing a minimum standard for the Project using the provisions of Section 6.8.6 as a guide. As part of initiating this conversation, staff requests you consider the following minimum standard: 3 canopy, 1 evergreen, 2 deciduous understory, 5 evergreen understory, and 40 shrub trees for every 100 ft. of required landscape area. Response: The binder has been modified in consideration of these requests . Regarding item 7, we are proposing a perimeter buffer where existing vegetation is cleared. In areas where vegetation is not cleared, the existing vegetation will count toward the perimeter buffer. 30. Comment: Page 9 – I.B.13 – Section 2-3-3 Signs and Lighting: i. Staff is still reviewing the master sign plan (Exhibit F) and will provide comment(s) as soon as possible. ii. If the location of outdoor lighting fixtures is known, a formal lighting plan is required to be submitted as part of the MPD-CZ application (refer to Section 6.11.5 (B) of the UDO). If not, please add language indicating same within the narrative. iii. With respect to lighting standards contained in Section 2-3-3 of the narrative, staff recommends: 1. Add language indicating all lights shall be full cut -off fixtures; 2. Provide detail on the anticipated height of all light poles; 3. Provide detail that the Project will comply with maximum permitted foot-candle limits consistent with Section 6.11.6 of the UDO (i.e. observe a light limit of 0.5 foot-candles at any adjoining residential property line and/or 1.0 foot-candles at any adjoining non-residential property line); 4. You may wish to add language to the narrative indicating all security lights shall abide by the requirements of Section 6.11.3 (J) of the UDO; 5. Add language indicating formal lighting plans shall be submitted with all site plans where outdoor lighting is proposed; 271 Page 11 kimley-horn.com 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600, Raleigh, NC 27601 919 677 2000 6. Add language that lighting for the project shall comply with applicable NC Department of Transportation requirements for roadway lighting. Response: Cutoff light fixtures will be provided, and light fixtures will not exceed 45’ in height. All roadways internal to the project are private and not subject to NCDOT requirements. 31. Comment: Page 10 – I.B.14 – Section 3-1 Internal Traffic Circulation and Parking: No initial comments other than those referenced under ‘General Comments’. Response: Noted. 32. Comment: Page 10 – I.B.15 – Section 3-2 TIA Improvement Summary: i. The TIA describes the Project as consisting of "2,251,200 sq. feet of warehouse". As there will be a myriad of other development occurring within the Project (i.e. light manufacturing, warehousing, research, medical, fulfillment servic es, etc.) staff is concerned the TIA does not adequately anticipate/define impacts. ii. According to the TIA, the Project anticipates generating 3,648 new trips per average weekday, with 320 AM peak trips and 326 PM peak trips. The AM/PM "peaks" represent only 18% of all trips. This number seems small to staff. This, combined with the anticipated mixture of land uses summarized herein, could create issues with some of the lower-performing LOS intersections (and overall greater rates of congestion in the area). iii. There does not appear to be sufficient right -of-way to allow for the development of a dedicated right-turn lane on southbound Old NC 86. The concern for staff is that this ‘right-turn lane' is the designated connection to three (listed as A, B and C within the TIA) of four total driveways to be constructed (the fourth, D, will be on Davis Rd.). iv. The three "exceptions" that do not meet LOS D or better for average intersections are all predicated on a "typical" AM and PM peak time. Staff is concerned this will, actually, be the case if the majority/entirety of the development is warehousing. v. The turn movements were calculated in October of 2016. Staff is concerned how valid this data may still be. vi. One Page 31, Table 8 of the TIA there are references to Old NC 86 at I-40 EB have an issue with maxing out the 200-feet of available storage during AM travel periods. Staff is concerned none of the recommendations contained within the TIA call for an additional lane or improvement beyond a traffic light to address this issue. vii. The overall conclusions (page 34 of Exhibit H) identify the problems that create a LOS E and LOS F for these particular intersections, but offer no solutions. As 272 Page 12 kimley-horn.com 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600, Raleigh, NC 27601 919 677 2000 2 of the three intersections in question connect to I -40, and one connects with the road containing three of the development’s four total driveways, this is a concern for staff. Response: TIA comments will be addressed globally upon receipt of direction from NCDOT. 33. Comment: Page 11 – I.B.16 – Section 5-1 Vegetated Buffers: i. Number 1: As proposed, there is a 100 ft. ‘perimeter structure buffer’ along the external western property line with allowances for parking/internal roads within 50 ft. of the western property line. Consistent with the provisions of Section 6.8.12 (C) of the UDO, staff recommends observing a 100 ft. perimeter buffer for the Project from western and southern property lines that are adjacent to residentially zoned property. Staff would agree with allowing trails and/or roadways within this area but not parking areas. ii. Number 3: Staff recommends a 30 ft. vegetative/landscape area separating the Project from both the Service and Davis Road rights- of-way. As written, the narrative references a 25 ft. 'land use buffer’ along Service Road and does not mention Davis Road. iii. Number 4: Please indicate buffers along all ‘water features’ (i.e. streams, floodplain, wetlands, etc.) shall be preserved consistent with Section 6.13 of the UDO. As an aside, required buffer is based on slope. There may be areas of the Project where a 65 ft. stream buffer may be applicable versus an 80 ft. buffer. Response: i. In order to observe the recommended stream and floodplain buffers, the perimeter buffers will remain as proposed. ii: A 30’ vegetative/landscape area separating the project from Davis Road right-of-way will be included; iii: Narrative has been updated accordingly. 