Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board - 110420 Agenda PacketORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 AGENDA ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD Wednesday, November 4, 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 members of the public can view and participate in the meeting by following the instructions at the end of the agenda. (Please note that pre-registration no later than 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting is required to speak at the meeting). No. Page(s) Agenda Item 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. 5 – 6 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. Planning Calendar for November and December 3. 7 – 14 APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 7, 2020 Regular Meeting Minutes 4. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 5. PUBLIC CHARGE Introduction to the Public Charge The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and future needs of its residents and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. Public Charge The Planning Board pledges its respect to all present. The Board asks those attending this meeting to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner toward each other, County staff, and Board members. At any time should a member of the Board or the public fail to 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. No. Page(s) Agenda Item 6. CHAIR COMMENTS 7. 15 – 188 ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT (MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – EFLAND STATION ) - 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 104 acres located north of Interstate 85/40, west of Mt. Willing Road, within Cheeks Township. The two parcels comprising the proposed project are currently zoned Office/Research and Manufacturing (O/RM) with three different overlay districts (overlay districts are to remain unchanged). This item is scheduled for BOCC public hearing on December 15, 2020. Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 8. ADJOURNMENT Public Comments / Participation There are two methods for public comment: • Written submittals by email or drop-off • Speaking during the virtual meeting Written Public Comments Members of the public are encouraged to provide written public comments by emailing comments to planningboard@orangecountync.gov no later than 3:00 p.m. on the afternoon of the meeting. Please include in the Subject line of the email the title of the agenda item your comment pertains to. Emails sent to this address are viewable on Google Groups: https://groups.google.com/g/ocplanningboard Written comments can also be dropped off at the Planning Department’s offices at 131 W. Margaret Lane, 2nd floor, Hillsborough, NC during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday). If a staff member is not available, please leave your comments in the drop-off box near the front counter. Written comments will be scanned and sent by staff to the email address indicated above. Verbal Public Comments Members of the public must contact Planning Department staff via email at ocpbpubliccomment@orangecountync.gov no later than 3:00 p.m. on the afternoon of the meeting and indicate they wish to speak during the meeting. When submitting the request to speak, please include the following: • The date of the meeting • The title of the agenda item you wish to speak on • Your name, address, email and phone number o The phone number must be the number you will call in from if participating by phone During the meeting, speakers will be called upon in the order in which requests to speak were received. Each speaker may speak once per agenda item and has 3 minutes to address the board. Ceding time to another speaker is not permitted. In the event a meeting is continued to a future date due to the length of public comments, the date for the continued meeting will be announced before the meeting adjourns. No additional requests to speak will be taken for the continued meeting, only the speakers who signed up to speak at the original meeting and were not called upon will be able to speak at the continued meeting. Written comments continue to be encouraged and can be sent to the email address indicated in the “Written Public Comments” instructions above. Zoom Meeting Registration Both members of the public who wish to speak at the meeting and those who wish to only view the meeting must register to receive a link to the meeting. Persons wishing to speak must register with the same name provided in the email that notified staff you wish to speak. The link to sign up for the meeting is: https://orangecountync.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_50oV-0RvTA2B75gVpCT4JQ If you do not have internet access, you may participate in the meeting via phone. Please call (919) 245-2575 during regular business hours to receive information on the number to call-in to, the meeting ID, and a password. Review Process The Planning Board is an appointed volunteer advisory board which makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners (the elected officials). The Board of County Commissioners holds a formal public hearing and makes decisions. Section 2.8 of the County’s Unified Development Ordinance contains a flowchart depicting the entire review process for rezoning and text amendment applications. November 2020 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ELECTION DAY Planning Board 7:00 pm* Virtual Meeting BOCC Business Meeting Virtual Meeting 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 BOCC Work Session Virtual Meeting 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 BOCC Business Meeting Virtual Meeting 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HOLIDAY OFFICES CLOSED HOLIDAY OFFICES CLOSED 29 30 Notes: * Planning Board Member Attendance Required Virtual Meeting 5 December 2020 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 Planning Board 7 p.m. Virtual Meeting 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 BOCC Business Meeting Virtual Meeting 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 BOCC Business Meeting Virtual Meeting 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Holiday Offices Closed Holiday Offices Closed 27 28 29 30 31 Holiday Offices Closed Notes: * Planning Board Member Virtual Attendance Required 6 D R A F T MEETING MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 OCTOBER 7, 2020 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 (Due to current public health concerns, this meeting was held virtually. 5 Members of the Planning Board, staff and public participated remotely) 6 7 MEMBERS PRESENT: David Blankfard (Chair), Hillsborough Township Representative; Adam Beeman (Vice-Chair), Cedar 8 Grove Township Representative; Kim Piracci, Eno Township Representative; Susan Hunter, Chapel Hill Township 9 Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Randy Marshall, At-Large Representative; Hunter 10 Spitzer, At-Large Representative; Alexandra Allman, At-Large Representative; Melissa Poole, Little River Township 11 Representative; Carrie Fletcher, Bingham Township Representative; Gio Mollinedo, At-Large Representative; 12 13 MEMBERS ABSENT: Vacant, At-Large Representative 14 15 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Tina Love, 16 Administrative Support 17 18 OTHERS PRESENT: Eric Woods; Jon Lorusso; 19 20 21 Perdita reviewed the technical processes and rules for the virtual meeting 22 23 24 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 25 Chair David Blankfard called the meeting to order. 26 27 28 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATION ITEMS 29 a. Planning Calendar for October and November 30 31 32 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 33 July 29, 2020 Training Notes 34 September 2, 2020 Regular Meeting Minutes 35 September 2, 2020 ORC/Training Notes 36 37 MOTION by Randy Marshall to approved the July 29, 2020 Training Notes, September 2, 2020 Regular Meeting Minutes 38 and September 2, 2020 ORC/Training Notes. Seconded by Adam Beeman. 39 40 ROLLCALL VOTE: 41 Kim Piracci: Yes 42 Susan Hunter: Yes 43 Patricia Roberts: Yes 44 Adam Beeman: Yes 45 Randy Marshall: Yes 46 Hunter Spitzer: Yes 47 Melissa Poole: Yes 48 Alexandra Allman Yes 49 David Blankfard: Yes 50 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 51 52 53 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA. 54 55 Randy Marshall: It’s not really an addition but I would like to know the status of the RTLP at this point in time. 56 7 D R A F T 57 Craig Benedict: I’ll give you a briefing on that after the topic of the night. 58 59 60 Gio Mollinedo arrived 61 62 63 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 64 65 INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC CHARGE 66 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, appoints 67 the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development law of the County. 68 The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. 69 OCPB shall do so in a manner, which considers the present and future needs of its citizens and 70 businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, 71 and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive 72 governance and quality public services during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 73 74 PUBLIC CHARGE 75 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to 76 conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At 77 any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will 78 ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should 79 decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment 80 to this public charge is observed. 81 82 83 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 84 85 86 AGENDA ITEM 7: PLANNING BOARD PROCEDURAL ISSUES – To discuss issues raised by Planning Board members during the 87 training session on September 2. Specifically, the ideas of concluding Planning Board meeting by a 88 certain time and placing limits on the amount of time spent on repetitive public comments were raised. 89 Presenter: Perdita Holtz 90 91 Perdita Holtz: At the September 2nd meeting there was some discussion about the length of the meetings the Planning 92 Board has been experiencing and also the length of public comments. We brought this back for the Planning Board to 93 discuss tonight. If they want to suggest any modifications to the way things operate, I did consult with County’s legal staff 94 regarding these issues and on your abstract you can see there are 3 bullets on length of meetings and options on what 95 you could consider. Also, for public comment, there is some information there and 2 potential options you might want to 96 consider depending on the outcome of your discussion tonight. The recommendation is that you receive the information in 97 the abstract and discuss those topics and if necessary, provide direction to the staff on any next steps. 98 99 Kim Piracci: To me it makes the most sense to either limit the meeting length at the beginning of the meeting or once it 100 gets late someone can make a motion to end the meeting. It seems if we change the rules to make it official to never go 101 beyond a certain time, it seems rigid to me. It wouldn’t include alternatives. If we say we always end at 10 p.m. but we’re 102 almost done… I think it’s fine the way it is as long as we all know that ending the meeting and having it go on is an 103 alternative. 104 105 David Blankfard: I got hung up that at the continued the meeting, we allowed the same people to speak that had spoken 106 at the 1st meeting. I think that needs to be limited to only those who didn’t, I think it’s very important for the public to voice 107 concerns on any topic but you only get to say it once. 108 109 Adam Beeman: And we did the 1st agenda item that had nothing to do with the public comments being heard and then it 110 went on and on about stuff that had nothing to do with the agenda item before them. We should have voted on that item 111 and then moved on the item they really wanted to address. Based on all the comments the public feels like there is no 112 8 D R A F T transparency so I don’t want to take away their opportunity to have the chance to comment to us and or the BOCC so I 113 don’t want to remove the comment period, I just think if we can put it into time limits and focused on what we’re dealing 114 with and not just commenting on things at aren’t pertinent to the agenda item being presented. 115 116 Melissa Poole: Why can’t we do a combination of the two? The one meeting we had 200+ people so even at 3 minutes, 117 without having a cutoff, even allowing people who hadn’t spoke before, we would have still gone beyond. With working all 118 day and remote learning, it is unreasonable, 11:30 I cannot do and I am not going to keep doing it. It is just not feasible for 119 me. 120 121 Kim Piracci: I agree with Melissa and that is why I think we should come to the meetings understanding that we can stop 122 them at 10 p.m. We can say this is enough, let’s end the meeting now and reschedule the meeting if that’s needed. 123 124 Alexandra Allman: I think we should pick a set amount of people, so it’s 3 minutes, we pick a set amount of people and tell 125 the rest of the public to put their public comments in a place, like a google form or similar. I’m with Melissa, past 10 p.m. is 126 too long and we can still take public comments and not have to be there for 3, 4, 5 hours. 127 128 Craig Benedict: The new state allowance with virtual meetings is that even after the County Commissioners’ Public 129 Hearing is closed, there’s a 24 hour period where people can provide written comments. With the public interface that you 130 have, you could do something similar. You could say there is x amount of hours or x amount of people to talk and then 131 provide the people who didn’t have an opportunity to talk, written comments to the Planning Department within a day or 132 similar. That would give them the opportunity to be heard with written comments and you still have the opportunity as 133 being suggested that if there is 100 people and you want to have a special meeting, you can still have that opportunity. 134 135 David Blankfard: Could we have a system where the first 45 people are allowed to speak and if you don’t make it within 136 that 45 people then you would have to write your comments. 137 138 Perdita Holtz: You could do something like that; it would essentially be limiting the amount of public comment to a set 139 amount of time, if you assume everybody gets 3 minutes. I would also suggest that when you know there is a 140 controversial project, that we want to encourage people to send written comments beforehand and have a policy in place 141 that written comments are encouraged and there is a set time limit of say one hour or whatever the set time is for public 142 comments and it is the public that show up that get to comment. 143 144 David Blankfard: I think if we say we’re going to limit these meetings to 11:30 which is 4 ½ hours which is a very long time, 145 I think we just say the meetings are going to last until 11:30 p.m. and we will accept this many people to comment and if 146 you are not one of the first ones to comment or don’t make it within the number of people then you will have to submit your 147 written comments. 148 149 Randy Marshal: I like the third bullet here, I think it gives us the most flexibility. If the Board anticipates the meeting will 150 run long, members could discuss a potential end time during the portion of the agenda for considerations of additions to 151 the agenda which is near the beginning of the all agendas. In other words, on any meeting in which we anticipate a lot of 152 people who want to speak, we can say we understand there are a lot of people who want to speak and we can discuss 153 and decide amongst ourselves how long we want the meeting to run. We could also say we could schedule additional 154 meetings like we did the last time, two weeks later to hear additional input and feedback if wanted. I think that gives us 155 more flexibility than setting a hard and fast rule at any time not knowing what the situation will be specifically. 156 157 Hunter Spitzer: Are these new rules going to apply once we get back to a physical space to have meetings? I understand 158 why we hold them this way virtually but once we get back to Margaret Lane or the Whitted Building will it still apply? 159 160 David Blankfard: I would say it would still apply. I agree with Randy’s position that at the outset of each meeting, we say 161 we will have a continuance, the key is to make sure that the people that talk the first night aren’t going to talk again 162 because we’ll get the looping. 163 164 Perdita Holtz: We would just need to tighten up the language and the information we provide and make it clear that 165 everybody gets to talk once for 3 minutes, if that’s the amount of time you want, and if it’s continued to another meeting, 166 you don’t get another chance. 167 168 9 D R A F T Craig Benedict: Also, along the lines of that you talked about making an assessment at that first meeting, how many 169 people are interested and you can collect that entire list of people that want to speak. What was done with the 170 Commissioners’ meeting on September 15th and 22nd was they got that full list of about 90 people and decided to hear 45 171 people the first night and 45 the second night. Also, on the 22nd, the second meeting, there wasn’t more people that could 172 sign up that night, it was advertised the first meeting and that meeting was continued to allow more public input. In this 173 case, you could make the notes, as Perdita said, to the people to be aware that there will some time limits on these 174 meetings so please participate, sign up or attend as necessary. You could by knowing the 3 minutes timeframe, determine 175 the amount of speakers that would add up to whatever time, 10 p.m. if you wish. Then you would know how many would 176 speak at the next meeting. 177 178 Kim Piracci: I do think 11:30 p.m. is too late, I think probably 10 p.m. is a good time to end. I think it’s impor tant that the 179 public gets to speak, not twice but once. Even if we have to go to a second meeting. 180 181 Randy Marshall: I like the suggestion that if we have a continuance that we stick to the original list of speakers and not 182 add additional people or repeat speakers. 183 184 Hunter Spitzer: Not just limiting it to written, limiting the number of people that are allowed to speak. I think we should try 185 to accommodate present and verbal comments as possible. 186 187 Patricia Roberts: With Zoom, I’m able to go later. If we don’t have to drive home, I’m happy to go later. 188 189 David Blankfard: I think the way we have it open ended, we can decide at each meeting how late the group wants to stay. 190 At the beginning of each meeting, we’re going to decide how long and how many people should be able to be heard and if 191 to have a continuance and when that continuance is going to be such that everybody can attend and we are going to take 192 the first x number of people and the next x number of people will have to come back to the next meeting. 193 194 Randy Marshall: A little further down, I like the suggestion that language could be added to discourage repetitive 195 comments while allowing for a range of viewpoints. I think we can say we want to hear from everybody and we want a 196 range of viewpoints, if someone has already said and made the points you want to make please don’t repeat those 197 because we’ve already heard them. 198 199 David Blankfard: I don’t have a problem saying please don’t be repetitive but I feel there is a tendency for people to keep 200 saying the same thing. 201 202 Melissa Poole: I agree we should mirror what the County Commissioners have done. 203 204 Craig Benedict: The comment I made earlier about written comments would only work if you are going to continue the 205 meeting. The written comments would really only be applicable if you have the first meeting and decide on a continuance 206 and want to capture everything and take written comments between meetings. 207 208 Adam Beeman: I don’t know if Buc-ee’s is coming up next month but if it does, I anticipate the same amount of interest 209 and public comment we got from RTLP. We definitely need to figure it out and hammer it out by then. 210 211 Kim Piracci: It seems cumbersome to listen to everybody’s comments, especially when they are repetitive, but sometimes 212 things come out with the public that aren’t necessarily brought forth by the developer. One thing we missed on RTLP was 213 the property the County had set aside to preserve and that didn’t come up before we voted. I think it’s very important that 214 we give the public an opportunity to speak. 215 216 David Blankfard: I think from what I’ve heard from the Board is: we want to determine the time the meeting ends at the 217 beginning of each meeting and if there are a lot of people signed up to speak, we’re going to take the names and say how 218 many we listen to tonight and we’re going to have a continuance to another night and those people who didn’t get to speak 219 will get to speak at the continued meeting. The Board will determine the date of the continuance and then we will 220 reconvene. With the opportunity to provide written comments. 221 222 Adam Beeman: Is it possible to get our own link for the public to send us emails? I read every comment submitted to the 223 BOCC google link. Is there a way we can get one for the Planning Board so we can go directly to that site and read them. 224 10 D R A F T If they can’t make the meeting at least they had the chance to get their thoughts on paper and we’ve had a chance to read 225 them. 226 227 Perdita Holtz: I think Google Groups something we can look into. I know that when it’s sent to that group it actually goes 228 to each of the Commissioners and it goes on the Google Groups site to be archived and we don’t necessarily want you to 229 be getting a hundred emails sent to you. I will talk to IT and find out what options are available. We do anticipate that Bu-230 cee’s may be on the November agenda so I will work with David and Adam as Chair and Vice-Chair to come up with the 231 language to be included on the agenda that will detail all this information from tonight. 