34. Comment: Page 11 – I.C.1 – Master Plan Set: 1. Section 6.7.1 (B) (1) of the UDO requires a map of the development site. While the master plan map set provides the majority of required detail(s), the submittal should be modified as indicated: i. Label and identify the various ‘lines’ on the submitted map(s). Specifically: 1. Internal and external property lines; 2. Internal rights-of-way; 3. Internal district or ‘pod’ development areas; 4. Utility lines/easements. Staff recommends the use of a legend indicating what these lines represent (i.e. project boundary lines, utility easements, utility service areas, rights-of-way, etc.). ii. Sheet C-2 should display the floodplain and floodplain buffer area per Section 6.13 of the UDO; 273 Page 13 kimley-horn.com 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600, Raleigh, NC 27601 919 677 2000 iii. Sheet C-2 should display the following information: 1. Proposed floor area ratio (FAR) for the Project; 2. Proposed open space; 3. Breakdown of landscape/buffer area (i.e. acreage) for the Project; 4. Proposed setbacks (internal and external); 5. Anticipated number of parking spaces, loading berths/stalls, etc.; 6. Maximum allowable building height (in general and per each individual development ‘pod’ if there will be a difference); 7. Anticipated number of parking spaces with access to alternative energy charging stations (if proposed); 8. Number of ‘park and ride’ spaces (if proposed). Response: Site plans updated accordingly. Comment: iv. Development of Building D appears to ‘cross’ an existing property line. There needs to be some explanation of boundary/development areas on the master plan set providing an explanation of what will be included within individual development areas of the Project. Response: Property lines have been updated on this submittal. Comment: v. Sheet(s) C-2 and C-2.4 indicate there will be development activity occurring within an existing utility easement, specifically a power line easement. Staff requires documentation indicating either the power line/easement is being relocated or the utility provider will allow for the development of parking and structures within their easement. Response: A copy of the Duke Energy easement is included with this submittal. Comment: vi. Sheet C-6: Label and document all proposed and/or required Iandscape/ buffer areas for the Project including, but not limited to: 1. Perimeter buffers; 2. In-between lot/development pod landscape areas; 3. Internal landscaping (i.e. parking lot and parking lot perimeter, building, preservation of existing significant foliage, etc.); 4. Stream/floodplain buffers; 5. Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) buffers, including requested breaks consistent with Section 6.6.4 of the UDO. Response: These items have been labeled as requested. Comment: vii. Sheet C-6 needs a legend detailing what the proposed landscape/buffer areas are. 274 Page 14 kimley-horn.com 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600, Raleigh, NC 27601 919 677 2000 Further, revise the Sheet to contain the proposed planting schedule (i.e. amount of foliage for every 100 linear ft. of the Project) consistent with previous direction. Staff recommends use of a planting detail on the Sheet supporting this description and offers the following illustrative example as a guide: Note: not taken from County UDO. Graphic is for illustrative purposes only. Response: Planting detail will be added as requested to the master plans 35. Comment: Page 13 – I.1.i – Provide the following additional detail on Sheet C-2: 1. A typical public road access cross section detail for the individual development areas; 2. A typical interior roadway design standard (i.e. cross section) including drainage detail(s) and explanation of how drainage will be handled by interior road systems if at all; 3. If there is a proposed layout (i.e. creation of individual parcels allowing for development) please denote same on this map; 4. Provide language indicating if denoted stormwater control measures (SCMs) are: a. For illustrative purposes (i.e. final SCM location shall be determined with the submittal of a formal stormwater management plan in accordance with the UDO); b. Are anticipated to serve as master drainage basin areas or for specific 'pods’. Response: 1. The access road is a private road and no cross section will be provided. 2. The majority of interior roadway drainage will be handled by onsite SCMs. 3. Individual parcels have been noted in this resubmittal. 4. The SCMs are based on master drainage basins and illustrative in nature. 36. Comment: Page 13 – I.1.ii – Sheet C-4: Section 6.7.1 (B) (6) of the UDO requires a map detailing the utility master plan for the project (Sheet C-4). While the Sheet C-4 275 Page 15 kimley-horn.com 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600, Raleigh, NC 27601 919 677 2000 provides the majority of required detail(s), the submittal should be modified as indicated: 1. Denote the location of all utility lines (i.e. sewer, water, r eclaimed water, stormwater management, electrical service, cable, telephone, etc.) on the map. As part of this modification please provide a key/legend detailing: a. Existing infrastructure in place, b. What infrastructure is expected to be constructed by Orange County/Town of Hillsborough, and c. New infrastructure serving the project. As part of this requirement, staff will need detailed information on proposed line types, sizes, anticipated construction, etc. b. Denote the anticipated location of sidewalks to assist staff ascertain if there will be any conflicts with utility location. c. The map will need to be modified to include the detailed design calculations for the project indicating that the proposed utility lines are sufficient for expected development and associated/estimated density for the project. d. Include a note indicating: 'All onsite utilities shall be underground unless approved by the Board of County Commissioners’. e. Indicate connection points to various utility lines. f. Denote the location of any anticipated/planned utility infrastructure (i.e. pump stations, etc.). g. Please include the following information on Sheet C-4: a. Provide detail on anticipated fire flow for the proposed utility lines with detail on how same will support the project. As a general reminder fire flow requirements are necessary for consideration when sizing water lines. b. Provide detail on the anticipated placement of manholes and elevations same. This will include the provision of a typical manhole construction detail. c. Anticipated stub out locations. d. All existing and anticipated utility line easements. e. Provide sufficient detail outlining how the project will comply with the Town of Hillsborough water/sewer utility line construction standards. f. Additional detail on expected build-out. This information shall be essential in evaluating the ability of installed infrastructure to meet current and future needs of the project. g. Information outlining opportunities for water and sewer extension to serve adjacent parcels. NOTE: The ability to serve surrounding parcels is predicated on said parcels location within a primary service area as detailed within the Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA), the County Comprehensive Plan, and the Orange County/Town of Hillsborough Joint Planning Land Use Plan. 276 Page 16 kimley-horn.com 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600, Raleigh, NC 27601 919 677 2000 Response: A note has been added that sufficient water flow and pressure for fire flows will be provided at time of Certificate of Occupancy. All internal infrastructure will be constructed by the developer. Water and sewer extensions will be constructed via development agreement with the Town of Hillsborough. Further analysis not provided within the scope of this entitlement would be necessary to ascertain the feasibility of utility extensions to adjacent properties. 277 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Current Planning (919) 245-2575 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) www.orangecountync.gov 131 W. Margaret Lane Suite 201 P. O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 July 24, 2020 SUMMARY MEETING NOTES Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) for Research Triangle Logistics Park (RTLP) Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZ) Application Consistent with the requirement(s) of Section 2.9.2 (D) Conditional Zoning District – Neighborhood Information Meeting of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), a neighborhood information meeting (NIM) was held on Wednesday July 15, 2020 for the Research Triangle Logistics Park (RTLP) Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) District application. The applicant sent a notice of the meeting date, time, and on-line meeting registration link to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property, consistent with the requirements of the UDO. ATTENDEES: Frank Csapo (Applicant); Michael Birch (Attorney for Applicant); Chris Bostic (Kimley Horn – Site Plan/Engineering Design for Project); Matt Peach and Christa Greene (SANTEC Consulting – Traffic Engineering Firm who completed the TIA); Michael Harvey (Orange County Planning); Franklin Garland; Joan Kalmitski; Betty Garland; Jim Garland; Bill Sudyk; Jonathan Williams; Fred Tapp; Karen Vanderlinden; Joseph Shore (Adjacent Property Owners);. SUMMARY OF PROJECT: The applicant summarized the proposal as follows: A new Zoning Atlas Amendment application for 3 parcels west of Old NC Highway 86, South of Interstate 40, identified as follows: • PIN 9863-71-8857: an approximately 90 acre parcel of property zoned MPD-CZ, part of the Settlers Point project approved by the County in 2018, and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District; Attachment 6 278 • PIN 9863-91-6573: approximately 60 acres of a 80 acre parcel of property currently zoned MPD-CZ (i.e. part of the Settlers Point project approved by the County in 2018) and Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Officer (EDH-2), and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District; STAFF COMMENT: The 20 acres, north of Interstate 40, shall remain zoned EDH-2 and MTC. • PIN 9862-99-8894: an approximately 12 acre parcel of property zoned Rural Residential (R-1) and Rural Buffer (RB). STAFF COMMENT: The RB zoned portion of this property, approximately 26,000 sq.ft. in area, shall remain zoned RB. encompassing a total of 161 acres south of Interstate 40 (see map below). Application proposes a new MPD-CZ referred to as the Research Triangle Logistics Park (RTLP). STAFF COMMENT: This current request involves only 2 parcels that were part of the Settlers Point MPD-CZ approved by the County in January of 2018. The remaining 8 parcels of the Settlers Point MPD-CZ, east of Old NC Highway 86 referred to as District 2, are being rezoned by County staff. This is a separate PIN 9863-71-8857 PIN 9863-91-6573 PIN 9862-99-8894 279 action consistent with the direction/determination of the Orange County Planning Director and does not involve the RTLP MPD-CZ applicant. If approved, the Settlers Point MPD-CZ district will be eliminated. The applicant summarized development within the proposed project as follows: 1. Project involves 161 acres (7,013,160 sq.ft.) of property; 2. The project will observe a floor area ratio of 0.65 (28,314 sq.ft. of allowable building area per acre (43,560 sq.ft.) of property) consistent with County regulations. This translates to over 2,250,000 sq.ft. of anticipated building area; 3. There will be approximately 41 acres (25%) of open space; 4. A 100 ft. building, and 50 ft. parking/loading area setback, shall be observed along the western and southern property line. Existing foliage in this area (i.e. exclusive of planning parking/loading areas) shall be preserved; 5. Buildings shall observe a 6 story height limit consistent with County regulations. Accessory structures (i.e. water tower, telecommunication tower, etc.) may be higher; 6. Applicant contains a master sign plan; 7. Outdoor lighting shall abide by County regulations as it relates to allowable lighting intensities at property lines and the use of full-cut off fixtures; 8. Access to the development shall be off of Service Road and Davis Drive; 9. The project shall abide by applicable erosion control and stormwater regulations as detailed in Section(s) 6.14 and 6.15 of the County UDO; 10. Stream and floodplain buffers shall be preserved consistent with County regulations; 11. Permitted land uses shall include health technology, information sciences and engineering, advanced manufacturing, light manufacturing, scientific research and laboratories, logistics, warehousing and supply chain fulfillment land uses. The applicant also reviewed a list of prohibited land uses; 12. The applicant reviewed maps contained within the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) of the application package (Exhibit H) and discussed anticipated traffic impacts/improvements. This included discussion of improvements to the intersection of Davis Road and Old NC Highway 86. PUBLIC COMMENT(S) AND QUESTIONS: A. What is the anticipated expansion date of the utility lines to serve the project? APPLICANT: We expect to complete utility connections by the end of 2020. COUNTY STAFF: Expansion of utilities shall be consistent with Town policies. 280 B. Why is this happening? Why didn’t Settlers Point get developed? APPLICANT: The Developer did not move forward with the project. COUNTY STAFF: Properties were rezoned in 2018 to the approved MPD-CZ district (i.e. Settlers Point). Development is subject to the various conditions imposed by the County in 2018. It is my understanding the original applicant was unable to move the project forward until utilities were extended, a component of the project that was unfortunately delayed. The current applicant is seeking to modify what was originally approved back in 2018 and has indicated a willingness to take a lead in extending the necessary utilities to serve the project consistent with County and Town agreement(s). They are, however, not interested in developing 8 parcels east of Old NC Highway 86 (i.e. District 2 of Settlers Point) and chose to focus on the 3 subject parcels referenced herein as part of a new Zoning Atlas Amendment application package creating a new MPD-CZ district. It should be remembered that if this application is not approved, the Settlers Point project can still move forward consistent with the County’s approval of the MPD-CZ district in 2018. C. Why was only those property owners within 1,000 ft. notified of the NIM? COUNTY STAFF: Section(s) 2.8 and 2.9.2 of the UDO requires property owners located within 1,000 ft. of a parcel that is part of a zoning atlas amendment request to be notified of various meetings (i.e. Planning Board meeting and public hearing held by the County Commissioners). These notices, sent via first class mail, are required to be sent more than 10 days, but less than 25 days, from scheduled meetings. Orange County also requires applicant’s seeking a Conditional Zoning designation to schedule and hold a neighborhood information meeting (NIM) where the project can