232 233 Jon Lorusso: I find it troubling, some of the suggestions aimed at limiting input from the public. Things like capping the 234 amount of time and then everyone else has to send comments. Who knows who is reading those emails? I ignore emails 235 on a daily basis. Or I already have an opinion and if this doesn’t coincide with my opinion, I’m not going to read it. At least 236 at a meeting I had an impression that people I’m looking at are listening to me. I didn’t get that sense at some meetings I 237 did speak at. I think the Board of Commissioners did do it right, they take a list of people at the get go, they cap it at 238 whoever signed up and if they need to split if over multiple meetings, that’s fine. I don’t like the suggestion that if you said 239 something that someone else said, you shouldn’t be allowed to speak. Maybe I’m going to say it differently, use different 240 words that will get through to someone. Maybe I’ll say it with more passion or more emotion and it will ring true in your 241 ears. The suggestion that I said something that someone already said and it is therefore not necessary to speak it again 242 that doesn’t sound fair to me. Not to mention the fact that, why shouldn’t I be allowed to say what has been said already, 243 it’s my opportunity to speak. I don’t like those ideas, I think if anything, we should be looking for ways to get more and 244 more people involved and I understand that it is your time and this is a volunteer board and if you allow everyone to speak 245 and it goes to 11:30 then a lot of people drop off. I have to put my kids to bed right now and I waited to until 7:44 to speak. 246 As the meetings go later and later, more people drop off and are disenfranchised that way. If you cap it earlier, people are 247 disenfranchised that way. I think we need to make it so that as many people who want to speak, can speak and not only 248 that we should be encouraging more and more people from the public. Going back to RTLP there were people who were 249 in favor of that project who didn’t speak because why would they? Really, why are they going to take time out of their 250 Wednesday night to come speak about something that doesn’t bother them or interest them at all. The only people who 251 are going to speak are the people who are directly influenced by it. But getting more input is always good. There are 252 things we don’t think of that someone’s unique view on the world, they raise a point and it causes you to think about 253 something in a way you hadn’t before. I don’t think we should be restricting the public input in any way possible we should 254 be doing everything we can to encourage more and more people to get involved. 255 256 David Blankfard: Do we need to make a motion? 257 258 Perdita Holtz: Maybe you should make a motion because we do want to implement it, potentially, for the next meeting and 259 not bring this back for you to look at again. Go ahead and make a motion for staff to work with what you gave us this 260 evening and for us to work with the Chair and Vice-Chair for the language that will be on the agenda for public information 261 for the November meeting. 262 263 Randy Marshall: You stated it very well in your summary comments so if you state it again, I’ll make that the motion. 264 265 David Blankfard: That at the beginning of each meeting, the Board will determine when they plan to recess and take a log 266 of number of people who want to speak and we will determine who will speak that night, the Board will determine when we 267 will have a continuance to hear the remainder of the people signed up to speak on the topic. In between those two 268 meetings anyone who is registered to speak can instead write what they want to say. The final wording will be determined 269 by Chair and Vice-Chair. 270 271 Carrie Fletcher arrived 272 273 Randy Marshall: So moved. 274 275 Kim Piracci: Clarification, so that means that additional people can’t speak at the second meeting? 276 277 David Blankfard: That’s correct, you have to be registered at the first meeting. 278 279 11 D R A F T Kim Piracci: I don’t like that motion, I think that the public should, more people should be able to speak at the second 280 meeting, if they want to. We might limit it so that there’s not a third meeting. That ends but ….. 281 282 David Blankfard: If they want a chance to speak they can only do written comments. 283 284 Kim Piracci: I don’t like that. 285 286 David Blankfard: No one knows at the beginning of each meeting if the meeting is going to run long. I think we need to 287 limit it. You get one chance and it’s at the first meeting and if you come in late then you get to write in. 288 289 Carrie Fletcher: This is a highly emotional issue for many people and I’m sure zoning and planning is going to be an 290 emotional, personal issue for a lot of people. I think that we, as public servants, should listen to them. I don’t particularly, 291 even without hearing a lot of the conversation, say that we are going to deny certain people who haven’t been at the other 292 meeting, as myself being late tonight, missed the boat and you don’t get a chance to speak. I think everyone has a right to 293 speak. I could see capping a time that we can only go before a certain time and if that doesn’t work then we’re going to 294 have to have another session and let the people speak. I think that’s our obligation. 295 296 Randy Marshall: The presumption here is that we have a public hearing, and that lots of people have signed up and if we 297 had the meeting last until everyone had a chance to speak, there would not be a second meeting. The reason for the 298 continuance is to allow us to get home at a decent hour and for everyone to have a chance to speak. It’s not to start over 299 and have a second public hearing. It’s a continuation of the first public hearing and if you continue to set it up as a second 300 public hearing, you’re just going to continue to add more and more people. It’s not that we’re discouraging anybody from 301 speaking but your opportunity to speak comes with the first meeting. If you didn’t get to speak at the first meeting and you 302 signed up then you can speak at the second continued meeting but it is still considered the one meeting, it’s just takes 303 place over 2 different evenings and is not an opportunity for more people to jump in that didn’t originally indicate they 304 wanted to speak. 305 306 David Blankfard: This is the way that the Board of County Commissioners does it so there is some precedence. 307 308 Hunter Spitzer: People who missed the opportunity to sign up at the first meeting and can’t speak at the potential 309 continuance would still have the opportunity to submit written comments, correct? 310 311 David Blankfard: That’s right. 312 313 Craig Benedict: And if they miss speaking at the neighborhood meeting and the Planning Board then they still have the 314 opportunity to speak at a public hearing in front of the Commissioners. 315 316 Perdita Holtz: We’re going to have to have tighten it up and run it more like the BOCC that people have to sign up in 317 advance to get on the list to speak. The way it was being run, anybody could sign up for the Zoom meeting and then if 318 they wanted to speak they would just raise their hand on the Zoom platform but we’re going to need to know in advance 319 how many people want to speak on each item. We’re going to need to require an advance sign-up. The Clerk’s Office 320 allows people to sign up until 3 p.m. on the day of the meeting and that’s their cut-off time. I will find out more information 321 from the Clerk on exactly how they run that so we can mimic it. 322 323 David Blankfard: Right now we have a motion on the table that says that we are looking at setting the time limit at the 324 beginning of each meeting and the people that have signed up to speak at that time will determine who gets to speak 325 during that time and who gets to speak at a subsequent meeting, the subsequent meeting will be determined by the Board 326 and between those two meetings the public can write comments. 327 328 MOTION by Randy Marshall that at the beginning of each meeting, the Board will determine when they plan to recess and 329 take a log of the number of people who want to speak and we will determine who will speak that night, the Board will 330 determine when we will have a continuance to hear the remainder of the people signed up to speak on the topic. In 331 between those two meetings anyone who is registered to speak can instead write what they want to say. The final wording 332 will be determined by Chair and Vice-Chair. Seconded by Kim Piracci. 333 334 335 12 D R A F T ROLLCALL VOTE: 336 Susan Hunter: Yes 337 Adam Beeman: Yes 338 Melissa Poole: Yes 339 Randy Marshall: Yes 340 Hunter Spitzer: Yes 341 Patricia Roberts: Yes 342 Kim Piracci: Yes 343 Gio Mollinedo Yes 344 Carrie Fletcher Yes 345 Alexandra Allman Yes 346 David Blankfard: Yes 347 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 348 349 350 Craig Benedict gave the Planning Board and update of the status of the RTLP at the two BOCC meetings and the closing 351 of the Public Hearing and a decision item is scheduled to be on the October 20, 2020 BOCC Agenda. 352 353 354 AGENDA ITEM 8: ADJOURNMENT 355 Meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:19 p.m. 356 357 358 359 13 14 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 4, 2020 Action Agenda Item No. 7 SUBJECT: Review of Zoning Atlas Amendment: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZ) for Efland Station. DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. MPD-CZ Application Package and Exhibit(s) [due to its size, this Attachment is posted here] 2. Project Vicinity Map and Current Zoning 3. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use and Growth Management Systems Maps 4. Staff/Applicant Correspondence 5. Notes from Neighborhood Information Meeting 6. Staff Review Comments 7. Meeting Notification Materials 8. Statement of Consistency 9. Draft Conditions of Approval Available Separately – Full size copies of maps available on-line as detailed herein Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597 PURPOSE: To review and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on an applicant initiated Zoning Atlas Amendment. Specifically, Buc-ee’s Limited is seeking to rezone 2 parcels totaling approximately 104 acres within the Cheeks Township to Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) district. A copy of the application is contained in Attachment 1, which is also available on the County website at: https://www.orangecountync.gov/1722/Current-Interest-Projects. BACKGROUND: On August 7, 2020 a Zoning Atlas Amendment application was received proposing to rezone 2 parcels, further identified utilizing Orange County Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN) 9854-16-1576 and 9854-36-3711 (hereafter ‘the Property’): FROM: Office/Research and Manufacturing (O/RM); Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District ; Efland Interstate Overlay District. 15 TO: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) district; Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District ; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District ; Efland Interstate Overlay District. (map of parcels) The basic facts concerning this application are as follows: Applicant: Buc-ee’s Limited (LTD) 327 FM 2004 Lake Jackson, TX 77566 Parcel Information: A. Parcels and Size: Subject parcels, identified utilizing Orange County Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN), are: 1. PIN 9854-16-1576: An approximately 92 acre parcel. 2. PIN 9854-36-3711: An approximately 12 acre parcel. If approved, the new MPD-CZ district would be approximately 104 acres in area. A vicinity map denoting the location of the parcels, and current zoning, is contained in Attachment 2. B. Township: Cheeks. Agent(s): Elizabeth (Beth) Trahos Attorney Nelson-Mullins 4140 Parklake Ave Raleigh, NC 27612 Kelsey W. Hall, P.E. Kimley-Horn 300 Morris Street Suite 200 Durham, NC 27701 Earl Lewellyn, P.E. Kimley-Horn 300 Morris Street Suite 200 Durham, NC 27701 PIN 9854-36-3711 PIN 9854-16-1576 16 C. Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Designation: Both parcels are located within the Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node. A copy of the FLUM Map is contained in Attachment 3. D. Growth Management System Designation: Both parcels are Urban Designated. A copy of the Growth Management System Map is contained in Attachment 3. E. Existing Conditions/Physical Features: Varying topography with wooded areas, cleared area apparently used as pasture for farm animals, and water features (i.e. ponds and streams). F. Roads: 1. North: Southern Drive (roadway located within the Southern railroad right-of-way). Neither Property has direct frontage and/or access to Southern Drive; 2. South: Interstate 85/40 including interstate on/off ramp; 3. West: Mt. Willing Road; 4. East: US Highway 70/I-85 Connector road. G. Water and Sewer: Water utility services are provided by Orange-Alamance Water System (OAWS). Wastewater utilities (i.e. sewer) are provided by the City of Mebane. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Railroad, Single-family residential land uses on parcels zoned Rural Residential (R-1), Home park on a parcel zoned R-1; Undeveloped 6 acre parcel zoned Office/Research and Manufacturing (O/RM); South: Interstate 85/40; West: Mt. Willing Road, restaurant and gas station on parcels zoned Neighborhood Commercial (NC-2), Single-family residential land uses on parcels zoned R-1; East: US Highway 70/I-85 Connector Road and Ben Johnson Road, large undeveloped parcels of property zoned Agricultural Residential (AR). MPD Conditional Zoning (CZ) Process: Involves approval of a rezoning petition and a master development plan allowing for the development of specific land use(s). Applications are processed in a legislative manner (i.e., does not require sworn testimony or evidence) and decisions are based on the BOCC’s determination that the project is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. As this is a MPD-CZ proposal, a formal site plan is not required to be submitted. Applicants are required to produce a master concept plan consistent with the provisions of Section 6.7 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The typical cadence for review is as follows: • First Action – Planning staff schedules a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM). Staff Comment – DONE. This meeting was held in an on-line format on September 15, 2020. Notes from this meeting are contained within Attachment 5. 17 • Second Action – The Planning Board reviews the application at a regular meeting and makes a recommendation to the BOCC. Staff Comment. The Planning Board begins its review on November 4, 2020. • Third Action – The BOCC receives the Planning Board recommendation and makes a decision at a previously advertised public hearing. Staff Comment – Earliest public hearing date is December 15, 2020. If the public hearing is held remotely, there is a 24-hour waiting period required before a decision can be effective, as per State legislation regarding virtual/remote meetings. The purpose of the 24-hour waiting period is to allow for submission of written comments. Per Section 2.9.2 (F) (3) of the UDO, mutually agreed upon conditions can be imposed as part this process only if they address: 1. The compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding property, 2. Proposed support facilities (i.e. roadways and access points, parking, pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems, screening and buffer areas, etc.) and/or 3. All other matters the County may find appropriate or the petitioner may propose. If approved, the Zoning Atlas will be amended and the zoning designation of the property shall be changed to MPD-CZ. Development, including permitted land uses, would be in accordance with the approved development proposal and conditions imposed as part of the atlas amendment process. Development of the Property shall only be permitted through the review and approval of site plan application(s) in accordance within Section 2.5 of the UDO. This is so staff can verify all imposed conditions are adhered to and allow for final review by members of the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) as detailed within Section 1.9 of the UDO. Proposal: The applicant is proposing to rezone the Property to MPD-CZ district allowing for the development of Efland Station, formerly known as Beaver Crossing, summarized as follows: i. The purpose of the development is to: ‘… create a mixed-use unified development providing a variety of retail, service, hotel, dining, light industrial/office flex space uses consistent with the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan …’; ii. Construction of approximately 500,000 sq.ft. of building area supporting various land uses, specifically: a. A Travel Center including a 120 pump gas station and approximately 64,000 sq.ft. of retail; b. 120-room multi-story hotel; c. 150,000 sq.ft. of Office/Service/Manufacturing land uses; d. 8,000 sq.ft. of medical office space; e. 30,000 sq.ft. of retail space; f. A 3,500 sq.ft. drive-in bank; g. 12,000 sq.ft. of casual restaurant(s); and h. 20,000 SF of high-turnover sit-down restaurant(s) space. 18 iii. Designation of parcel for development of transit facilities/amenities along the northern portion of the Property (south of railroad); iv. Preservation of approximately 38% or 40 acres (1,742,400 sq.ft.) of open space; v. Roadway access proposed off of: a. Right-in/right-out driveways off of the Interstate 85/40 on/off ramp; b. Driveway access off of US Highway 70/I-85 Connector Road; and c. Mt. Willing Road. Development will be completed in 2 phases (hereafter ‘the Project’), with the travel center completed in Phase 1 and remaining land uses in Phase 2. The applicant is proposing imposition of development and design standards (i.e. architectural design, signage, internal and external setback limits, height limits, landscaping/buffer standards, outdoor lighting standards, erosion control/stormwater, etc.) governing overall development of the project if the MPD-CZ district is approved by the County. STAFF COMMENT: Proposed land uses, excluding Travel Center, are currently permitted within the existing O/RM general use zoning district. Development of these uses would be ‘permitted by right’ (i.e. staff administrative review of site plan without advisory board/elected official review/comment). The applicant has elected to go through the MPD-CZ process for the following reasons: • Development of the Property ‘as a whole’ rather than subdividing land into separate parcels for independent development (i.e. separate access points, parking, stormwater facilities, grading/land disturbance, access drives, etc.); • Employment/use of comprehensive traffic access management strategies; • Maximize preservation of open space; • Provide for comprehensive stormwater management/treatment; • Minimize the overall land disturbance/grading activities associated with the Project. Staff has heard concerns the proposed MPD-CZ designation would allow for more intensive development than currently permitted. This is not correct. If approved, the Project would actually result in more open space area than currently required and less overall constructed building square footage than could be permitted by-right with existing zoning. The main difference between the existing O/RM district and the MPD-CZ is the potential development of the travel center. Access: The Project is proposing phased access improvements, namely: i. Two right-in/right-out driveways off Interstate 85/40 on/off ramp, developed in Phase 1 (initial development) as shown below: 19 ii. Driveway off of US Highway 70/I-85 Connector Road, developed in Phase 1, 500 ft. north of Ben Johnson Road including installation of a new traffic signal (shown below): iii. Access of off Mt. Willing Road across from Turner Street controlled by a Stop Sign constructed in Phase 2 (shown below): iv. Elimination of Exit 160 off of I-85/40 (i.e. the Efland/Mt. Willing Exit) in Phase 1. The exit will be combined with existing Exit 161 (US Highway 70/I-85 Connector Road). As staff understands it, signage will be added indicating Exit 161 allows access to ‘Efland’ and ‘Mt Willing Road’. To access Mt. Willing Road, travelers will be required to: Access drive – app. 600 ft. east of Mt. Access drive – app. 600 ft. west of the US Highway 70/I- 85 Connector Road New driveway New driveway Interstate 85/40 20 a. Exit the Interstate at Exit 161; b. Stop at the proposed new stoplight; c. Go straight through the intersection, driving onto the existing Interstate 85/40 on/off ramp; d. Travel approximately 3,200 ft. west arriving at Mt. Willing Road. STAFF COMMENT: The current configuration (i.e., Exits 161 and 160) of the interchange is commonly referred to as a “braided ramp interchange” where entrance/exit points overlap. Vehicular traffic utilizes shared access roadways resulting in weaving conflicts between traffic attempting to exit and access the Interstate using these same travel lanes. The current interchange configuration was designed approximately 25 years ago using traffic volumes based on anticipated land use and traffic growth/distributions assumptions in place at that time. In reviewing the matter with NC DOT, the current layout is not particularly desirable due to inherent operational and safety problems associated with the traffic movement conflicts and relatively short distance provided for deceleration/acceleration for