be reviewed by those property owners within 1,000 ft. These notices are also sent first-class mail. As an aside, Orange County’s notification requirement(s) exceeds those required under State law. Under applicable State regulations, local governments are typically only required to notify either adjacent property owners (i.e. directly sharing a property line with the subject parcel being rezoned), or within 100 ft. of a for certain development projects. The County voluntarily chose to exceed that standard and require a 1,000 ft. notice. Further, a NIM is an Orange County requirement and is not required under State law. D. We consider the ‘neighborhood’ to be more than just those parcels within 1,000 ft. of the subject parcels. Why weren’t more people notified? COUNTY STAFF: The use of the term ‘neighborhood’ does not identify a specific geographic area as it relates to which property owners are notified 281 of the submittal/review of an application. It is merely a descriptive term used for in the title of a meeting where individual property owners within a specified distance (i.e. 1,000 ft.) are notified of a meeting. While some may consider a ‘neighborhood’ to be more expansive, the notification requirement typically required by the County for development projects (i.e. Special Use Permits, government offices, etc.) and Conditional Zoning atlas applications is 1,000 ft. E. Davis Road is a rural county roadway. What steps are going to be taken to preserve our safety from additional traffic? APPLICANT: We expect very minimal traffic on Davis Road given the access to I-40 and Hwy 86. COUNTY STAFF: Staff is reviewing the Transportation Impact Analysis, submitted as part of the application package, with staff from the NC Department of Transportation. F. Why is Davis Road being utilized as an access point for this project? APPLICANT: The Davis Road connection offers another point of access for the project. COUNTY STAFF: Existing traffic impact studies indicate Service Road (i.e. the NC Department of Transportation maintained roadway south of Interstate 40) will not be sufficient to handle to address internal and external access management needs for this project. A secondary driveway access will be required to serve this project. The applicant has elected to have this required secondary access point off of Davis Road. As a reminder, the applicant for the previously approved Settlers Point MPD-CZ was also required to secure a second access point. At that time, the Settlers Point applicant was looking to secure a new access drive off of Old NC Highway 86. G. What improvements are proposed for Davis Road? COUNTY STAFF: It is anticipated there will be a signal installed at the intersection of Davis Road and Old NC Highway 86 if this project is developed as proposed. H. Why weren’t notices of the NIM sent through Certified Mail? COUNTY STAFF: Section 2.9.2 (D) of the UDO does not require notices be sent via certified mail. They are required to be sent via first class mail. I. This application should not be reviewed until there can be physical meetings allowing for more public participation and discussion. There are people in the area who either have poor internet access and cannot participate, or are not computer savvy enough to ensure they are able to have their voices heard. COUNTY STAFF: The on-line meeting format is being conducted consistent with adopted State rules allowing local governments to process development proposals/applications. 282 While staff understands there are concerns over adjacent property owners being able to participate in the discussion of this project, the County is following established protocols. To that end, additional opportunities are available multiple allowing individuals to participate the pending Planning Board meeting and BOCC public hearing. This includes provision of a call-in numbers so property owners with limited/no internet access can participate in the discussion. J. How many stories are permitted within the 60’ height allowance? COUNTY STAFF: A 60 ft. building height allowance will typically result in 5 separate floors. K. Are uses going to generate significant noise? COUNTY STAFF: At this time there is no indication of the noise level that could be generated by individual land uses. The County does have, and enforces, noise regulations. Development of, and those uses permitted to operate within, this project will have to abide by applicable standards. L. How many property owners were notified? APPLICANT: 68 property owners were notified of the neighborhood meeting. Those property owners, who own multiple properties, were sent a single notice. M. What is the expected construction timeline? APPLICANT: If the project is approved, we expect to begin work in the spring of 2021. N. Has the Applicant performed an environmental study? APPLICANT: Yes, as part of the application process, we complement an environmental assessment application package that is being reviewed by Orange County. Please note these are new studies, and not repurposed from the Settlers Point rezoning. O. Are trees included in the landscaped buffer? APPLICANT: Yes. Orange County requires a vegetative buffer along the perimeter of the project. P. Some property owners expressed concerns about trespassers fishing in their pond. APPLICANT: Given the nature of the development, (i.e. people will be on the property to work), we do not foresee employees trespassing onto the neighbor’s property to fish. 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE MAP AMENDMENT WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN An 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 the 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: • 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 8 311 water and sewer, high-speed internet access, streets, and sidewalks), while avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural resources. This could be achieved by increasing allowable densities and creating new mixed-use zoning districts where adequate public services are available. (See also Economic Development Objectives ED-2.1, ED-2.3, ED-2.10, and Water and Wastewater Objective WW-2.) The atlas amendment is consistent with this goal and objective 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 County while continuing to protect adjacent and nearby land uses. The atlas amendment involves the approval of a master plan establishing a detailed list of allowable non-residential land uses to aid in the marketing on an area designated within the Comprehensive Plan as being suitable for high intensity non- residential development. 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 312 July 27, 2020 – INITIAL DRAFT CONDITIONS FOR THE RESEARCH TRIANGLE LOGISTICS PARK (RTLP) MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL ZONING (MPD-CZ) DISTRICT I. GENERAL: a. Approval of the Project does not constitute an explicit guarantee for utility services (i.e. water and sewer) by the Town of Hillsborough. Provision of services shall be consistent with applicable Town utility connection policies and the utility agreement between the Town and Orange County; b. The Project shall be composed of 3 individual properties totaling 162 acres of land area: i. PIN 9863-71-8857: An approximately 90 acre parcel currently zoned MPD-CZ (Settlers Point) and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District; NOTE: MTC Overlay district boundaries not impacted by this approval. ii. PIN 9863-91-6573: An 80 acre parcel currently zoned: 1. Approximately 60 acres (south of Interstate 40) zoned MPD- CZ (Settlers Point); 2. Approximately 20 acres (north of Interstate 40) zoned Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Officer (EDH- 2). 3. Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. NOTE: MTC Overlay district boundaries not impacted by this approval. EDH-2 zoned portion of property, north of Interstate 40, is not impacted by this approval and will remain zoned EDH-2. iii. PIN 9862-99-8894: An approximately 12 acre parcel currently split zoned Rural Residential (R-1) and Rural Buffer (RB). NOTE: The RB zoned portion of property, along Davis Road, is not impacted by this approval and will remain zoned RB. This area shall remain either in undisturbed open space, used to support required utility improvements consistent with Town of Hillsborough or County requirements, or to support external roadway improvement(s) consistent with County and NC Department of Transportation requirement(s). Attachment 9 313 c. The Zoning Atlas for Orange County shall be designated MPD-CZ. Development shall be in accordance with the approved application packet, master concept plan, and the conditions detailed herein. II. ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION: a. Internal roadways shall be developed in accordance with Section 6.10 (A) of the UDO. Internal streets shall be privately maintained; b. All internal and external roadway construction/improvements shall be completed or appropriately bonded prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance (C of C) allowing the occupancy of a structure triggering completion of same; c. External roadway improvements shall be constructed in accordance with NC Department of Transportation requirements and guidelines, approved Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), and the standards outlined herein; d. The right-of-way for Service Road shall be extended to the western edge of the PIN 9863-71-8857 to serve as a future access point for adjacent land area to the west; e. Final roadway layout, including pavement widths and driveways, shall be approved by the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County Fire Marshal’s office as part of the final site plan review process; f. Commercial/truck traffic exiting the Project onto Davis Road shall be limited to turning left. No right turns of commercial vehicles shall be permitted onto Davis Road; STAFF COMMENT: Staff has started to hear concerns from local residents over traffic accessing Davis Road. This condition was suggested as a means to channeling commercial truck/large vehicle traffic away from existing residential areas west of the Project. Having said that both the applicant and staff have wondered how such a condition could be enforced. g. Site plan submittals shall be required to demonstrate internal/external traffic improvements necessary to address development impacts consistent with the submitted Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA); h. Additional right-of-way necessary to support roadway improvements shall be secured in accordance with North Carolina Department of Transportation right-of-way acquisition processes. The right-of-way shall be secured prior to the County accepting a site plan application proposing development requiring same; i. Any and all internal streets, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, etc. shall be designated for public access/use; 314 j. When required, driveway permit(s) shall be issued by the North Carolina Department of Transportation prior to the commencement of any earth disturbing activity; k. Orange County and North Carolina Department of Transportation shall approve the location of all proposed utility poles housing street signals, both internal and external to the Project, prior to installation; l. Segregated entrances and exists for pedestrian, construction vehicle, and non-construction vehicular traffic shall be developed to avoid conflict during construction activities; m. Bus pullouts and transit shelters shall be constructed to serve the Project consistent with transit plans adopted by Orange County and shall be developed in accordance with the following: i. Each transit stop shall be a covered and enclosed on 3 sides to shield users from the elements, ii. Kiosks shall be developed to provide transit information, including schedule and route information, and shall be illuminated to five (5) average maintained foot-candles. NOTE: as of July 27, 2020, staff had not received comments on the TIA from the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Receipt of these comment(s) may impact proposed conditions. III. DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS: a. The Project shall observe a building square footage limit of 2,400,000 sq.ft.. STAFF COMMENT: Staff is basing this recommendation on the figure utilized in the development of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), Attachment H of the application, outlining internal/external traffic improvement(s) necessary to support the Project. Traffic improvement(s) for the project were based on an anticipated square footage limit of approximately 2,400,000 sq.ft. The applicant’s revised narrative for the project, dated July 15, 2020, requested a floor area ratio (FAR) limit of 0.65 or 4,586,868 sq.ft. of allowable building square footage area for the Project. To approve this request, the TIA will have to be revised/updated. b. Height: i. Principal structures shall abide by a height limit of 60 ft.; ii. Accessory Structures: 1. Water tower STAFF COMMENT: The narrative makes references to ‘accessory structures’ exceeding the 60 ft. height limit. 315 At this time there is no specific explanation of the anticipated accessory structures that will exceed 60 ft. in height or what the ultimate height limit for said structures will be. The applicant will need to specify an overall height limit for those specific land uses, which shall then be incorporated into the conditions of approval. c. Setbacks: i. Structures shall observe: 1. 100 ft. setback from property lines abutting residentially zoned property and the Davis Road right-of-way; 2. 50 ft. setback from property lines abutting non-residentially zoned property and the Service Road right-of-way. STAFF COMMENT: Staff had recommended a 100 ft. setback from all external property lines abutting residentially zoned property, as well as the right-of- way of Davis Road, for structures and vehicular use areas. ii. Vehicular use areas shall observe: 1. 50 ft. setback from property lines abutting residentially zoned property and the Davis Road right-of-way; 2. 