motorists’. Current traffic weaving maneuvers result in potentially unsafe conditions which would be significantly exacerbated by increases in traffic volumes. While it is fair to say this Project has accelerated the need to consider revising the existing interchange, Planning staff have been informed by NC DOT that improvement(s) to the interchange would eventually be made to address public safety issues and would likely have involved the elimination of westbound Exit 160 to address public safety issues as traffic volumes increase in the area. The elimination of westbound Exit 160/reconfiguration of Exit 161, will require additional review as part of NC DOT and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) processes independent of this process. If approved, the project will move forward consistent with the master concept plan under review. If denied, the applicant will have to address necessary modification(s) at a future date. As a practical matter, the processing of this rezoning request is the first step in this process. ii. Installation of new traffic signals (i.e., new driveway/Exit 161 intersection with US Highway 70/I-85 Connector Road and the intersection of the I-85/40 on/off ramp with Mt. Willing Road) in Phase 1; iii. Turning Ben Johnson Road into a ‘right turn only’. Vehicles attempting to access the Interstate from Ben Johnson Road will turn right onto US Highway 70/I-85 Connector Road, complete a U-turn at the proposed signal approximately 500 ft. north, and access the Interstate via the existing on/off ramp. This work would be completed in Phase 1; iv. Numerous roadway improvements (i.e. widening for adding of turning lanes, development of traffic stops, etc.). STAFF COMMENT: Both Planning and NC DOT staff have reviewed the proposal. Comments are contained in Attachment 6. Improvements will need to be made to Mt. Willing Road to accommodate the current/anticipated traffic flow. County Comprehensive/Transportation Planning staff 21 have recommended a roadway design consistent with the approved Efland-Buckhorn- Mebane Access Management Plan (EBM AMP). Driveway access to the Project from Mt. Willing Road will be developed in a future phase (i.e., will not be part of the initial development of the travel center). The applicant has proposed a temporary access road from Mt. Willing Road for emergency vehicle access (i.e., fire, ambulance, Sheriff, etc.). The temporary access has been approved by the County Fire Marshal. Staff has concerns vehicles will be unable to access the proposed travel center directly from Mt. Willing Road until Phase 2 as well as over the proposed elimination of Exit 160. Utilities: The project is proposed to be served by public water (Orange-Alamance Water System) and sewer (City of Mebane). Orange County is continuing to work with Orange-Alamance and City of Mebane officials to address any and all necessary improvement(s) to accommodate the Project. Sewer services shall be provided consistent with the existing inter-local utility agreement between the County and the City of Mebane. STAFF COMMENT: The application was forwarded to Orange-Alamance Water System and City of Mebane staff. As of the writing of this abstract, staff has not received formal comment(s) from Orange-Alamance staff. There are memorandums from the County Staff Engineer and City of Mebane in Attachment 6 concerning provision of services. Erosion Control/Stormwater Regulations: The applicant has indicated the project will abide by existing stormwater, Section 6.14, and erosion control, Section 6.15, regulations of the UDO. Solid Waste: The applicant has indicated development within the project shall abide by the Orange County Solid Waste Management Ordinance. Environmental Assessment (EA): The applicant completed the EA for this project as required under Section 6.16 of the UDO. At this time the EA indicates: i. Project will not impact any environmentally sensitive areas; STAFF COMMENT: Existing water features (i.e. streams, ponds, wetlands) are located within identified open space areas. ii. Steep slopes along the southeastern property line are going to be preserved in established open space/Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) buffers; iii. No culturally/archeologically significant areas have been denoted on the properties; STAFF COMMENT: As detailed in within documents contained within Attachment 6 historic structure(s) were previously identified on the property in 1993. These structures no longer possess physical integrity lending them to preservation efforts. iv. There are no floodplains on the Property; v. No endangered species have been identified as being on the Property. STAFF COMMENT: At this stage of review, staff has determined the master concept plan appears to address protection of applicable on-site environmental features. Further review will be necessary, presuming approval, to address environmental impacts associated with anticipated development. 22 As presently configured the Project proposes 6, double-walled concrete encased storage tanks for fuel each with a maximum capacity of 40,000 gallons of fuel storage. The permitting of these underground tanks will be consistent with NC Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) standards. There are concerns over the potential impact(s) associated with the storage of the necessary fuel supporting 120 gas pumps that will have to be addressed. On October 28, 2020 the applicant provided a response to staff’s environmental assessment review memo focusing on fuel storage and the oil/water separations that have to be included in the stormwater inlet systems proposed for the Project. This information is contained in Attachment 1. Staff and the applicant have recommended the imposition of various condition(s) to address development impacts as contained in Attachment 9. Analysis: As required under Section 2.9.2 (E) of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to: ‘cause an analysis to be made of the application’ and pass that analysis on to the reviewing body. In analyzing this request, the Planning Director offers the following: 1. The application is complete in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.9.2 (C) of the UDO; 2. The proposal appears consistent with the various goals 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. 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. d. 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. e. Economic Development Objective ED-2.1: Encourage compact and higher density development in areas served by water and sewer. f. Economic Development Objective ED-2.10: Extend public water and sewer into all three Economic Development Districts. 3. The proposal appears consistent with the various goals/policies outlined within the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan, approved by the BOCC in 2006. Specifically, the 23 Project is proposing development of high intensity non-residential land uses in an area reserved specifically for such development as identified within the Plan. 4. The applicant has provided a basic environmental assessment as part of this submittal. Staff has reviewed and determined there ought to be no significant environmental impact from this project based on existing conditions. Staff is recommending the imposition of a condition as part of the approval of this project that additional environmental studies be prepared for all site plans as detailed in Section 6.16 of the UDO; 5. The proposed development is consistent with existing/anticipated development within the area and the various land uses associated with the project are compatible with various goals/policies as detailed herein. Neighborhood Information Meeting: A neighborhood information meeting for the project was held on July 15, 2020 in accordance with Section 2.9.2 (D) of the UDO. The meeting was held in an on-line format due to current public health concerns. A synopsis of comments made at the meeting can be found within Attachment 5. 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 the Planning Board meeting where the proposal is to be reviewed. These notices were mailed on October 20, 2020, 15 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 October 23, 2020, 10 days before the Planning Board meeting. For more information, please refer to Attachment 7. Courtesy Review: This request was submitted to the City of Mebane and Orange-Alamance Water (OAWS) as part of our courtesy review program. To date, staff has not received comment(s) from OAWS staff. Planning Director’s Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the: 1. Statement of Consistency indicating the zoning atlas amendment(s) are reasonable and in the public interest as contained in Attachment 8. 2. Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas, as well as imposing development conditions, for the identified parcels as contained in Attachment 9. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments who have determined that the approval or denial of the request would not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. Costs associated with advertising, including the public hearing notice and mailings, were paid by the applicant in accordance with the adopted Orange County Fee Schedule. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board: 1. Deliberate on the proposal, 2. Consider the Planning Director’s recommendation, 3. Vote on the imposition of conditions, as detailed herein, and 24 4. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 8) and the proposed ordinance (Attachment 9) in time for the December 15, 2020 BOCC meeting. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 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 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 September 18, 2020 SUMMARY MEETING NOTES Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) for Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZ) Application Beaver Crossing 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 September 15, 2020 for a Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) District Zoning Atlas Amendment for property north of Interstate 40/85 and east of Mt. Willing Road within the Cheeks Township of Orange County. The project is commonly known as Beaver Crossing. 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: Stan Beard (Applicant Representative – Buc-ee’s); Beth Trahos (Attorney for Applicant); Kelsey Westwood (Kimley Horn – Site Plan/Engineering Design for Project); Earl Lewellyn (Kimley-Horn – Traffic Engineer who completed the TIA); Michael Harvey and Craig Benedict (Orange County Planning); A total of 55 individuals attended the call, including those listed above. Given the virtual nature of the call, a complete list of attendees is not available. The following names were available on the virtual format: Marshall Welch; Rick; Jared and Heather Cates, Sita; A Pate; Steven; Heather Smith; Douglas Efland; Jennifer; Steven; Mikki Fleming; Chris Smith; M and N Efland; Rob Roberts; Lindsay Efland; PM; Bill Efland; Jaye Ruth Efland; Joe Williams; and Kaye Cartmill. SUMMARY OF PROJECT: The applicant summarized the proposal as follows: 73 On August 7, 2020, the applicant submitted a Zoning Atlas Amendment application requesting the rezoning of approximately 104 acres of property, further identified utilizing Orange County Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN) 9854-16-1576 and 9854- 36-3711 (hereafter ‘the Property’): FROM: Office/Research and Manufacturing (O/RM); Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District; Efland Interstate Overlay District. TO: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) district; Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District; Efland Interstate Overlay District. (map below): Review and action on the Project shall be in accordance with the provision(s) of Section 2.9 Conditional Districts of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). 74 In accordance with Section 2.2 Applications of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), staff began a sufficiency review of the submittal that was deemed complete and formally accepted for review on August 12, 2020. The applicant spoke generally about the project using a PowerPoint presentation. A copy of the presentation is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The applicant began by orienting the attendees to the property location, explaining the existing and proposed zoning districts and discussing the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant discussed the detailed uses permitted in each development pod identified by numbers 1-6 using the Master Plan Land Use Plan Map C2.1. The traffic impact analysis and planned road improvements, including the elimination of exit 160 per NCDOT, were discussed. The landscape plan and open space areas where also discussed. Finally, the applicant discussed job creation (especially for low barrier to entry jobs that pay a living wage), sales taxes and the ad valorem taxes expected from the planned Buc-ee’s and the larger commercial development. At full build out, the project is expected to generate in excess of $2,000,000 per year in taxes. The meeting was then opened to questions from attendees which are discussed in detail below. The following summary of the proposed project is provided by Planning Staff based upon the initial project submittal as follows: 1. Project involves 104 acres (4,530,240 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) with a maximum potential of over 2,900,000 sq. Ft. of anticipated building area, although the applicant indicated that they intended to impose a limit of 500,000 sq. ft. of maximum building area; 3. There will be approximately 30 acres (30%) of open space, although applicant noted in that there would be a total of 40 acres (38%) of open space when including maintained buffer area and indicated the submittal would be updated to confirm this figure; 4. Setbacks from various property lines would be as follows: 75 5. Buildings shall observe a 60’ height limit consistent with County regulations. Accessory structures (i.e. water tower, telecommunication tower, etc.) may be higher; 6. Application contains a master sign plan proposing the following signage: a. Development Area 1 (i.e. Buc-ees Travel Center): i. 1 on premise sign approximately 100 ft. tall with a total sign area of 601 sq.ft.; ii. 3 wall signs (i.e. on portions of the building that could have frontage/visibility from a road right-of-way) each approximately 270 sq.ft. in area (total cumulative sign area of 810 sq.ft.); iii. Logos on the canopy – 4 total logos each approximately 50 sq.ft. in area (total cumulative sign area of 200 sq.ft.); iv. A total of 16 signs on several separate gas pumps advertising fuel type, each sign 5.5 sq.ft. in area (total of approximately 88 sq.ft.). b. Other development areas: i. A total of 8 monument signs, each with 240 sq.ft. of sign area not exceeding 20 ft. in height (cumulative of 1,920 sq.ft. of sign area); ii. Wall Signs: 64 sq.ft. of wall sign area for each individual tenant space; iii. Directional and temporary/construction/real estate signage consistent with the provisions of Section 6.12 Signs of the UDO. 76 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: a. A proposed driveway off of Ben Johnson Road and Mt. Willing Road; b. Access drives are also proposed off of the Interstate off-ramp to the south of the property; 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 include: a. A Buc-ee’s Travel Center including 120 pump gas station and car wash with approximately 70,000 sq.ft. of retail/restaurant area serving same; b. 150,000 sq.ft. of office/light industrial/ flex space; c. 120-room hotel (square footage of structure unknown); d. 8,000 sq.ft. of medical office space; e. 30,000 sq.ft. of specialty retail space; f. A 3,500 sq.ft. drive-in bank; g. 12,000 sq.ft. of casual restaurant; and h. 20,000 SF of high-turnover sit-down restaurant space. 12. The applicant reviewed maps contained within the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) of the application package (Exhibit G) and discussed anticipated traffic impacts/improvements. This included discussion of improvements the Interstate exist ramps, including the elimination of Exit 160 known locally as the Efland Exit. PUBLIC COMMENT(S) AND QUESTIONS: A. Several comment(s) and concerns were expressed over the proposed elimination of Exit 160. Property owners expressed extreme displeasure with the loss of the existing Efland exit, expressing concern over anticipated ‘impacts’. APPLICANT: Well in advance of the rezoning submittal, there was extensive coordination with NCDOT officials regarding the proposed access plan. Based on those discussions it is our understanding that, irrespective of this project, NCDOT desires to close the I-40 Westbound Exit 160 due to inadequate weaving distance along the service road between this Exit Ramp and the I-40 Entrance Ramp, which does not currently satisfy standard NCDOT guidelines. This concern is further compounded by the prevailing speeds. As a result, the traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared based on NCDOT direction to close this exit ramp. The study recommends extensive improvements to accommodate 77 the redirected traffic demands as well as site traffic impact via Westbound I-40 Exit 161. The cost of these extensive improvements will be born by the developer as a part of this project rather than by taxpayers at some point in the future. Attendees inquired who at NCDOT was involved in this project so that they could be contacted directly. Kevin Lacy was identified as the primary contact. An email address for Mr. Lacy was requested by several neighbors of the call. Mr. Lacy can be reached at: jklacy@ncdot.gov COUNTY STAFF: The applicant has submitted a traffic impact analysis to the County and NC Department of Transportation (DOT) for review. Staff from both agencies have requested additional information on anticipated traffic demand and the various proposals to address same. Concern had been expressed to the applicant concerning the proposed loss of Exit 160, but all parties (i.e. applicant, County Planning, NC DOT) are still completing their reviews of the proposal. DOT staff has requested additional information from the applicant, which is being produced. As review comment(s) are finalized, this matter will continue to be reviewed and discussed. B. Why do we need a 120 pump gas station in Orange County? APPLICANT: The proposed zoning allows for a Buc-ee’s Travel Center, including 120 fueling positions. Unlike a typical gas station, Buc-ee’s offers this number of fueling position recognizing that many customers leave their cars at a fueling position for thirty minutes or more while visiting the many amenities offered by the travel center. In this way, queuing is minimized. This project also allows for a broader mix of uses in a master planned project including restaurants, retail, office, medical office, a hotel and industrial/flex uses. This combination of uses is desirable in that it meets recommendations of the Future Land Use Map in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. In addition, it provides opportunities for employment that pays a living wage in the Efland Community and creates a significant a non-residential tax base for the benefit of the broader community. At completion, the project is estimated to contribute $2,000,000.00 in sales and ad valorem taxes per year to Orange County coffers. COUNTY STAFF: C. I am concerned over proposed access driveways onto the Interstate on/off ramp south of the property (listed as a ‘service road’ on maps provided by the applicant). There does not appear to be sufficient space allowing people to accelerate to merge onto the Interstate safely. Further, there will be a lot more congestion on the ramp making access to Mt. Willing Road haphazard. The proposed traffic pattern is too dangerous. APPLICANT: As noted in the question, NCDOT is also concerned about existing weaving operations along this service road, and for that reason 78 has required removal of I-40 Westbound Exit 160, eliminating the closely spaced, high-speed freeway weaving maneuvers. The resulting operations along the service road and movements onto the I-40 Entrance ramp will be improved due to slower speeds and metering of traffic by upstream signal and stop controlled intersections, thereby improving safety. COUNTY STAFF: D. What traffic improvements are proposed on Ben Johnson, Mt. Willing, and the Interstate access ramp (i.e. traffic lights, stop signs, restricted turn lanes, etc.)