25 ft. setback from property lines abutting non-residentially zoned property and the Service Road right-of-way. STAFF COMMENT: Staff had recommended a 30 ft. setback for vehicular areas be observed from Service Road. This was consistent with a recommendation for a 30 ft. land use buffer along the roadway as well. d. Open Space: 41 acres (25%) of land within the Project shall be preserved as open space area. STAFF COMMENT: Staff had recommended an open space requirement of 49 acres or 30% for the Project. IV. SITE PLAN: a. All site plans proposing development within the Project shall be reviewed by Town of Hillsborough staff as part of existing courtesy review agreements; b. All site plans shall provide detail denoting the anticipated daily water and sewer needs for proposed land use(s); 316 c. Prior to the approval of a site plan allowing development within the Project, the County will need documentation from the Town of Hillsborough indicating there is sufficient water and sewer capacity to serve the project. A lack of water and/or sewer capacity for a proposed use shall result in the denial of the site plan; d. The Orange County and Town of Hillsborough Fire Marshal(s), in consultation with the Town of Hillsborough Utility Director, shall review and approve location(s) of proposed water and sewer lines prior to the initiation of land disturbing activity; e. The Orange County and Town of Hillsborough Fire Marshal(s) shall review and offer comment on: i. Road layout and construction methodology, ii. Location of fire lanes, iii. Location of fire hydrants, and iv. Location of the proposed stand-pipe(s). as part of all site plan review. f. Each site plan shall be required to demonstrate compliance with Section 6.16 Environmental Assessment of the UDO. In those cases where development exceeds established thresholds, a formal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) may be required allowing for site plan approval; g. In addition to the standards detailed in Section 2.5 of the UDO, all landscaping plans shall include information denoting the proposed method of care (i.e. underground sprinklers, maintenance personnel, etc.) for the development. h. Identified conflicts associated with landscaping shall be resolved prior to the approval of the site plan for a given project. Required plantings shall not be reduced to accommodate a conflict with utilities or roadway issues; i. For all site plans submitted for the Project the Orange Rural Volunteer Fire Department shall be considered a member of the County Development Advisory Committee (DAC) as outlined in Section 1.9 of the UDO. V. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: a. The Project shall comply with Section(s) 6.4.2 through 6.4.7 of the UDO inclusive; b. Solid Waste Management: The following specific standards shall apply: 317 i. External space for collection of solid waste and recyclable materials. Materials collected shall be consistent with the County’s Solid Waste Management ordinance. ii. Waste collection areas shall be located in such a manner as to provide convenient access for users of the facility and safe passage for service vehicles. iii. The following additional notes shall be provided on any submitted site plan: 1. Gate design will include gate retainers. 2. If any vehicles are parked in the refuse or recyclables collection vehicle access area, the containers will not receive service until the next scheduled collection day. STAFF COMMENT: Staff recommends vehicles not be pared in areas blocking/prohibiting access to waste receptacles. 3. Orange County will not be responsible for any pavement damage that may result from service vehicles. 4. Consistent with County regulations, clean wood waste, scrap metal and corrugated cardboard, all present in construction waste, must be recycled. 5. Consistent with County regulations, all haulers of construction waste must be properly licensed. STAFF COMMENT: Number(s) 4 and 5 may not be necessary if the ‘Project’ is required to comply with the County Solid Waste Management ordinance as indicated herein. 6. In cases where waste collection areas are located across property lines or district lines for shared areas, the developer shall prepare and record a joint access agreement (and a shared dumpster agreement) to assure that (both parties may use) the proposed trash/recycling area and that it can be serviced across property lines. 7. The developer shall reserve space within all solid waste collection areas for segregated grease rendering/recycling collection facilities and shall provide space for segregated food waste collection near the delivery entrance for any building that houses, proposes to include, or may at some future date incorporate a restaurant, cafeteria, bar, or other food service facility at any time. 318 8. All solid waste containers, dumpsters, recycling bins, etc. shall be located within an enclosure, buffered in accordance with the standards contained herein, and meeting the following criteria: a. Loading areas shall be designed and situated not to negatively affect adjacent properties. b. Solid waste enclosures shall be so located as to not impact internal traffic flow, c. Loading zones shall not be located within areas designated as housing for solid waste facilities. c. Architectural Design: The following specific standards shall apply: i. Finished building materials shall be applied to all sides of a building; ii. Exterior wall materials shall include, but not be limited to: 1. Stucco, 2. Concrete, 3. Textured concrete, 4. Wood, 5. Glass, 6. Steel, 7. Brick, 8. Stone, and 9. Masonry. iii. Prohibited design elements include: 1. Highly reflective surfaces, 2. Exposed, untreated precision block walls; 3. Barbed wire; 4. “Stuck on” mansard roofs; 5. Materials with high maintenance such as stained wood shingles. iv. Building colors shall strive to be harmonious and compatible with the natural surroundings and the general overall palette shall be earth tones; provided however, it is recognized that buildings often integrate corporate identity and nothing herein shall prevent the ability to utilize corporate identity colors. 319 STAFF COMMENT: It is unclear how this condition will be enforced. v. Single, dominant, monolithic building mass is not acceptable. Visual breaks shall be used to provide ‘visual relief’ for long building facades. Acceptable techniques to provide visual breaks include, but are not limited to: 1. Changes in height and the horizontal plane, 2. Changes in Materials, 3. Changes in Textures, 4. Changes in Color, 5. Reveals and/or Jogs, 6. Utilization of other architectural enhancements. STAFF COMMENT: It is unclear how this condition will be enforced. There is no definitive, proposed, method of determining when visual relief will be required. vi. Primary building entries shall be readily identifiable and well defined through the use of projections, recesses, columns, roof structures, or other design elements. vii. Expansions to an existing buildings shall provide for continuity between the existing building and the proposed addition. The addition need not strictly match the existing building, but shall include prominent design elements of the old building to provide architectural compatibility between old and new. STAFF COMMENT: It is unclear how this condition will be enforced. Staff is concerned over the lack of measurable standard. d. Landscaping/Buffering: i. All required landscaping shall be installed and maintained by the developer or their successor in perpetuity; ii. Existing vegetation shall be preserved in identified buffer areas as indicated on the approved master concept plan. In those instances where foliage is disturbed or non-existent, landscaping shall be installed consistent with the following schematic: 320 STAFF COMMENT: Staff recommends the minimum linear foot of planting be reduced to 100 ft. (i.e. the number of trees for every 100 ft. of required buffer area versus 150 ft. as proposed by the applicant) consistent with Section 6.8.6 (F) of the UDO. STAFF COMMENT: Staff has recommended a 100 ft. perimeter buffer be observed for portions of the Project abutting residentially zoned property and Davis Road. The applicant has expressed concern over this suggestion, but indicated a willingness to discuss options. Part of this discussion includes a request to modify required stream/floodplain buffer requirements (discussed below). iii. Interior landscaping shall be consistent with the following: 1. Parking lot: a. A ten-foot vegetated buffer shall be provided between vehicular use areas and internal access roads. STAFF COMMENT: It is recommended there be additional language specifying the type of foliage required (i.e. shrubs, flowering plants, etc.) b. Shade trees shall be provided at a ratio of one (1), one and one half-inch (1.5”) minimum caliper tree for every ten (10) car parking spaces; Caliper size is measured at the time of planting. 321 c. All site plans shall demonstrate a minimum of sixty percent (60%) of passenger parking spaces are within seventy-five (75) feet of the center of a shade tree. If not, additional landscaping shall be required. STAFF COMMENT: Staff had recommended the Project comply with the provisions of 6.8.7 (D) (2) indicating that under no circumstances may any parking space be located more than 60 ft. from the trunk of a canopy tree. d. The minimum tree planting area shall be 200 square feet except where tree grates are provided. e. Where trees are planted within tree grates, and surface paving encroaches into the planting area, then the minimum planting area shall be sixteen (16) square feet in area by two (2) feet in depth. f. Screening of parking areas along the perimeter boundary of the project shall maintain a minimum tree spacing of sixty (60) feet. 2. Building foundation: a. Twenty percent (20%) of a building’s perimeter shall be landscaped while maintaining the necessary sidewalk area. b. These areas may consist of lawn, planters, or shrub areas so long as the shrub areas, that have to be twenty-four inches (24”) minimum in width, comprise a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the total linear dimension along the building’s perimeter 3. With respect to internal street landscaping, there shall be one (1) tree at a one-inch (1”) caliper provided every one hundred (100) feet; 4. All ground level HVAC, mechanical equipment cabinets, solid waste containers, dumpsters, recycling bins, etc. shall be screened from view through the use of landscaping, walls, and or fencing in accordance with Section 6.8.9 of the UDO. iv. The Project shall comply with the provisions of Section 6.6.4 of the UDO related to preservation of required buffers within the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) overlay district. This includes the ability to create visual breaks in the buffer in accordance with Section 6.6.4 (A) (5). 322 e. Parking: i. Parking lot design and layout shall be in accordance with Section 6.9 of the UDO; ii. 1 space shall be required for every 750 sq.ft. of office space; iii. 1 space per 3,000 sq.ft. of additional indoor area (exclusive of office area). STAFF COMMENT: The proposed standard does not address all anticipated land uses for the Project. Staff has recommended the applicant comply with the provisions of Section 6.9.7 of the UDO, specifically: • General Office and Service Uses: 1 space for every 300 sq.ft. of gross floor area. • Medical Office: 1 space for every 300 sq.ft. of gross floor area. • Manufacturing: 1 space per employee on the shift of maximum employment. • Retail: 1 space for every 300 sq.ft. of 300 sq.ft. of gross floor area. • Wholesale Trade: 1 space per employee on maximum shift plus 12 spaces. • Research: 1 space per employee. • Distribution/Fulfillment Operations: 1 space per employee on the shift of maximum employment. Ultimately, required parking standards needs to reflect allowable land uses within the project (i.e. there needs to be a parking standard addressing all anticipated land uses to be developed within the Project). f. Signage: (review of the applicant’s proposal is still on-going) g. Lighting: i. Lighting plans shall be prepared in accordance with Section 6.11 of the UDO; ii. All lighting shall be full-cut off fixtures; iii. Lighting in parking areas shall observe a height limit of 45 ft.; iv. All lighting shall comply with maximum foot-candle limits at property lines as noted in Section 6.11.6.A of the UDO; 323 v. Lighting within the Project shall abide by the standards detailed in Section 6.11.8 of the UDO. h. Stream Buffers: The Project shall comply with the provisions of Section 6.13 of the UDO. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant had inquired about reducing required stream/floodplain buffers to a minimum standard of 50 ft.. This was suggested as a way of allowing for a perimeter buffer of 100 ft. as requested by staff. At this time, staff has not made a determination on this request but believes it warrants discussion. i. Stormwater regulations: The Project shall comply with the provisions of Section 6.14 of the UDO. j. Erosion Control regulations. The Project shall comply with the provisions of Section 6.15 of the UDO k. Flood regulations: The Project shall comply with the provisions of Section 6.21 of the UDO. VI. PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED LAND USES: STAFF COMMENT: There is no concern over the proposed land uses, most of which would be permitted under the County’s general use zoning designation for the property (i.e. EDH-4 or EDH-5). Staff has expressed reservations with respect to the format of how permitted/prohibited land uses are listed. a. Manufacturing: Land uses category associated with assembly, repair or servicing of industrial, business, or consumer machinery, equipment, products, or by-products mainly by providing centralized services for separate retail outlets. Contractors and building maintenance services and similar uses perform services off-site. Permitted uses, by way of example and not limitation, include the following: i. Bottling. ii. Brewery, winery, distillery, cidery with tasting/sampling facilities and associated retail sales. iii. Bus or rail transit vehicle maintenance or storage facility. iv. Contractors storage including janitorial and building maintenance service, exterminator, or other maintenance yard or facility, building, heating, plumbing, landscaping or electrical contractor and others who perform services off-site, but store equipment and materials or perform fabrication or similar work on-site. v. Food and beverage products. vi. Lawn, tree or garden service. 