? APPLICANT: Please see the attached Exhibit B, which details planned roadway improvements consistent with NCDOT recommendations. COUNTY STAFF: E. Mt. Willing Road is very congested. Existing traffic existing/accessing the Interstate, even without this project, creates huge backups during morning and evening rush hour periods along the roadways. This includes backups along Forrest Avenue. This project will only exacerbate the problem. How will the applicant rectify this issue? APPLICANT: Significant roadway and traffic signal improvements are proposed at the interchange ramps and site access along Mt. Willing Road. Site traffic will have minimal impact north of the Mt. Willing site entrance and does not necessitate additional roadway improvements outside of those already proposed. Please see the attached Exhibit B referencing roadway improvements which are consistent with NCDOT recommendations. COUNTY STAFF: F. Isn’t this property in a Critical Watershed? APPLICANT: No, the property is not within a critical watershed area. The development will meet stormwater and erosion control requirements outlined by the Orange County development ordinance and the state of North Carolina. Our open space is concentrated in an area where environmentally sensitive features exist. COUNTY STAFF: The subject parcels are not located within a critical watershed area as defined by the State of North Carolina. The parcels are located within the Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay district. Consistent with applicable watershed management standards, development on these properties are required to abide by: x Established impervious surface (i.e. asphalt, concrete, gravel, structures, etc.) limit of 70%. This will require the installation of stormwater control measures throughout the project consistent with the UDO; x Erosion Control permitting standards as detailed in Section 6.15 of the UDO; 79 x Stormwater management standards, including nutrient removal, as detailed in Section 6.14 of the UDO. G. Will existing streams and water features have to be buffered? APPLICANT: There are streams and other water features on the property (shown on Sheets C3.0 and C3.1 of the Rezoning Plan) that are to be buffered consistent with County regulations. These areas are slated for preservation in designated open space areas within the project. COUNTY STAFF: All water features are required to be buffered consistent with Section 6.13 Stream Buffers of the UDO. The anticipated buffer will be 65 ft. on each side of the stream bank. H. I see the overhead power lines are being relocated. How will this impact property owners to the north and west of the project? APPLICANT: The overhead powerline relocation will remain within the limits of the proposed development and is not anticipated to impact adjacent property owners. COUNTY STAFF: I. I am concerned over ground water contamination fuel leaks/spills impacting water quality and contaminating our groundwater. What steps are being taken to address this potential issue and preserve/protect our well water? APPLICANT: We follow all current design criteria required at the federal, state, and local levels and are subject to plan review, construction inspections, and final cover procedures required at all levels. To date, no travel center fueling system has ever had a reportable release and we work hard to maintain that standard. As an additional precaution not required by code, the developer is committed to installing oil-water separators as a part of the stormwater systems which are to be located in close proximity to the fueling stations to intercept incidental hydrocarbons gathered by stormwater runoff so that they can be collected and disposed of appropriately. COUNTY STAFF: J. I am concerned over air quality. How are you going to address the venting of gas tanks and comply with applicable air quality standards? APPLICANT: We will comply with all federal, state and local regulatory requirements. Exposure to gasoline vapors during vehicle refueling is regulated on the macro scale by the federal government. All vehicles manufactured today come equipped with a required Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) system which captures the vapors displaced during refueling and keeps them within the vehicle. COUNTY STAFF: K. Where will fuel be stored? 80 APPLICANT: Fuel will be stored in 6 underground, double-walled, concrete encased, constantly monitored tanks each with a capacity of 40,000 gallons for a total capacity of 240,000 gallons. COUNTY STAFF: L. What signage is proposed for this project? Are you really proposing a 100 ft. tall sign? This is inconsistent with the rural nature of Efland. APPLICANT: The original submittal included the Applicant’s standard hi - rise sign height of 100’. The purpose of the sign height is to provide the interstate traveler, traveling at high speeds, with enough notice to see the sign, change lanes, and maneuver safely to the exit. Subsequent to the initial application, a balloon test was conducted to best determine the appropriate height of the sign. That test concluded that a height of 80’ is sufficient. The application has not yet been updated but the revised submittal will reflect a height limit of 80’. COUNTY STAFF: M. Several general comment(s) were made that Efland is a rural community that this project will severely impact. APPLICANT: The subject property is located immediately adjacent to Highway 40/85, one of the most heavily traveled roadways in our state, at a highly traveled connection to Highway 70. The subject property is designated as a Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node on the Future Land Use Map in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan defined Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Nodes as follows: “[l]and near major transportation routes that could be provided with public water and wastewater services and is appropriated for retail and other commercial uses, manufacturing and other industrial uses; offices and limited (not to exceed 25% of any Node) higher density residential uses.” Similarly, the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan encourages “Mixed Use” in the southeast portion of the planning area. Change is planned and appropriate for this area. N. Several individuals made the comment they were supportive of development, and the need for additional non-residential development to lessen the tax burden on residential property owners. These individuals, however, do not believe a 120 pump gas station is what should occur to address this need. APPLICANT: The subject property is currently zoned Office/Research and Manufacturing (O/RM) with the Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District, the Major Transportation Corridor Overlay and the Efland Interstate Overlay District. A wide variety of land uses are permitted in O/RM district including, all as shown on Table 5.2 entitled the “Table of Permitted Uses” in the UDO. A sample of uses permitted in the O/RM district is listed below: 81 x Manufacturing, Assembly, Processing of Food Products Except as identified in the Table 5.2 of the UDO, entitled “Table of Permitted Uses”, Section 27(A)-(G); x Manufacturing, Assembly, Processing of Non-Food Products Except as identified in the Table 5.2 of the UDO, entitled “Table of Permitted Uses”, Section 28(A)-(Q); x Hospital, Veterinary Clinic, Veterinary Hospital and other Medical Uses subject to the standards identified in the Orange County UDO; x Office and Financial Services subject to use standards set out in the UDO; x Service Uses except as identified in the Table 5.2 of the UDO, entitled “Table of Permitted Uses”, in Section 62 (A)-(Q); x Telecommunication Towers subject to standards in the UDO or a special use permit depending on tower height; and x Elevated Water Storage Tanks with a special use permit. O. This property is located within an area defined by the State of North Carolina as a High-Quality Water (HQW) area. Why are we allowing a project of this magnitude in an HQW area? APPLICANT: We will comply with the land area disturbance limitation required by the HQW. We are working with Orange County and the state of North Carolina to identify the best approach to abide by the requirements. COUNTY STAFF: State Surface Water Classifications are designations applied to surface water bodies (i.e. streams, rivers, lakes, etc.) in an attempt to identify and define ‘protected activities’ (i.e. swimming, fishing, drinking water supply, etc.) for said waters. Based on a water features classification, development(s) are required to adhere to specific standards addressing these ‘protected activities’. It needs to be remembered these ‘classifications’ are one of many ‘tools’ used by the State and local government(s) to protect water features. The High-Quality Waters (HQW) classification is intended to protect waters which are rated excellent, based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics, and serve what staff will term ‘public purposes’ which can include serving as public drinking water supply. State and County regulation(s) do not establish ‘prohibited’ land uses for HQW designated water features. Rather, development activities are severely curtailed, specifically there can be no more than 20 acres of ‘uncovered’ property area at any one time. The State allows for waivers with the approval of a formal erosion control plan. 82 In this instance, there are no regulation(s) prohibiting this development from locating within an HQW area. Development of the project, however, will have to comply with applicable land disturbance limits and erosion control guidelines enforced by the County. P. Mt. Willing and surrounding roadways are rural county roads. What steps are going to be taken to preserve our safety from additional traffic? APPLICANT: Traffic generated by this project is predominately Interstate oriented. As such, roadways north of the site will experience only limited increases in traffic. As noted earlier, the planned removal of the I-40 Westbound Exit Ramp (Exit 160) will eliminate the existing substandard high-speed weaving condition along the westbound service road that is of concern to NCDOT. Consistent with TIA and NCDOT recommendations, numerous roadway and traffic signal improvements are proposed within the study area to mitigate resulting traffic demands and improve safety. Additional, supporting information about the unsafe conditions that exist at Exit 160 is available in a memo from Kimley-Horn dated October 8, 2020. COUNTY STAFF: Staff is reviewing the Transportation Impact Analysis, submitted as part of the application package, with staff from the NC Department of Transportation. Q. Why is Mt. Willing being utilized as an access point for this project? APPLICANT: The access onto Mt Willing Road provides for local traffic interconnectivity and provides for more efficient dispersal of site traffic, minimizing traffic impacts to the overall street network. COUNTY STAFF: Mt. Willing Road offers another point of access for the project and allows for greater traffic flow/access to help address concern(s) over ‘overloading’ one or two roadways with too much traffic. The project will, essentially, have three central access points to help disperse traffic congestion. R. In staff’s August 31, 2020 letter, they identified an inconsistency related to the proposed floor area ratio for the project and the estimated square footage of the development used as part of the traffic impact analysis. How can we move forward with this project as there appears to be a conflict with the information used in creation of the transportation study? APPLICANT: We are fully aware of staff’s concern and are working to rectify the matter. A revised submittal will include a commitment to no more than 500,000 square feet of building square footage, which is significantly less square footage than what is allowed in the current OR/M zoning designation. This limitation is commensurate with the traffic impact analysis. S. 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. 83 COUNTY STAFF: The on-line meeting format is being conducted consistent with adopted State rules allowing local governments to process development proposals/applications. 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. T. How many stories are permitted within the 60’ height allowance? APPLICANT: The submittal is being revised to reflect a height of 35’ with an increased setback for every foot above 35’ up to 60’. Certain elements may exceed this height limitation, such as electrical lines, signs, water towers, telecommunication towers, and utility structures. COUNTY STAFF: A 60 ft. building height allowance will typically result in 5 separate floors. U. Are uses going to generate significant noise? APPLICANT: We do not anticipate significant noise being generated on the subject property, especially given the ambient noise from the nearby highways. Of course, we will abide by the county noise ordinance. 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. V. What is the expected construction timeline? APPLICANT: After full development approvals, construction is likely to take 12- 18 months, depending on site work requirements. W. Has the Applicant performed an environmental study? APPLICANT: Yes, as part of the application process, we completed an environmental assessment application package that is being reviewed by Orange County. X. Are trees included in the landscaped buffer? APPLICANT: Yes. Orange County requires a vegetative buffer along the perimeter of the project. Sheets C-6.0 and C-6.1 of the Master Concept 84 Plan denotes our anticipated buffer program being reviewed by County staff. Y. What are the specific landscape standards being proposed for this project? APPLICANT: The landscape standards for the development are outlined within the narrative submitted as part of the application. Aside from minor allowances within Tract 1, Tracts 2 through 6, the plans generally abide by the requirements outlined in the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance. Sheets C6.0 and C6.1 of the Rezoning Plan detail the landscape standards proposed with the development. Z. Is this information available to the public? COUNTY STAFF: Yes. Information on this zoning atlas amendment is available on the County website at: https://www.orangecountync.gov/792/Planning-Inspections. AA. What is the schedule of review for this project? COUNTY STAFF: As indicated the review of this project is adhering to the following schedule: x October 7, 2020 – Anticipated Planning Board meeting; x November 5, 2020 – First available date for public hearing by the BOCC. Both meetings will be virtual meeting. Link(s) allowing interested parties to attend the meeting will be included within the various notification letters sent out by the County and will also be posted to the County website. In accordance with Session Law 2020-3 Section 4.31(a), pertaining to remote meetings during declared emergencies, written comments on items heard at a public hearing are accepted for 24 hours after the public hearing is closed. The BOCC will be unable to make a decision on public hearing items until the 24-hour period for the submittal of written comments has concluded. BB. What happens if the City of Mebane says the project cannot be served by their sewer system? APPLICANT: We are working with the City of Mebane and Orange Alamance Water System to implement system upgrades to ensure that the site can be served by water and sewer services as planned. COUNTY STAFF: 85 EXHIBIT A PowerPoint Presentation 86 Beaver CrossingExisting Zoning: O/RMProposed Zoning: MPD-CZ87 Two Parcels totaling 104.55±acres 288 General Area389 Existing Zoning•Office/Research Manufacturing (O/RM) with the following overlays: Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District; Major Transportation Corridor Overlay District; Efland Interstate Overlay District•Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) retaining all overlays 490 Comprehensive Plan - Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity NodeCommercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node: Land near major transportation routes that could be provided with public water and wastewater services and is appropriate for retail and other commercial uses; manufacturing and other industrial uses; office and limited (not to exceed 25% of any Node) higher density residential uses.”591 Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan•The Property is located within the Southeast portion of the planning area of the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan, a portion of the planning area that “enjoys access to major transportation facilities including Interstate 40/85 and the US 70 Connector. Because of this, development potential for the area is high.” •The southeast portion of the planning area should be considered for “Mixed Use” designation to be developed only when public water and sewer systems area available to the area.692 Site Plan793 Site Plan894 Mixed Use Project -Retail, Services, hotel, dining, office flex space/light industrial•Phase I - Buc-ee’s Travel Center:oFueling StationsoCar WashoRetail Store ƒPlentiful and Famously Clean BathroomsƒFamily-friendly ƒNo tractor-trailers allowedƒHomemade BBQ and sandwiches995 Mixed Use Project -Retail, Services, hotel, dining, office flex space/light industrialPhase II:•Retail shops; •Restaurants;•Hotel with no more than 120 rooms;•Offices and Financial Services; •Medical Uses;•Select Manufacturing Uses; and •Utilities and Telecommunications Uses.1096 Landscape Buffers and Open Space 1197 Landscape Buffers and Open Space1298 Economic Development Benefits•Quality Jobs oBuc-ee’s pays a living wage plus benefitsoLow barrier to entryoOffice, medical, manufacturing, hospitality jobs also available•Ad valorem and Sales TaxesoPhase I - in excess of $1,000,000oAt full build out, in excess of $2,000,0001399 Thank you. Any questions? Beth Trahosbeth.trahos@nelsonmullins.com GLENLAKE ONE | SUITE 200 4140 PARKLAKE AVENUE | RALEIGH, NC 27612T 919.329.3884 F 919.329.379914100 EXHIBIT B Roadway Improvements Map 101 102 w w w . C I T Y O F M E B A N E . c o m CITY OF MEBANE 636 Corregidor St.  Mebane, NC 27302 919 563 3401 919 304 6836 ksmith@cityofmebane.com DATE: October 21, 2020 TO: Nolan D. Raney, P.E. – Kimley-Horn FROM: Kyle Smith – City of Mebane Utilities Director SUBJECT: Efland Station (formally Beaver Crossing) Sanitary Sewer Mr. Raney, This letter is to inform you and/or your developer that the subject property (104 acres PIN #s 9854-16-1576 and 9854-36-3711) has access gravity sewer in the area with the ability to serve the property. The City does not guarantee gravity sewer services as the elevations of the site, line locations, proposed buildings, and other environmental features may control connection types and locations and/or potential line extensions. The City of Mebane does have the available capacity for the estimated 76,421 gallons average daily flow as this anticipated flow will count against the previously allocated flow for Orange County. As an effort to preserve sewer capacity within the region, the City of Mebane request the use of low-flow end users in conjunction with low-flow fixtures throughout the Efland Station Project where feasible. This willingness to serve the Efland Station Project with sanitary sewer shall be subject to Orange County zoning approval and shall expire on December 31, 2022 should no sewer flow be permitted by the State. At this time the remainder of the sewer allocation shall return to Orange County for other potential projects unless a request to extend the willingness to serve is granted. Sincerely, Kyle Smith, P.E. City of Mebane Utilities Director 103   JS (OCSW) Sep 2020    Beaver Crossing Master Planned Development Conditional Zoning (MPD‐CZ) – August 2020  Section 2‐5, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, B. Environmental Factors, 6. Solid Waste.    Requested Language Revisions by J. Scouten, Orange County Solid Waste Management Dept. 8/17/20 as written below:      6. Solid Waste and Recycling. The following standards shall apply to the management of solid waste, recyclable materials     (including corrugated cardboard), and food waste:    a. The developer of the Project or an individual development site within the Project shall contract for the private  collection and disposal of solid wastes and for the collection and marketing of mixed recyclables (including  corrugated cardboard), and food waste.  b. The developer of the Project or an individual development site within the Project shall provide external space  for the proper storage and collection of solid waste, recyclable materials (including corrugated cardboard) and  food waste.  c. Storage/collection areas shall be located in such a manner as to provide convenient access for users of the  facility and for safe and efficient access by collection vehicles.  d. In cases where storage/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  storage/collection  facility  agreement) to assure that sharing parties may use the proposed storage/collection facility and that they can be  serviced across property lines or district lines.  e. The developer shall reserve space within all storage/collection facilities that serve food and lodging operations  for segregated food waste collection near the delivery entrance for any such building that houses, proposes to  include, or may at some future date incorporate a restaurant, cafeteria, bar, other food service facility, or a  lodging facility.   f. The layout and design of waste/storage facilities for solid wastes, recyclable materials (including corrugated  cardboard), and food wastes shall comply with the standards and guidelines of Orange County Solid Waste  Management (OCSW) and the Orange County Environmental Health Food & Lodging Division. Further, such  waste/storage facilities shall be designed and situated so not to negatively affect adjacent properties; and shall  be located so not to impact internal traffic flow, or located in loading zones.  g. The following OCSW standard notes shall be placed on any site/construction plan:   In accordance with the Orange County Regulated Recyclable Materials Ordinance (RRMO), clean wood  waste, scrap metal, and corrugated cardboard present in construction and demolition waste shall be  recycled.   In accordance with the RRMO, all haulers of construction and demolition waste shall be licensed with  OCSW.   Prior to the issuance of a permit to demolish any structure five hundred (500) square feet or greater in  size, the permitee or owner shall have requested and received a deconstruction assessment by OCSW  Enforcement staff in accordance with the RRMO.              104 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 MEMORANDUM TO: Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager Craig Benedict, Planning Director FROM: Michael D. Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor DATE: October 13, 2020 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS of Efland Station (formerly Beaver Crossing) __________ The following memorandum serves as a synopsis of development opportunities and/or constraints associated with approximately 100 acres of property within the Cheeks Township of Orange County. Specifically, this memorandum provides an analysis of environmental constraints associated with the proposed Efland Station (formerly Beaver Crossing) development. BACKGROUND: On or about August 7, 2020 the Orange County Planning Department received a Conditional Zoning Atlas Amendment application to rezone 2 parcels located north of Interstate 85/40, west of Mt. Willing Road, within the Cheeks Township. Specifically, staff received an application to rezone approximately 104 acres contained in 2 separate parcels, further identified utilizing Orange County Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN) 9854-16-1576 and 9854-36-3711 (hereafter ‘the Property’): FROM: Office/Research and Manufacturing (O/RM) ; Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District ; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District ; Efland Interstate Overlay District. TO: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) district; Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District ; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District ; Efland Interstate Overlay District. 105 (map of parcels) PROPOSAL: According to the submittal, the purpose of the development is to: ‘… create a mixed-use unified development providing a variety of retail, service, hotel, dining, light industrial/office flex space uses consistent with the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan …’. As proposed, development will occur on approximately 104 acres of land and involve approximately 500,000 sq.ft. of building area supporting previous identified land use categories (hereafter ‘the Project’). As proposed, the Project would involve development of the following specific land uses:  Construction of a 120 pump gas station with an approximately 64,000 sq.ft. retail center;  Construction of: o 120-room hotel (square footage of structure unknown); o 150,000 sq.ft. of Office/Service/Manufacturing land uses; o 8,000 sq.ft. of medical office space; o 30,000 sq.ft. of specialty retail space; o A 3,500 sq.ft. drive-in bank; o 12,000 sq.ft. of casual restaurant; and o 20,000 SF of high-turnover sit-down restaurant space Review and action on the Project shall be in accordance with the provision(s) of Section 2.9 Conditional Districts of the UDO. If the proposal is approved by the BOCC, PIN 9854-16-1576 PIN 9854-36-3711 106 development of the Property will be consistent with the master plan and any/all conditions imposed by the County as part of its action on the zoning atlas amendment. As part of the submittal, the applicant provided a completed Environmental Assessment (EA) application. Staff has also received comment(s) from the Orange County Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) attached for reference purposes. CURRENT CONDITIONS: I. PIN 9854-16-1576: An approximately 90 acre parcel previously utilized as a farm (i.e. pasture) with frontage on:  Mt Willing Road (western property line); and  I-85/40 freeway on/off ramp (southern property line). There are barns/sheds along the western property line near Mt. Willing Road. There are utility lines running through the parcel, specifically a sewer line through the middle of the property and power lines along the southern property line running parallel with the I-85/40 freeway on/off ramp. Staff has identified the following environmental features: a. Water Features: There are streams running approximately 600 ft. east on the property from Mt. Willing Road and several hydrologically connected ponds (i.e. streams, springs, etc.) on the parcel as well.; Available information indicates there are wetlands on the property, including an area along the western property line, approximately 400 ft. east of an existing driveway access off Mt. Willing Road; b. Floodplain: The parcel is not encumbered by floodplain; c. Slope: i. Northern property line: Varying degree of slope towards the I-85/40 freeway on/off ramp ranging from 4% to 7.5% with the average highest elevation being approximately 676 ft.; ii. Southern property line: Varying degree of slope towards the I- 85/40 freeway on/off ramp ranging from 5% to 10% with the average highest elevation being approximately 660 ft.; iii. Eastern property line: North of the intersection of the I-85/US 70 Connector with the I-85/40 freeway on/off ramp, there are significant grade changes in the property ranging from 8% to 12% with the average highest elevation being approximately 658 ft.; iv. Western property line: Varying degree of slope towards the I85/40 freeway on/off ramp ranging from 4% to 6% with the average highest elevation being approximately 630 ft. d. Vegetation: 107 i. Northern property line: There significant vegetation on the portion of property towards Southern Drive composed of pine and other hardwoods. Along the residentially zoned parcels to the north-west, towards Mt. Willing Road, there is almost no existing vegetation; ii. Southern property line: There is significant existing vegetation running through the middle of the property/north of the I-85/40 freeway on/off ramp composed primary of pines and other hardwoods; iii. Eastern property line: Significant existing vegetation composed primary of pines and other hardwoods; iv. Western property line: Along Mt. Willing Road there is very little existing vegetation. II. PIN 9854-36-3711: An approximately 10 acre parcel of undeveloped property with frontage on:  Southern railroad (northern property line); and  I-85/US 70 Connector (eastern property line). There is no information indicating there are utilities on this parcel. Staff has identified the following environmental features: a. Water Features: Based on available data, there are no water features (i.e. streams, ponds, floodplains, etc.) on the parcel; b. Floodplain: The parcel is not encumbered by floodplain; c. Slope: In general, the property has a west/east slope with the highest elevation (i.e. adjacent to PIN 9854-16-1576) of 672 ft. and the lowest elevation, adjacent to the I-85/US 70 Connector road, at 630 ft.; d. Vegetation: There is an approximately 5 acres area of property, including an area with frontage along the I-85/US 70 Connector road, which has been cleared. The remaining portions of the property have significant vegetation composed of various hardwoods. CURRENT CONDITIONS – OTHER: The following needs to be kept in consideration when reviewing the potential development of the Project: a. Upper Eno Protected Watershed: The Project is located within the Neuse River Basin and is within the State’s defined Upper Eno Watershed area, a class WS-II watershed with Nutrient Sensitive Water designation serving as a public water supply for Hillsborough residents. The County has designated the area as being within the Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District, which establishes limits on the total cumulative percentage of impervious surface area. As discussed in more detail herein, impervious surface can be as high as 70% or 30,492 sq.ft. of impervious 108 surface area per acre of property with the incorporation of stormwater control devices. At the writing of this memorandum the Project proposes the development of several stormwater devices, which would potentially allow up to 70% impervious surface area on the Property. b. Seven Mile Creek Preserve: The Project is approximately 1 mile north of the County’s Seven Mile Creek Natural Area and the Seven Mile Creek Natural Heritage Area, as defined/ inventoried in the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. The Seven Mile Creek Natural Area is a County designated preserve, which is also a part of the 366 acre Upper Eno Nature Preserve, acquired throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s at a time when a possible future reservoir was being considered. Once the need for the reservoir was eliminated, the County began conservation efforts to maintain the area as a natural area. The County designated natural area includes portions of two significant natural heritage areas, specifically the ‘Crabtree Creek Monadnock Ridge’ and the ‘Sevenmile Creek Sugar Maple Bottom’ featuring large stands of southern sugar maples, hackberry and swamp chestnut oaks and serves as a host for several state listed rare plants and significant wildlife species. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: I. COUNTY DOCUMENT(S): a. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO): i. Per Section 6.13 Stream Buffers, identified water features (i.e. streams, hydrologically connected ponds, wetlands, etc.) are required to be left undisturbed. The width of this required natural area ranges from 65 ft. to 80 ft. based on the slope of the property in and around the water feature; STAFF COMMENT: The submittal indicates identified water features will be located within designated open space areas, with vegetation either being preserved or re-established consistent with applicable County standards. Please note: the applicant has the ability to seek a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineer to locate a roadway within/adjacent to identified wetland areas. The proposed driveway off of Mt. Willing Road will be required to secure a permit before development activity can occur. Section 6.13.6 of the UDO lists various development activities that are permitted within identified stream buffers, which include roadway development. ii. Impervious surface: The Property is located within the Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District. Per Section 4.2.6 Impervious Surface/Detention Pond Requirements for Non- 109 residential Uses of the UDO, the Project will have to comply with the following impervious surface limitation(s): 1. Development is limited to 12% or 5,227 sq.ft. of impervious surface area per acre of property; 2. Projects can observe a 70% or 30,942 sq.ft. per acre impervious allotment with the installation of stormwater control measures (SCMs). STAFF COMMENT: Impervious surface area is defined in Article 10 Definitions of the UDO as: A surface composed of any material that impedes or prevents the natural infiltration of water into the soil. Such surfaces include concrete, asphalt and gravel surfaces. These include, but are not be limited to, streets and parking areas, sidewalks, patios, and structures that cover the land. According to the submittal, development of the Project will involve multiple SCMs to address compliance with various provision(s) of the UDO. As a result, there is potential to have 70% impervious on the Property. The Project is required, at a minimum, to design their SCMs to accommodate the on-site infiltration of the first inch of runoff. iii. Stormwater: Per Section 6.14, the Project would have to abide by the following: 1. Nutrient load contribution(s) must meet the standards listed in Section 6.14.7 of the UDO and as required by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ); STAFF COMMENT: New development exceeding established nutrient loading rates are required to include engineered stormwater controls designed to have a Primary and/or Secondary Stormwater Control Measure (SCM) per NCDEQ requirements. 2. Systems shall be designed to control and treat, at a minimum, the stormwater runoff generated by one inch of rainfall from all project area surfaces; 3. Development shall be required to observe a no net increase in peak flow leaving the site from predevelopment conditions for the 1 year, 24 hour, storm. STAFF COMMENT: The Project will comply with the provisions of Section 6.14 of the UDO. 110 iv. Erosion Control: The applicant has indicated the Project will comply with the provisions of Section 6.15 of the UDO. This includes compliance with the following: 1. High Quality Waters (HQW): Under applicable State regulations, surface waters are classified into various, unique, ‘designations’ in an attempt to identify/define the best uses to be protected within said waters. For example is the water feature ideal for swimming, fishing, for use as a drinking water supply and therefore activities should be limited, etc. These designations carry with them water quality standards designed to address potential impacts. These designations, ultimately, are designed to protect water quality, wildlife, or other special characteristics. The ‘High Quality Water’ (HQW) classification is intended to protect waters rated excellent, based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics, to serving as public water supplies, nursery areas, etc. Under current local/State regulations, development is limited to no more than 20 acres of land area being ‘uncovered’ (i.e. disturbed) at any one time. State regulations would allow for additional acreage to be ‘uncovered’ only with the issuance of a waiver by state staff. This Project is in a HQW area and will have to abide by a 20 acre disturbance limit unless the applicant applies to the State for a waiver. v. Environmental Assessments (EA) and Impact Statements (EIS): Section 6.16 outlines the submittal/review of environmental document(s) for projects disturbing a set amount of land area. STAFF COMMENT: All MPD-CZ projects are required to complete and submit and EA application. Regulations are designed to require the full disclosure of anticipated development activities on a given parcel of property so the County can proactively work with a developer/land owner to either avoid or mitigate impacts to environmentally sensitive areas (i.e. streams, floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes, water features, etc.). STAFF COMMENT: Per Section 6.16.4 of the UDO, a project is deemed to have a ‘significant environmental impact’ when it:  Involves surface or subsurface extraction activity requiring a Mining Permit issued by the State;  Involves long-term storage or disposal of hazardous wastes; 111  Requires an EIS by a Federal or State agency;  Fails to adequately protect identified in “lnventory of Sites of Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological, & Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County" and the "Orange County Inventory of Natural Areas";  Involves a land surface application wastewater treatment system, within the Water Quality Critical Area of Water Supply Watersheds as defined by the Orange County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. At this time, staff has reviewed the submitted EA and made a preliminary determination the Project will not have a negative impact on on-site environmental features. Presuming approval of the Project additional environmental review, including the completion of a formal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), will more than likely be required with the development of the proposed travel center/120 pump gas station and fuel storage area. This would occur at the site plan submittal stage. b. Orange County Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats: A County staff generated report completed in 1987, updated in 2004, identifying environmentally sensitive areas, natural and cultural resources subject to protection during development activities. In reviewing this document, staff notes the following: i. The Property was not identified in the document as having significant wildlife, heritage areas, or identified cultural resource areas needed heightened protection(s); ii. The report designates the water features on the Property need to be preserved/protected; iii. The report does not indicate the presence of protected/endangered species on the Property; iv. The report indicated development activity within/near the Property needed to take into consideration protection of the Seven Mile Creek area/preserve, approximately 1 mile south of the Project (i.e. south of I-85/40); v. There are significant wildlife corridors south of the Project. The Property, however, does not contain identified wildlife corridors. As indicated herein, there is a significant natural area approximately 1 mile south of the Project (i.e. Seven Mile Creek) that will have to be taken into consideration when reviewing potential impacts of the Project. One concern staff has continuously heard from adjacent property owners, is the need for large fuel storage tanks serving the proposed 120 gas pumps and potential environmental impact(s) associated with fuel spills/leaks. 112 c. County Historic Resources Inventory: While completing an inventory of historic resources in Orange County, staff determined there were 2 structures on the property having potentially significant historic value. These were a one-room dwelling and a detached kitchen built sometime in 1870. Planning staff has confirmed these structures are not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and have almost entirely collapsed due to neglect and the exposure to the elements. These structures no longer possesses physical integrity and have been deemed to be beyond saving. II. STATE INFORMATION: a. State of NC Natural Heritage Program: In reviewing available State date, staff has determined the following: i. The Property was not identified as having protected heritage areas or identified cultural resource areas; ii. Water features were identified; STAFF COMMENT: As indicated herein, identified water features will be preserved/protected consistent with applicable County stream buffer standards exceeding State minimum requirements. iii. There was no indication of protected/endangered species being identified on the Property; iv. There was no indication of significant wildlife corridors on the Property. CONCLUSION: At this stage of review, staff has determined the master concept plan appears to address protection of applicable environmental features. Further review will be necessary, presuming approval, to address environmental impacts of anticipated development (i.e. proposed travel center). As indicated herein, there are concerns over the potential impact(s) associated with the storage of the necessary fuel to support 120 gas pumps. 113 MEMORANDUM To: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, Planning and Inspections Dept. From: Christian Hirni, DEAPR Land Conservation Manager Date: October 13, 2020 Re: Beaver Crossing Thank you the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed Beaver Crossing rezoning proposal and draft site plans. The subject property is compiled of three separate parcels (PIN’s 9854-16-1576, 9854-36-3711), located west of Hillsborough on the north side of I-40/85 and service road; between Mt. Willing Road and the I-85/US-70 Connector in Efland. Both Parcels drain into two unnamed tributaries that drain south to Seven Mile 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 the two tributaries, roadside buffers adjacent to the service road, Mt Willing Road, and interstate connector, and adjacent property buffers along all aspects of the property boundaries. Both parcels have been utilized in active agriculture, primarily beef cattle production, for the known history of ownership. Over half of the total project area is in some stage of early successional forest, having been left to fallow at some point over the last 20-30 years. On the western and southern borders of the property lie two ephemeral streams that drain into two unnamed tributaries as they flow south. Both of the tributaries drain directly into Seven Mile Creek, part of the Upper Eno watershed, a class WS-II, High Quality Watershed, with Nutrient Sensitive Water designation. The streams lay within the Upper Eno Protected Watershed on the property and the Upper Eno Critical Watershed corridors immediately after leaving the property. The property and the streams mentioned are approximately 1 mile north of the County’s Seven Mile Creek Natural Area and less than ½ mile from the Seven Mile Creek Natural Heritage Area as is inventoried in the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Due to the importance of these tributaries to the water quality and species of the Seven Mile Creek watershed, it is in the County’s and the public interest to have the areas around the two tributaries protected as an extension of the site’s open space, and to assist the landowner toward that end. Staff recognizes the site plan submitted shows the developer’s effort to this effect. 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 for easement monitoring. 114 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. If you have questions please contact Christian at x-2514. 115 MEMORANDUM To: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, Planning and Inspections Dept. From: Peter Sandbeck, DEAPR Cultural Resources Coordinator Date: Oct. 20, 2020 Re: Beaver Crossing Thank you the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed Beaver Crossing rezoning proposal and draft site plans. The subject property is compiled of two separate parcels (PIN’s 9854-16-1576 and 9854-36-3711), located west of Hillsborough on the north side of I-40/85 and service road; between Mt. Willing Road and the I-85/US-70 Connector in Efland. This memo is being provided to address potential impacts to important cultural resources, as a follow up to our earlier DEAPR memo regarding natural resources. Cultural Resources Review Comments: There is only one previously identified historic resource located within the proposed project area, on the larger of the two parcels (PIN 9854-16-1576). This is identified as the Thompson House in our Orange County Historic Resources Survey and in the State Historic Preservation Office GIS database (site number OR1136). I photographed and documented this historic property in November, 2014, at the time the County contracted with an archaeological consulting firm to undertake a Cultural and Archaeological (C&A) Survey of this large parcel as part of the planning process for the Buckhorn-Efland-Mebane sewer project. That archaeological survey project did not find any significant archaeological or cultural resources within that parcel; the final report is on file with DEAPR. The Thompson House consists of two separate log structures—a one-room dwelling and a detached one- room kitchen—both built c. 1870. The dwelling portion was enlarged c. 1900 with a wood frame addition that created a two-room house with a loft above. There is one deteriorated farm structure of uncertain purpose standing near these log structures. The site was first documented as part of our County historic resources inventory in 1993, then updated in 2014. It is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places due to its extremely poor condition. Since 2014, the log house and kitchen have almost entirely collapsed due to neglect and the elements, so the property no longer possesses physical integrity. As with any development, care should be taken to locate, identify and protect any potential human burial sites or cemeteries. The current Cemetery Census web site and the County GIS site do not show any identified burials on this parcel. Great care should be taken by the project developers to watch for potential burials. 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 me at (919) 245-2517. cc: David Stancil Chris Hirni 116 Nish and Tom’s Comments on Buc-ee’s TIA - Developer is willing to put in a number of off-site improvements (and investments). - Orange County Planning has been pushing for US 70 Connector improvements for some time; the US 70 Connector remains a County priority by resolution. - Mt. Willing is on the locally adopted 2019 Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan as well as the Orange County CTP with the following recommendations: o 4-Lane divided cross section (page 20 of the EBM AMP)  100’ ROW (4F) or 110’ ROW (4G) – cross sections on next page  Current ROW is 60’; recommending a 25’ ROW reservation for future improvements along Mt. Willing Road  County staff will recommend to the BOCC that Mt. Willing Road improvements be approved as a County priority in SPOT 7 and subsequent processes. - Mt. Willing at I-40 EB off ramp should be considered for a signalized intersection in Phase 2 o Stop sign currently at the off ramp; there is a 4-way stop intersection with W. Ten Road just south of this juncture. - Ben Johnson Road is not yet on the Triangle Regional Model (TRM) yet, but this project would help to support its addition to the TRM. o Ben Johnson Road turns into Dimmocks Mill Road and leads into Hillsborough; Dimmocks Mill Road was recently added to the TRM. - Neither the West RI/RO nor the East RI/RO indicate the length of the stem; developer should specify stem length since these roadways feed directly into I-40 Service Road ramps. - Staff would like to see an area of the project (either in Phase I or II) be reserved for connection to the transit systems of the area; this could include: o A bus stop location with signage o A bus shelter with signage  A “Future Transit Amenity by others” on a 1.62-acre parcel on the northeast edge of the project area is listed on the second page of the Master Concept Plan, but was not indicated in either TIA. - Staff is interested in the internal roadway features of the project site (when both phases are built out) and what accommodations (sidewalks, side paths, bike lanes) might be included. 117 NCDOT Cross Sections: 118 1 Michael Harvey From:Michael Harvey Sent:Friday, September 18, 2020 12:22 PM To:Chuck Edwards Cc:Craig Benedict (cbenedict@orangecountync.gov); Travis Myren; Steve Brantley Subject:Beaver Crossing Chuck:  as an update, Craig and I have been meeting on the Beaver Crossing project this morning.    It is our considered opinion, at least at this time, we need to preserve both existing Exits 161 (Connector) and 160 (MT.  Willing).    While we recognize there may need to be modification(s) to traffic patterns as proposed by the applicant, we believe  this would be more in line with the County’s goals/interests in long term traffic planning.    We suggest a meeting with you all and the applicant the week of September 28, which we will coordinate, to discuss in  more detail.    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        Permit and Inspection Information is NOW AVAILABLE ONLINE!!  Click here to access our portal    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 planning staff are still operating with limited in‐person availability due to the  COVID‐19 pandemic.  For the latest information and guidance relating to Orange County’s COVID‐19 response,  visit https://www.orangecountync.gov/Coronavirus    The following adjustments have been made to protect employees and the general public to ensure that service levels  can be maintained throughout the duration of the COVID‐19 pandemic.    119 2 Office Hours:  Current Planning offices shall be open from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. daily for the receipt of applications and  working with the general public. Members of the general public needing to see a planner will to wear face coverings (i.e.  masks) and observe social distancing (i.e. stay a minimum of 6 ft. apart).    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.         120 1 Michael Harvey From:Nishith Trivedi Sent:Thursday, September 24, 2020 8:58 AM To:Michael Harvey Cc:Thomas Ten Eyck; Tom Altieri; Craig Benedict Subject:RE: Beaver Crossing Michael,    I have finished my review of the attached two addendums for Beaver Crossing. Here are my 2 cents:     Developer may not need to remove the West bound off ramp onto service road. Though I see the benefit –  reducing conflict points and less traffic on service road – the cost is more traffic getting off at Mt. Willing exit to  access the site.   o The added traffic light at Mt. Willing south of the interchange is appreciated but more traffic will still go  to Mt. Willing even with westbound off ramp removed from service drive.   The amount of traffic added to the US‐70/I‐85 Connector is significant, this additional traffic may also come from  and go into Ben Johnston road. As the Connector is a 4 lane divided highway, it needs left turn lanes into Ben  Johnston Road due to increasing traffic  o Right in/Right out on Ben Johnston Road is counterproductive    I do not see any benefit from moving the east driveway access north 400’, it puts it very close to the power  easement and rail overpass. Below is a picture depicting the close proximity where this driveway access would  go.   121 2    Is the developer familiar with US‐271 in Cleveland Ohio or any other similar situation where there are two  interchanges in close proximity to each other with a service road connecting them. I know there are a lot in  Texas, Charlotte, and Georgia. Here is what I am refereeing to about US‐271  122 3 123 4   Granted the above example is an exaggeration. Service road has more lanes than the interstate. But the idea is the  same.    Hope this helps.    Nish      From: Michael Harvey Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 8:22 AM To: Travis Myren; Craig Benedict; Steve Brantley; Amanda Garner; Tom Altieri; Thomas Ten Eyck; Nishith Trivedi Cc: James Bryan Subject: FW: Beaver Crossing   FYI – I will not have a chance to review until the middle of this week    From: Lewellyn, Earl <Earl.Lewellyn@kimley‐horn.com>   Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 12:53 PM  To: Michael Harvey <mharvey@orangecountync.gov>  Cc: Stan Beard <Stan.Beard@buc‐ees.com>; Beth Trahos (beth.trahos@nelsonmullins.com)  124 5 <beth.trahos@nelsonmullins.com>; Westwood, Kelsey <Kelsey.Westwood@kimley‐horn.com>  Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!] Beaver Crossing    Good afternoon Michael.  Hope you are well.  Attached are 2 TIA addenda that we recently sent to NCDOT.  The first one  is a sensitivity analysis that adds 10% to the Buc‐ee’s Trip Generation.  It also includes analysis of the Saturday peak with  full buildout of phases 1 and 2.  The second study examines the alternate access option, which shifts the access to the  US 70 Connector about 400’ to the north. Please let me know if you have any questions?     Thanks and have a great weekend!    Earl Lewellyn, P.E. Kimley-Horn | 300 Morris Street, Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 Direct: 919 653-5874 | Mobile: 919 971 2258 | Main: 919 682 3583 Connect with us: Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram | Kimley-Horn.com Celebrating 13 years as one of FORTUNE’s 100 Best Companies to Work For *** WE HAVE MOVED! *** Please note our new address for your records. 300 Morris Street, Suite 200, Durham, NC   125 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Engineering / Erosion Control / Stormwater (919) 245-2575 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) www.orangecountync.gov 131 W. Margaret Lane Suite 201 P. O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 October 14, 2020 Kelsey Westwood Hall, P.E. 300 Morris Street, Suite 200 Durham, NC 27701 RE: REVIEW of Conditional Zoning Atlas Amendment – Master Plan Development (MPD) for Beaver Crossing INITIAL REVIEW COMMENTS – ENGINEERING DIVISION Dear Ms. Hall: On or about August 7, 2020 the Orange County Planning Department received a Conditional Zoning Atlas Amendment application for a parcel of property located north of Interstate 85/40 within the Cheeks Township. Specifically, staff received an application to rezone an approximately 104 acres of property, further identified utilizing Orange County Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN) 9854-16-1576 and 9854-36-3711 (hereafter 'the Property'): FROM: Office/Research and Manufacturing (O/RM); Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District; Major Transportation Corridor (MTG) Overlay District; Efland Interstate Overlay District. TO: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) district; Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District; Major Transportation Corridor (MTG) Overlay District; Efland Interstate Overlay District. According to the submittal, the purpose of the development is to: '... create a mixed-use unified development providing a variety of retail, service, hotel, dining, light industrial/office flex space uses consistent with the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan ...'. As proposed, development will occur on approximately 104 acres of land and will involve approximately 500,000 square feet of building area supporting previous identified land use categories (hereafter 'the Project'). The Orange County Current Planning Department issued initial review comments for the Project on August 31, 2020. What follows are supplementary preliminary observations and comments by the Orange County Engineering Division, specific to water, sewer, stormwater management, and erosion & sedimentation control (E&SC): 126 10/13/2020 Page 2 of 4 Kelsey Westwood Hall, P.E. MPD for Beaver Crossing – Engineering Comments 1. COMMENTS: a. GENERAL: i. Orange County requests that the applicant consider Orange County’s proposed recordation of up to four (4) 30-ft wide public sanitary sewer easements as shown on the attached redlines. See Attachment 1. This accommodation would allow for potential future public sewer service to multiple private tracts that are located adjacent to the Project. ii. The Project is located within the Upper Eno Protected Watershed Zoning Overlay District (Neuse River Basin), as zoned by Orange County, and within an area classified as a High Quality Water (HQW), as zoned by the State of North Carolina. Orange County and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) will review the Project for compliance with applicable Orange County and State standards, as formal site development plans are finalized and submitted. b. WATER: i. Public water service will likely be provided by Orange Alamance Water System (OAWS). This statement shall in no way be interpreted as a final determination by Orange County or OAWS to serve the Project with public water. ii. OAWS staff has informally notified Orange County Engineering staff that OAWS has available water capacity based on the evaluation of a DRAFT sanitary sewer capacity summary (average daily demand) of 76,421 gallons per day (GPD) as provided to Orange County by the applicant on September 1, 2020. However, OAWS has not yet formally confirmed with Orange County Engineering staff an ability to serve the Project with public water. Orange County Engineering staff is not aware of any detailed water demand data received by Orange County to date. iii. So as to prevent a potentially negative impact to available public water capacity within the regional water service area, Orange County Engineering staff recommends a reassessment of proposed water demands via the incorporation of low-flow water fixtures and/or lower-flow end users throughout the Project, where feasible. iv. If updated water demand data are available, applicant shall provide them to Orange County, specifically so that OAWS may further evaluate their available water capacity and their desire to serve the Project with public water. v. Provide additional information on the proposed dead-end water line near the intersection of Ben Johnston Road on the east side of the Project. It appears that the proposed water line will exist as a dead end throughout both phases of the Project. Applicant shall ensure 127 10/13/2020 Page 3 of 4 Kelsey Westwood Hall, P.E. MPD for Beaver Crossing – Engineering Comments that NCDEQ and OAWS design criteria and/or direction are followed specific to the proposed dead end water line. vi. Water utility design, permitting, and construction shall conform to NCDEQ and/or OAWS standards. c. SEWER: i. Sewer service will likely be provided by City of Mebane. This statement shall in no way be interpreted as a final determination by Orange County or City of Mebane to serve the Project with public sewer. ii. City of Mebane staff has informally notified Orange County Engineering staff that the City of Mebane has available sewer capacity based on the evaluation of a DRAFT sanitary sewer capacity summary (average daily demand) of 76,421 gallons per day (GPD) as provided to Orange County by the applicant on September 1, 2020. However, the City of Mebane has not yet formally confirmed with Orange County Engineering staff an ability to serve the Project with public sewer. Only limited sewer demand data have been made available to Orange County Engineering staff to date. iii. So as to prevent a potentially negative impact to available public sewer capacity within the regional sewer service area, Orange County Engineering staff recommends a reassessment of proposed sewer demands via the incorporation of low-flow water fixtures and/or lower-flow end users throughout the Project, where feasible. iv. If updated sewer demands are available, applicant shall provide them to City of Mebane so that City of Mebane may further evaluate their available sewer capacity and their desire to serve the Project with public water. v. The existing terminal sewer manhole along Mt. Willing Road is located in front of Orange County PIN 9844965832, slightly south of where currently shown on the preliminary Water and Sewer Map as submitted to Orange County. See Attachment 2. i. Sewer utility design, permitting, and construction shall conform to NCDEQ and/or City of Mebane standards. d. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: i. Stormwater management design, permitting, and construction shall conform to Section 6.14 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). e. EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL i. Erosion & Sedimentation Control (E&SC) design, permitting, and construction shall conform to Section 6.15 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). 128 10/13/2020 Page 4 of 4 Kelsey Westwood Hall, P.E. MPD for Beaver Crossing – Engineering Comments This document represents the Orange County Engineering Division’s comments and observations on the Project thus far, and shall not be interpreted as a final determination. Please contact me at (919) 245-2583 and/or csandt@orangecountync.gov if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Christopher J. Sandt, P.E. Staff Engineer Enclosures: Attachment 1, Attachment 2 CC: Craig N. Benedict, Orange County Steve Kaltenbach, Orange County Michael D. Harvey, Orange County Elaina Cheek, Orange County FILE Christopher J. Sandt, P.E. 129 130 ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION ISSUED 7/21/2017P:\2016\16.01904_ORANGE COUNTY-Efland to Mebane Sewer, Phase 2A\02 Design Phase\DWG\Sheet 2\Sheet 2.dwg 7/21/2017 2:36 PM MATTHEW BRASWELL131 ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION ISSUED 7/21/2017P:\2016\16.01904_ORANGE COUNTY-Efland to Mebane Sewer, Phase 2A\02 Design Phase\DWG\Sheet 10\Sheet 10.dwg 7/21/2017 1:30 PM MATTHEW BRASWELL132 1 Michael Harvey From:Beth Trahos <beth.trahos@nelsonmullins.com> Sent:Friday, October 23, 2020 11:43 AM To:Michael Harvey Cc:Stan Beard; Westwood, Kelsey Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Eno 100Kv Line Relocation Michael‐    Below please find an email from Duke Energy indicating conceptual approval for the powerline relocation. Final approval  will come with delineation of the easement meeting all Duke Energy standards before physical relocation takes place.    Let me know if you have any questions.  Thanks, and have a great weekend!    Beth    ELIZABETH C. TRAHOS PARTNER beth.trahos@nelsonmullins.com GLENLAKE ONE | SUITE 200 4140 PARKLAKE AVENUE | RALEIGH, NC 27612 T 919.329.3884 F 919.329.3799 NELSONMULLINS.COM VCARD VIEW BIO       From: Plumley, Lisa <Lisa.Plumley@duke‐energy.com>   Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 1:37 PM  To: Stan Beard <Stan.Beard@buc‐ees.com>; Holleman, Leah Alexandra <Leah.Holleman@duke‐energy.com>; Pait, Bruce  E. <Bruce.Pait@duke‐energy.com>  Cc: Scott Ratcliff <ratcliffeng@gmail.com>  Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Eno 100Kv Line Relocation     Stan,    So sorry for the delay in response, I wanted to double check that both Engineering and Asset Protection groups were OK  with the plans from a conceptual standpoint. Engineering (Leah Holleman) approves, and I have Bruce’s response copied  below:    At this level, Transmission Asset Protection does not object to the project moving forward subject to the  following:    1. We want to ensure that we have a new easement that is clear of structures and obstructions from edge to  edge and good access to the easement and all of our future structure locations.    133 2 2. We should make note and consider the potential need for danger tree rights from the adjacent property  owner to the north near the northeast corner of the future transmission line route.    As to Bruce’s second point, we typically off‐set our easement from any property boundaries by about 50’ to ensure no  3rd party rights would be needed. This is not a requirement, just a suggestion, as acquiring third party danger tree rights  are often difficult to obtain when considering numerous property owners. We thought it would be important to point  this out early on for your awareness.     Let me know if you need any further information from us. Happy to help!    Thanks,    Lisa Plumley  Project Manager  Duke Energy, Carolinas West Transmission  Office: (980) 373‐1219 | Cell: (704) 303‐3848  Lisa.Plumley@Duke‐Energy.com     Nelson Mullins is continuing to monitor developments related to COVID-19, including guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and various health officials; and federal, state, and local government authorities. The firm has implemented precautionary measures and plans to ensure the continuation of all firm services to clients from both in office and remote work arrangements across our 25 geographically disperse offices. Click here to visit the Nelson Mullins Coronavirus Resources page. Information described therein is subject to change. Confidentiality Notice This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately either by phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and delete all copies of this message. 134 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ROY COOPER J. ERIC BOYETTE GOVERNOR SECRETARY Mailing Address: NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION 7, DISTRICT 1 PO BOX 766 GRAHAM, NC 27253-0766 Telephone: (336) 570-6833 Fax: (336) 570-6873 Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968 Website: www.ncdot.gov Location: 115 EAST CRESCENT SQUARE DRIVE GRAHAM, NC 27253 October 27, 2020 ORANGE COUNTY Mr. Earl Lewellyn, PE Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. 300 Morris Street, Suite 200 Durham, NC 27701 Subject: Proposed Buc-ee’s West Orange Site Located on SR 1239, I-85/ US 70 Connector and SR 1120, Mt Willing Road  Review of Traffic Study (TIA) Dear Mr. Lewellyn, Staff from NCDOT Division 7 and the Transportation and Mobility Unit have reviewed the submittals listed below for the above-mentioned development. I offer the following comments based upon the information provided.  