324 vii. Laundry, dry-cleaning, and carpet cleaning plants. viii. Leather and leather products except tanning. ix. Sheet metal, welding, machine, tool repair shop or studio. x. Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products. xi. Woodworking, including cabinet makers and furniture manufacturing. xii. Fabricated metal products and machinery. xiii. Industrial sign-making. xiv. Leather and leather products includes tanning and finishing. STAFF COMMENT: This allowance appears inconsistent with the use described in viii. above. xv. Manufactured or modular housing sales. xvi. Primary metal manufacturing. b. Light Manufacturing: Land use category associated with facilities conducting light manufacturing operations within a fully-enclosed building. Permitted uses include by way of example and no limitation, the following: i. Clothing, textile apparel manufacturing. ii. Facilities engaged in the assembly, design, repair or testing of: analyzing or scientific measuring instruments; semiconductor and related solid state devices, including but not limited to clocks, integrated microcircuits; jewelry, medical, musical instruments, photographic or optical instruments; and timing instruments. iii. Office showroom/warehouse. iv. Printing, publishing, and lithography. v. Production of artwork and toys, graphic design sign-making, movie production facility, photofinishing laboratory. vi. Repair of scientific or professional instruments and electric motors. c. Research and Development: Land use category associated with facilities focused primarily on the research and development of new products. This includes associated manufacturing operation(s) for said products. Permitted uses include by way of example and not limitation the following: i. Laboratories, offices and other facilities used for research and development by or for any individual, organization or concern, whether public or private. ii. Prototype production facilities that manufacture a limited amount of a product in order to fully investigate the merits of such a product. 325 iii. Pilot plants used to test manufacturing processes planned for use in production elsewhere. d. Warehousing/Storage: Land use category associated with facilities providing separate storage areas for personal or business use designed to allow private access by the tenant for storing or removing personal property. Permitted uses include by way of example and not limitation the following: i. Warehouse, self-service. ii. Fully enclosed indoor multi-story storage. iii. Mini-warehouse. e. Warehousing/Distribution Services: Land use category associated with facilities involved in the storage or movement of goods for themselves or other firms. Goods are generally delivered to other firms or the final consumer with little on-site sales activity to customers. Permitted uses include by way of example and not limitation the following: i. Bulk storage, including nonflammable liquids, cold storage plants, including frozen food lockers, household moving and general freight storage, separate warehouse used by retail store such as furniture or appliance store. ii. Commercial packing for fruits and vegetables. iii. Distribution facility, central postal facility. iv. Freight, service facility. v. Parcel services. vi. Transfer and storage business where there are no individual storage areas or where employees or automation are the primary movers of the goods to be stored or transferred. vii. Trailer storage, drop off lot. viii. Truck or motor freight terminal, cross-docking or service facility. ix. Trucking operation. x. Warehouse. f. Wholesale Trade: Land use category associated with facilities involved in the sale, lease, or rent of products to industrial, institutional or commercial businesses. The use emphasizes on-site sales or order-taking and often includes display areas. Businesses may or may not be open to the general public. Products may be picked up on-site or delivered to the customer. Permitted uses include by way of example and not limitation the following: i. Mail-order house. 326 ii. Sale or rental of machinery, equipment, heavy equipment, building materials, special trade tools, welding supplies, machine parts, electrical supplies, plumbing supplies, janitorial supplies, restaurant equipment and store fixtures. iii. Wholesale sales of food, clothing, auto parts, building hardware and similar products. g. Other Facilities: including by way of example and not limitation, the following: i. Customary Accessory Uses to Principal land uses developed on- site ii. Government Facilities and Office Buildings iii. Government Protective Services iv. Bus Passenger Shelter, v. Surface and structure parking as principal use vi. Mail kiosks for central mail pick-up, vii. Elevated Water Storage Tanks. viii. Public open space for use of on-site businesses, employees of same, and customers rather than the general public. ix. Natural and man-made pedestrian/bicycle paths h. Prohibited Land Uses: The following land use categories and/or specific land uses are expressly prohibited from developing within the Project: i. Animal Slaughtering and Processing; ii. Vegetable Fats/Oil Manufacturing and Processing; iii. Concrete Batching Plant; iv. Leather and Hide Tanning; STAFF COMMENT: Staff agrees the use should be prohibited. Having said that there is language in the proposed allowable uses indicating such operation(s) would be permitted. The applicant will need to clarify. v. Petroleum and Coal Processing, Preparation, and Distribution including but not limited to Asphalt Plants; vi. Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills; vii. Sawmills; viii. Uranium Mining; STAFF COMMENT: Staff suggests ‘Mining’ in general be prohibited. As written, it could be argued non-uranium mining operations would be allowed. 327 ix. Landfills; x. Body alteration (i.e. tattoo artist, body piercing, etc.); xi. Cemetery; xii. Crematoria; xiii. Funeral Home; xiv. Pawnshop/Payday Loan. xv. Junk/Salvage yard; xvi. Massage Business; xvii. Sexually Oriented Business; VII. UTILITIES: a. Development within the Project shall be served by public water and sewer services as provided and maintained by the Town of Hillsborough; additional and/or alternative water and/or wastewater systems shall not be permitted. b. A written, signed agreement between a developer, Orange County, and the Town of Hillsborough shall be executed describing the timing, phasing, design, and financing of public water distribution and public sanitary sewer collection mains; c. Water systems and water pressure shall comply with all applicable Town of Hillsborough utility standards, building, and fire codes based on the proposed land use; d. Sizing/looping of utility lines shall be based on the proposed development, including water flow test data and shall be reviewed and approved by County staff, Town of Hillsborough Planning Director, and the Town of Hillsborough Utility Director; e. Fire-flow test(s) of all installed hydrants shall be conducted, in coordination with the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County Emergency Services, to ensure compliance with applicable State Fire Code standards. 328