TIA dated June 2020 and sealed June 30, 2020  TIA Phase 2 dated August 2020 and sealed August 6, 2020  TIA Addendum #1 dated and sealed September 11, 2020  TIA Addendum #2 dated and sealed September 15, 2020  Memorandum entitled Beaver Crossing- Efland NC- Exit 160 Weaving Assessment dated and sealed October 8, 2020 General: The proposed site consists of a 120-pump gas station with convenience store and a number of outparcels identified as a 120-room hotel, 8,000 square feet (SF) of medical office space, 30,000 SF of specialty retail space, a 3,500 SF drive-in bank, 12,000 SF of fast casual restaurant space, and 20,000 SF of high-turnover sit-down restaurant space. The site is to be developed in two phases with the gas station comprising phase 1 to be completed in 2022 and the remaining uses to be developed in phase 2 with completion scheduled for 2023. The site is expected to generate an estimated 34,922 daily vehicle trips upon buildout. Proposed site access consists of a full movement access located on 135 the I-85/US 70 Connector approximately 400’ north of the existing Ben Johnston Road and two right in-right out accesses on what is described in the study as a service road resulting from the modification of the existing braided interstate interchange via removal of the existing westbound 160 exit ramp. A full movement access on Mt. Willing Road directly across from Turner Street is proposed in phase 2. Interstate Interchange Modifications: As previously noted, the traffic study includes recommendations for modification of the existing westbound I-40/85 braided interstate interchange with removal of the existing westbound exit 160 ramp resulting in conversion of the braided configuration to a one- way service road providing access to Mt. Willing Road via reassignment of traffic currently using this exit 160 to the 161 exit ramp and utilizing the resulting service road to access Mt. Willing Road. Site access to the resulting service road in the form of two right in-right out driveways is proposed. NCDOT staff is in general agreement with the conclusion in the above- referenced weaving assessment that the current configuration is not desirable due to the presence of a high speed conflict point at the existing exit 160 gore and the relatively short weaving length provided by the existing braided ramps. Staff also concurs that operational and safety problems will worsen with the increase in traffic associated with the proposed development and/or future traffic growth. The proposed modification of the interchange and the proposed break in the controlled access right of way to accommodate the proposed site accesses will require review and approval by the NCDOT Right of Way Disposal and Controlled Access Committee as well as the Federal Highway Administration. The Applicant has not yet made the necessary submittals to these bodies; therefore, the outcome of this proposal is not determined at this time. The remaining comments in this letter are based on the presumption that the modification will proceed as proposed and contingent upon approval. In the event that the request is not approved, additional traffic operational analysis for alternate scenarios will be needed. Required Road Improvements: As a condition of the pending NCDOT Driveway Permit and contingent upon approval of the interstate interchange modification and controlled access breaks as described above, the Applicant will be required to construct the following road improvements to mitigate traffic impacts attributable to site traffic to ensure acceptable operation. Phase 1 Improvements: The following improvements shall be constructed with development of phase 1 and prior to placing the proposed gas station with convenience store into operation. Intestate Interchange Modification: Subject to FHWA approval, modify the existing interchange as follows:  Remove existing westbound 160 exit ramp  Reconfigure to provide for a one-way service road with dual thru lanes extending from the I-85/US 70 Connector to the westbound 160 on ramp and proceeding as a single thru lane to Mt. Willing Road 136 I-40/85 Westbound Service Road and East RI-RO Driveway:  Provide one northbound ingress lane and one southbound egress lane with stop control on the driveway  Provide a minimum 100’ internal protected stem length  Provide a westbound exclusive right turn lane with 150’ of full storage and appropriate deceleration and transition accommodation per NCDOT requirements I-40/85 Westbound Service Road and West RI-RO Driveway:  Provide one northbound ingress lane and one southbound egress lane with stop control on the driveway  Provide a minimum 100’ internal protected stem length  Provide a westbound exclusive right turn lane with 200’ of full storage and appropriate transition per NCDOT requirements I-40/85 Westbound Service Road and Mt. Willing Road:  Provide a three-lane westbound approach consisting of the following: o One full single thru lane o One exclusive continuous right turn lane o One exclusive left turn lane with 280’ of full storage and appropriate transitions per NCDOT requirements.  Provide a coordinated traffic signal at this intersection. I-40/85 Eastbound Ramp and I-85/US 70 Connector Intersection:  Provide a two-lane eastbound approach consisting of the following: o One full combination thru-left-right turn lane o One exclusive left turn lane with 400’ of full storage and appropriate transitions per NCDOT requirements  Extend existing southbound left turn lane to provide for 400’of full storage and appropriate transitions per NCDOT requirements  Provide a coordinated traffic signal at this intersection. I-40/85 Westbound Ramp and I-85/US 70 Connector Intersection:  Provide a three-lane northbound approach consisting of the following: o Dual full thru-lanes o One exclusive left turn lane with 250’ of full storage and appropriate transition per NCDOT requirements  Provide a four-lane westbound approach consisting of the following: o One full thru lane 137 o One combination thru-left turn lane with 450’ of full storage and appropriate transition per NCDOT requirements. o Dual exclusive right turn lanes with 450’ of full storage each and appropriate transition per NCDOT requirements.  Provide coordinated traffic signal at this location. Proposed Site Access and I-85/US 70 Connector Intersection:  Locate site access as far to the north as possible while adhering to applicable roadway design guidelines to maximize intersection spacing relative to Ben Johnston Road  Evaluate alternatives to accommodating northbound U-turns from Ben Johnston Road in order to increase intersection efficiency at the site access via possible right turn overlap and signal timing afforded by relocated U-turn movements.  Provide a three-lane eastbound approach consisting of the following: o One full exclusive right turn lane o One exclusive right turn lane with 300’ of full storage and appropriate transition per NCDOT requirements o One exclusive left turn lane with 200’ of full storage and appropriate transition per NCDOT requirements. o Provide a minimum internal protected stem of 300’  Provide dual eastbound ingress lanes  Construct dual northbound left turn lanes with 330’ of full storage each and appropriate transitions per NCDOT requirements.  Construct a southbound exclusive right turn lane with 100’ of storage and appropriate transition per NCDOT requirements  Provide coordinated traffic signal at this location. I-85 and US Connector and Ben Johnston Road Intersection:  Install appropriate median and channelization to convert Ben Johnston Road to RI-RO.  Accommodate resulting U-turns at the following intersections: o Southbound U-turns- I-85/ US 70 Connector and I-40/85 Eastbound Ramps o Northbound U-turns- Evaluate alternatives to accommodating U-turns from Ben Johnston Road in order to increase intersection efficiency at the site access intersection via possible right turn overlap and signal timing afforded by relocated U-turn movements Phase 2 Improvements: The following improvements shall be constructed with development of phase and prior to placing the proposed site uses into operation. I-40/85 Eastbound Ramps and Mt. Willing Road Intersection: 138  Provide a two-lane eastbound approach consisting of the following: o One full combination thru-left turn lane o One exclusive right turn lane with 350’ of full storage and appropriate transition per NCDOT requirements  Extend existing southbound left turn lane to provide for 400’ of full storage with appropriate transition per NCDOT requirements.  Provide coordinated traffic signal at this location. Mt. Willing Road and Turner Road/Proposed Site Driveway Intersection:  Provide a two-lane westbound approach consisting of the following: o One full exclusive left turn lane o One exclusive right turn lane with a minimum of 100’ of full storage and appropriate transition per NCDOT requirements o Provide a minimum of 100’ internal protected stem length  Provide dual eastbound ingress lanes to accommodate free-flow right turn movements.  Construct a northbound exclusive free-flow right turn lane with 200’ of full storage and appropriate transition per NCDOT requirements  Construct a southbound exclusive left turn lane with 100’ of full storage and appropriate transition per NCDOT requirements  Monitor intersection for signalization. Multi-modal and Streetscape Enhancements: Any locally stipulated multi-modal enhancements including but not limited to sidewalk, bike lanes, bus pull offs, lighting, landscaping etc. on State maintained routes are subject to NCDOT requirements and approval through the encroachment process. General Requirements: It is necessary to obtain an approved driveway permit and/or encroachment agreement(s) prior to performing work on the NCDOT right of way. As a condition of the permit, the permitee shall be responsible for design and construction of the above stipulated improvements in accordance with NCDOT requirements. An approved permit will be issued upon receipt of approved roadway and signal construction plans, inspection fee, and any necessary performance and indemnity bonds. The applicant shall dedicate any additional right of way necessary to accommodate the required road improvements or future improvements as stipulated. Intersection radii and geometry shall be designed to accommodate turning movements of the largest anticipated vehicle. All pavement markings shall be long life thermoplastic. Pavement markers shall be installed if they previously existed on the roadway. 139 The permitee shall be responsible for the installation and relocation of any additional highway signs that may be necessary due to these improvements and shall comply with the requirements of the MUTCD. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, C. N. Edwards Jr., PE District Engineer Cc: W. R. Archer, III, PE, Division Engineer Kevin Lacy, PE, State Traffic Engineer D. M. McPherson, Division Traffic Engineer Brian Thomas, PE, Regional Traffic Engineer Doumit Ishak, PE, Congestion Management Regional Engineer Orange County 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 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 2 parcels as follows: Parcel Identification Number (PIN) Township Owner of Record Current Zoning District Proposed Zoning District 9854-16-1576 Cheeks SL Efland Heirs LLC Office Research Manufacturing (O/RM); Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District ; Efland Interstate Overlay District; and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Efland Station; Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District ; Efland Interstate Overlay District; and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. 9854-36-3711 Cheeks Chad Lloyd Land Investment Company LLC Office Research Manufacturing (O/RM); Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District ; Efland Interstate Overlay District; and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Efland Station; Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District ; Efland Interstate Overlay District; and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. 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: • 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. The County and City of Mebane have engaged in numerous studies/joint planning efforts over the last several identifying Attachment 8 163 areas viable for the extension of utilities (i.e. sewer) in support of high intensity residential and non-residential land uses. The requested rezoning will allow development consistent with the overall spirit and intent of the adopted Comprehensive Plan as well as applicable joint planning efforts completed by the County and the City with respect to providing utility (i.e. sewer) services. This area was part of a small area plan, specifically the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan (hereafter ‘the Plan’), adopted by the County in 2006. The purpose and intent of the Plan was to identify areas for urban style development focusing on viable locations for housing, community services, open space areas, and non-residential development. Upon adoption, the UDO was amended creating various overlay districts designed to implement the goals/policies of the adopted Plan. One of these districts was the Efland Interstate Overlay District. Per Section 4.4 of the UDO the intent of the overlay district is to: ‘… provide for a more urban style of development in an area of the county served, or intended to be served, by public water and sewer systems’. The properties subject to this rezoning request have been pre-determined to be suitable for urban style development and higher intensities consistent with the Plan. • 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.) 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). The rezoning is also consistent with the goals/policies of the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan, which identified the area in question as being suitable for higher intensity, urban scale, development due to the proximity to the Interstate and availability of utility services (i.e. water/sewer). 164 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, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as well as adopted Small Area Plans for the area. 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 City of Mebane plans outlining those parcels suitable for service by 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 hereby adopts this Statement of Consistency and findings expressed herein and recommends the Board of County Commissioners consider adoption of the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment(s). ______________________ ________________________ David Blankfard, Chair Date 165 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS WHEREAS, Orange County has received and processed a petition submitted by Buc-ee’s Limited (hereafter ‘the Applicant’) seeking to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO); and WHEREAS, This petition seeks to rezone 2 parcels totaling approximately 104 acres of property to Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZD) for the purpose of developing the Efland Station development (hereafter ‘the Project); and WHEREAS, The properties subject to this rezoning are identified, utilizing Orange County Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN), as: i. A 92 acre tract of land PIN 9854-16-1576, and ii. A 12 acre parcel of land PIN 9854-36-3711 hereafter ‘the Property’; and WHEREAS, The applicant has voluntarily chosen to establish development and land use limitations on the Project to address potential conflicts with surrounding properties; and WHEREAS, This petition has been submitted in concert with a formal master plan in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.9.2 (C) of the UDO; and WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 and 2.9.2 of the UDO have been deemed complete; and WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County Zoning Atlas is hereby amended to rezone aforementioned 2 parcels of property to Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) and allow development of the Project as detailed within the submitted application. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT The terms and conditions contained herein shall encumber the Property and bind the owners and lessees thereof, their successors in title and interest. The development of the Project as well as all necessary site improvements, both internal and external to the Project, shall be reviewed, approved, and developed in accordance with: Attachment 9 166 a. The applicable provisions of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), b. Any and all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations, and c. The application package as submitted by the Applicant and as approved by the Orange County Board of Commissioners on ___________. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT in accordance with Section 2.9.2 (F) of the UDO the approval of this Conditional Zoning applicant is subject to the following mutually agreed to conditions: I. GENERAL: a. Approval of the Project does not constitute an explicit guarantee for utility services (i.e. water and sewer) by either the City of Mebane or Orange- Alamance Water System (OAWS). Provision of services shall be consistent with applicable utility connection policies and/or any existing utility agreements between the City of Mebane, OAW S, and Orange County; b. Approval of the Project does not constitute an explicit guarantee for roadway closures/development as denoted on the Master Concept Plan. Closure of the existing Exit 160, and development of right-in/right-out driveways on the existing Interstate on/off ramp, shall require additional review/hearings as part of NC DOT and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) processes taking action on the request independent on this approval. If roadway realignment is approved, the Project will move forward consistent with the approved plan. If denied, the applicant will have to address necessary modification(s) at a future date. c. The Project shall be composed of 2 individual properties totaling approximately 104 acres of land area further defined as follows: i. PIN 9854-16-1576: An approximately 92 acre parcel currently zoned: 1. Office/Research and Manufacturing (O/RM); 2. Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District; 3. Efland Interstate Overlay District; and 4. Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. ii. PIN 9854-36-3711: An approximately 12 acre parcel currently zoned: 1. Office/Research and Manufacturing (O/RM); 2. Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District; 167 3. Efland Interstate Overlay District; and 4. Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. NOTE: Overlay District boundaries/designations are not impacted by this proposal. d. 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. SITE PLAN: a. All site plans proposing development within the Project shall be reviewed by City of Mebane and OAWS 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). Further, all submitted site plans shall track cumulative water/sewer allocation for each proposed land use as part of submittal(s). A lack of water and/or sewer capacity shall result in the denial of the site plan; c. Consistent with existing inter-local utility agreements between Orange County and the City of Mebane, and the approved Application, the Project will have a daily sewer utility allotment of approximately 77,000 gallons a day of sewer service. Site plans proposing development/land uses exceeding cumulative daily sewer allotments shall be required to provide documentation from the City of Mebane indicating there is sewer capacity to serve the proposed development; d. Prior to the approval of a site plan allowing development within the Project, the County will need documentation from OAWS indicating there is sufficient water capacity to serve the Project. A lack of water capacity for a proposed use shall result in the denial of the site plan; e. The Orange County Staff Engineer, OAWS staff, and the City of Mebane Utility Director shall review and approve location(s) of proposed water and sewer lines prior to site plan approval and the initiation of land disturbing activity; f. The Orange County and City of 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). 168 as part of all site plan review. g. 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; h. 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. i. Identified conflicts associated with landscaping shall be resolved prior to the approval of the site plan for a given project; j. For all site plans submitted for the Project the Efland Volunteer Fire Department shall be considered a member of the County Development Advisory Committee (DAC) as outlined in Section 1.9 of the UDO to review a projects compliance with applicable development standards including, but not necessarily limited to: land use regulations, conditions of MPD-CZ approval, applicable State fire/building codes. k. Site plans shall contain documentation outlining proposed and/or existing cumulative impervious surface area as well as building/open space ratios within the Project. III. DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS: a. The Project shall observe a building square footage limit of 500,000 sq.ft. consistent with the submitted and approved Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) approved as part of this master concept plan. Additional floor area may be developed with the submittal of a revised, updated, TIA processed and reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the UDO. b. Height – Principal Structures: Consistent with the definition of building height in Article 10 Definitions and Section(s) 6.2.2 and 6.5 3 of the UDO, the following height limitations shall be observed within the Project: i. Development Area 1 and 5: 40 ft. ii. Development Area(s) 2 through 4: 60 ft. iii. Development Area 6: 35 ft. Measurement shall be taken from finished grade at the center point of the front building façade. 169 c. Height – Water Tower Accessory Structure: Shall not exceed 110 ft. in height including any/all antenna apparatus erected on same. d. Setbacks: The Project shall observe the following setbacks: Property Line: Freestanding Building/Structures: Vehicular Use Areas: Signage: Interstate 85/40 right-of-way 100 ft. including any gas station canopy or fuel pump. 40 ft. consistent with the proposed MTC buffer break denoted on the approved Master Concept Plan 1 10 ft. 2 US Highway 70/Interstate Connector Road right-of- way 40 ft. 3 40 ft. 3 10 ft. 4 Mt. Willing Road right-of- 40 ft. 5 40 ft. 5 10 ft. 100 ft. from 1 Staff is comfortable with the proposed vehicular use area setback area as the condition is written. The applicant is proposing a managed break in the MTC buffer, consistent with existing allowances. They are, however, proposing to have landscaping in this area where none would normally be required. Staff is comfortable with the provision. 2 Staff will be recommending a minimum 25 ft. setback for signage erected adjacent to an Interstate right-of-way. 3 Staff is recommending 50 ft. 4 Staff is recommending a minimum 20 ft. setback for signage erected adjacent to the road right-of-way. 5 Staff is recommending 50 ft. 170 way residential land uses.6 External Property Lines 40 ft. 7 40 ft. 8 Development Area 1 - Internal setbacks 10 ft.9 10 ft.10 5 ft. from private right-of-way 10 ft. from public right-of-way 11 Other Development Areas - Internal setbacks 20 ft. 20 ft. 5 ft. from private right-of-way 12 e. Open Space: 40 acres (38%) of land within the Project shall be preserved as open space area. No building and/or parking areas shall be permitted. Walking trails, picnic tables, and/or other recreation amenities may be permitted consistent with the standards contained herein and in accordance with the provisions of the UDO. f. Cumulative impervious surface area for the Project shall not exceed 62%. IV. ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION: In addition to the requirements of Section 6.10 Roadway Improvements and Multi-modal Transportation of the UDO the following standards shall apply: a. Internal streets shall be privately maintained; b. 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; 6 Staff is seeking confirmation from the applicant this includes 100 ft. from residentially zoned property west of Mt. Willing Road. 7 Staff is recommending the following: 100 ft. from external property lines abutting a residential land use/zoned parcel of property and 50 ft. adjacent to a non-residential land use/zoned parcel of property. 8 Staff is recommending 50 ft. 9 Staff is recommending 20 ft. The Master Concept Plan denotes a variable 15 to 20 ft. landscape buffer separating vehicular use/building area from internal rights-of-way. Staff’s proposed setback preserves this landscape area as shown. 10 IBID. 11 As all roadways are to be constructed to public right-of-way standards, and site visibility will be a concern, staff recommends a 10 ft. setback for signage from internal roadways. 12 Staff is recommending a 10 ft. setback. 171 d. Final roadway layout, including pavement widths and driveways, shall be approved by the Orange County Fire Marshal’s office and NC DOT as part of the final site plan review process required under Section 2.5 of the UDO and as detailed herein; e. Phase 1 shall involve development of a gravel access road off of Mt. Willing Road for emergency vehicle access. When the final driveway access allowing access to the Project from Mt. Willing Road is constructed, this gravel roadway can be eliminated;13 f. 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); g. Any and all internal streets, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, etc. shall be designated for public access/use for employees/customers/visitors to the site; h. Driveway permits, when required, shall be applied for and issued by the North Carolina Department of Transportation; i. Orange County and North Carolina Department of Transportation shall approve the location of all proposed external utility poles housing street signals prior to installation; j. Segregated entrances and exists for pedestrian, construction vehicle, and non-construction vehicular traffic shall be developed to avoid conflict during construction activities; k. Any required or requested bus pullouts and/or 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. l. Traffic directional signage shall be required for all internal and external roadway as directed by Orange County and the North Carolina Department of Transportation including but not limited to: i. Stop signs, ii. Yield signs, iii. Bus parking and unloading informational signs iv. Lane ends, 13 The applicant is proposing a gravel roadway for emergency vehicle access (i.e. fire, EMS, Sheriff, etc.) to the Project. This has been approved by the County Fire Marshal. Staff would prefer the proposed driveway access from Mt. Willing Road be constructed in Phase 1 making it easier for Efland residents to access the Project. 172 v. Merge signs, vi. Caution Pedestrian Traffic – Yield Signs, vii. Traffic safety signs designed to direct construction traffic throughout the site, viii. Traffic warning signs indicating the location of private driveways and forbidding public access to the various properties, and ix. Through traffic signs. m. Applicant shall be responsible for designating a speed limit for the Project, posting signage denoting same; n. Development of Area 6 shall be coordinated with the applicant, NC DOT, and Orange County Transportation Services consistent with the standards detailed herein and within 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: i. Development within the Project shall contract for the private collection and disposal of solid wastes and for the collection and marketing of mixed recyclables (including corrugated cardboard), and food waste; ii. All site plans shall designate external space for the proper storage and collection of solid waste, recyclable materials (including corrugated cardboard) and food waste; iii. Storage/collection areas shall be located in such a manner as to provide convenient access for users of the facility and for safe and efficient access by collection vehicles. Their location shall be reviewed and approved as part of the site plan submittal/review process. External space for collection of solid waste and recyclable materials. Materials collected shall be consistent with the County’s Solid Waste Management ordinance. 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. iv. In those cases where storage/collection areas are located across property or district lines for shared areas, developer shall prepare and record a joint access agreement, including a shared storage/collection facility agreement, establishing the sharing of the proposed storage/collection facility and that they can be serviced across property lines or district lines. 173 This agreement shall be reviewed and approved by Orange County Solid Waste and representatives of the County Attorney’s office; v. For food service and lodging operations, space shall be reserved for the storage/collection of food waste collection; vi. The layout and design of waste/storage facilities for solid wastes, recyclable materials (including corrugated cardboard), and food wastes shall comply with the standards and guidelines of Orange County Solid Waste Management (OCSW) and the Orange County Environmental Health Food & Lodging Division. Further, such waste/storage facilities shall be designed and situated so not to negatively affect adjacent properties; and shall be located so not to impact internal traffic flow or located in loading zones. vii. The following standards notes shall be placed on all site plan(s) addressing compliance with the County’s Regulated Recyclable Materials Ordinance (RRMO): 1. Clean wood waste, scrap metal, and corrugated cardboard present in construction and demolition waste shall be recycled; 2. All haulers of construction and demolition waste shall be licensed with OCSW; 3. Prior to the issuance of a permit to demolish any structure five hundred (500) square feet or greater in size, the permitee or owner shall have requested and received a deconstruction assessment by OCSW Enforcement staff in accordance with the RRMO. viii. The following additional notes shall be provided on any submitted site plan: 1. Gate design will include gate retainers. 2. Orange County will not be responsible for any pavement damage that may result from service vehicles. 3. 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. 174 4. 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: In addition to the standards detailed in Section 6.5 of the UDO, the following specific standards shall apply to the Project: i. Development Area 1: 1. Development shall abide by the information detailed in Exhibit 1 of the approved Application package. ii. Development Area(s) 2 through 5: 1. Permitted exterior finishes and/or siding materials shall be limited to: a. Cement/concrete siding, such as Hardi-plank, b. Brick and/or stucco, c. Concrete in pre-cast or cast-in-place (CIP) applications. i. Where utilized, large expanses shall be broken-up and modulated with architectural variations like scoring, reveals, ornamental embellishments, etc. d. Concrete masonry units (CMU’s) limited to: i. Standard block, painted for service areas out of public view, rears of parapets, etc. OR ii. Split-face and/or ground face CMU’s e. Dry-stack and/or ashlar stone shall be permitted only when utilized as an identifying characteristic for a structure. f. All storefronts and glass walls shall utilize glazing. Reflective and/or mirrored glass is prohibited. 2. Roofs shall abide by the following standards: a. Roof design that serve to enhance the capture of natural light shall be encouraged; 175 b. All rooftop HVAC equipment, elevator overrides, and other similar devises shall be screened utilizing 1 of the following methods: i. Clad in exterior materials that are non- reflective or illuminated, OR ii. Designed as an architectural feature of the proposed structure, OR iii. Screened through some vegetative buffer or fencing. c. Solar panels shall be allowed to be installed along roof tops, including raised panels to allow for tracking of the sun’s rays, in accordance with the following: i. The panels shall oriented or designed to prevent glare, and ii. Roof mounted panels shall be screened from view at through an architectural feature. iii. Metal roofs shall be non-reflective and designed to blend in with the architecture of the building. d. Ground mounted solar shall be screened from view by fencing or vegetative buffer. e. Slopped standing seam metal roofs shall be permitted as long as they are designed to blend in with the architecture of the building and the district, f. Flat roofs comprised of TCP, EPDM, rubber single-ply membrane and other similar products shall be permitted as long as the applicant demonstrates that the roof shall be hidden or shielded from the public’s street view through the use of parapets, railings, or balusters. 3. Service Areas & Mechanical Equipment shall be screened from the adjoining Public Roads with walls designed to complement the building architecture of the adjacent buildings and/or landscaping. Architectural features such as, but not limited to, banding, medallions, changes in color or design features or materials will be provided to avoid a sterile, unarticulated blank treatment of such walls; 4. Screening of Structures. Meter banks, transformers and similar utility structures will be screened where visible from public view at grade level; 176 5. Backflow Preventers. Above ground back flow preventers and transformers will not be located within the Open Space Areas or within the required Urban Open Space unless they are required to serve the Open Space Areas in which they are located. Above ground back flow preventers and transformers that are located within the Open Space Areas as allowed by this Section will be screened; 6. Mechanical Equipment Screening. Roof top HVAC and related mechanical equipment will be screened from public view at grade level at the right-of-way location; 7. Dumpster Screening. Dumpster areas and recycling areas will be enclosed by a solid wall or fence with one side being a decorative gate. The wall or fence used to enclose the dumpster will be architecturally compatible with the building materials and colors used on the principal building; 8. Accessory Buildings. Any and all accessory buildings and enclosures whether attached to or detached from the main building, including automatic teller machines, shall be designed to complement the site architecture and shall be integrated with the same scale, texture, color and detailing of adjacent architectural design; 9. The applicable components of the Project will comply with applicable provisions of the ADA; 10 Any required deviation to address NCDOT drive slope requirements shall be limited to occur along access drives and/or between individual districts to avoid internal tract slope conflict creating accessibility issues. iv. Development Area 6: Development within this area shall be consistent with County architectural guidelines. d. Landscaping/Buffering: In addition to the standards contained in Section 6.8 of the UDO, the following specific standards shall apply to the Project: 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. If existing vegetation is utilized, a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the critical root zone of the existing tree must be within the buffer and must remain undisturbed in order to apply towards land use buffer standards; 177 iii. If a portion of any land use buffer must be disturbed to facilitate development, the disturbed portion shall be re-planted consistent with the approved Landscape Buffer Plan (Sheet C-6.0) of the Master Plan; iv. Landscaping shall comply with the following: Buffer Type Planting(s) – per 100 linear ft. Linear Footage of buffer: 10’ or 20’ Type A Mixed Option • 1 Deciduous Canopy Tree • Deciduous Understory Tree • 2 Evergreen Understory Trees • 13 Shrubs 9,903 LF 40' Type C Overhead Utility Option • 7 Deciduous Understory Trees • 5 Evergreen Understory Trees • 30 Shrubs 2,610 LF 40' Type C Mixed Option • 3 Deciduous Canopy Trees • 1 Evergreen Canopy Tree • 2 Deciduous Understory Trees • 5 Evergreen Understory Trees • 40 Shrubs 631 LF 40' Type B Deciduous Option • 2 Deciduous Canopy Trees • 2 Deciduous Understory Trees • 12 Shrubs 1,219 LF Enhanced 40' Type D Mixed Option • 6 Deciduous Canopy Trees • 1 Evergreen Canopy Tree • 4 Deciduous Understory Trees • 9 Evergreen Understory Trees • 70 Shrubs • 6 ft. tall fence erected at the edge of landscaping 4,431 LF 100' Type F Deciduous Option 10 Deciduous Canopy Trees 13 Deciduous Understory Trees 80 Shrubs 1,132 LF 200' Type F Deciduous Option 10 Deciduous Canopy Trees 13 Deciduous Understory Trees 746 LF 178 80 Shrubs v. Planting Requirements – Street Trees. All required street trees will be installed along existing and proposed public streets, not including alleys, when above and below ground utilities and stormwater infrastructure allow as shown on the Landscape Buffer Plan (Sheet C6.0) included in the Rezoning Plan. Street trees shall be at least 1½ inches in caliper at time of planting. Canopy trees required as part of land use buffers may also be applied towards the Street Tree requirement. vi. Planting Requirements – Between Lot Plantings: Between lot plantings will not be required on any Development Area except as shown as shown on the Landscape Buffer Plan (Sheet C6.0) included in the Rezoning Plan. vii. Planting Requirements – Foundation Plantings: The required foundation plantings shall be in accordance with the following: 1. Development Area 1: Plantings will be provided within proximity to all buildings using the following standards: a. Planting areas will be provided adjacent to the three primary sides (excluding the rear) of all buildings in the form of landscape islands. b. Landscape islands will be directly adjacent to the primary sidewalks to each building. Total square footage provided for all landscape islands will be equivalent to 5 feet times the total length of the three primary sides (excluding the rear) of all buildings. Landscaping will not be placed in direct proximity to the building foundation due to safety and foundation infiltration concerns. 2. Development Areas 2 – 6: Landscape area at least five feet (5’) wide for a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the primary frontage side of the building. viii. Interior landscaping shall be consistent with the following: 1. In-general: a. Unless otherwise modified herein, parking lot landscaping shall be provide consistent with Section 6.8.7 (d) (2) of the UDO; 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; 179 c. No more than ten parking spaces shall be permitted in any single continuous row without being interrupted by a terminal landscape island except when directly adjacent to a building. No terminal landscape islands will be required for the first row of parking spaces when directly adjacent to any side of any building; d. When required, terminal landscape islands will be a minimum of 200 square feet and may include pavers and / or decorative stone within the required 200 square feet of the landscape island; e. Each terminal landscape island will be planted with a minimum of one canopy tree, as well as shrubs and / or ground cover. 2. Development Area 1: a. No landscape area shall be provided between the vehicular use areas and the right of way or adjacent property line except as shown on the Landscape Buffer Plan (Sheet C6.0) included in the Rezoning Plan. Plantings required as part of the Land Use Buffers may be used to satisfy this requirement; 14 3. Development Areas 2 through 6: a. A landscape area at least five feet in width (which may include drainage and/or utility easements) shall be installed within parking areas. Plantings required as part of the Land Use Buffers may be used to satisfy this requirement. 15 ix. Rainwater harvesting shall be encouraged to serve as irrigation for landscaping including the use of all regional stormwater ponds developed within the Project. x. 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). g. Parking: In addition to the standards contained in Section 6.9 of the UDO, the following specific standards shall apply to the Project: 14 Staff recommends a 10 ft. vegetated buffer shall be provided between vehicular use areas, including parking stalls, and internal access roads. These areas should exclude drainage/utility easements. Also this language contradicts applicant’s recommended condition(s) on encouraging/promoting internal landscaping. 15 IBID. 180 i. Space(s) shall be required based on the following standard(s): 1. Retail: 1 space for every 300 sq.ft. of gross floor area; 2. Bank/Financial Institution: 1 space for every 200 sq.ft. of gross floor area. 5 stacking spaces shall be provided per individual drive-in window; 3. Office: 1 space for every 300 sq.ft. of gross floor area; 4. Eating and Drinking Establishment: 1 space for every 40 seats or 1 space for every 50 sq.ft. of floor area for public use whichever is greater; 5. Short-Term Rental Non Host Occupied: 1 space per room plus 1 space per shift employee; 6. Manufacturing: 1 space per 1,000 sq.ft. of floor area. ii. Car wash: there will be stacking/storage space provided to accommodate a minimum of 10 vehicles waiting for access to the proposed car wash facility. h. Signage: In addition to the standards contained in Section 6.12 of the UDO, the following specific standards shall apply to the Project: a. In general: i. Signs or marketing of any kind are prohibited within the common areas/open space of the Project; ii. In addition to the requirement of Section 6.12.7 of the UDO, sign submittals shall include a photo of the actual building exterior and a rendering with the proposed sign superimposed same; iii. All signs shall be internally illuminated; iv. Window signs or graphics of shall be limited to 25% of the window surface as defined from floor to ceiling. b. Specific sign limits: i. Development Area 1: 1. Freestanding Sign: a. Maximum Number: 1 b. Maximum Height: 80 ft. from natural grade; c. Maximum Width: 22 ft.; d. Maximum Size of Sign: 470 sq.ft. further broken down as follows: i. Logo: 380 sq.ft. ii. Cabinet: 90 sq.ft. 181 2. Monument Sign: a. Maximum Number: 1 b. Maximum Height: 8 ft. from natural grade; c. Maximum Width: 13 ft.; d. Maximum Size of Sign: 65 sq.ft. 3. Wall Sign – Retail Center: a. Maximum Number: 3 b. Maximum Height: N/A; c. Maximum Width: i. Logo: 9 ft; ii. Sign Cabinet: 7 ft. d. Maximum Size of Sign: i. Logo 64 sq.ft. ii. Cabinet: 206.5 sq.ft. 4. Wall Sign – Car wash: a. Maximum Number: 4 b. Maximum Height: N/A; c. Maximum Width: i. Logo: 5 ft; ii. Sign Cabinet: 20 ft. d. Maximum Size of Sign: i. Logo 25 sq.ft. ii. Cabinet: 52 sq.ft. per sign. ii. Development Areas 2 through 6: 1. Monument Sign: a. Maximum Number: i. 2 signs in Development Area(s) 2 and 3; ii. 1 sign in Development Area 4; iii. 3 signs in Development Area 5 b. Maximum Height: 20 ft. from natural grade; c. Maximum Width: 16 ft.; d. Maximum Size of Sign Panel Area: 240 sq.ft.; 2. Wall Sign: 182 a. Multi-tenant Building: i. Maximum horizontal length or span of sign shall not exceed 80% of the width of the usable, one surface storefront of a particular Tenant’s space; ii. Sign shall not exceed 64 square feet in area; iii. If the width of the storefront contains more than one building/facade material, the Tenant shall use only one building/facade material width to determine 80%; iv. No sign may cover two different façade surfaces. b. Single-tenant Building: i. One wall sign per building façade; ii. Allowable sign area shall not exceed 1 square foot of sign area per 1 foot of building length of each façade up to a maximum size limit of 64 square feet; iii. No sign may cover two different façade surfaces. 3. Directional Sign: a. Limited to necessary information for patrons (e.g. entrance/exit, directional, one-way) b. May not exceed 4 square feet in sign area c. May not exceed 4 feet in height d. Maximum of four (4) per building within any particular Development Area 4. Temporary Real Estate, Construction, and Financing Signs: a. No sign shall exceed 24 square feet in area b. No more than two (2) signs per building site c. Construction and Financing Signs must be removed within 10 days of receipt of certificate of occupancy for any one building site. i. Lighting: In addition to the standards contained in Section 6.9 of the UDO, the following specific standards shall apply to the Project: i. All lighting shall be full-cut off fixtures; 183 ii. Lighting in parking areas shall observe a height limit of 36 ft.; iii. All lighting shall comply with maximum foot-candle limits at property lines as noted in Section 6.11.6.A of the UDO. There shall be no net increase in existing lighting levels along the Interstate 85/40 on/off ramp beyond existing lighting installed and maintained by NC DOT; iv. Lighting within the Project shall abide by the standards detailed in Section 6.11.8 of the UDO. i. Stream Buffers: The Project shall comply with the provisions of Section 6.13 of the UDO. j. Stormwater regulations: The Project shall comply with the provisions of Section 6.14 of the UDO. A Master Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) shall be developed to address stormwater runoff for the entire development even though individual parcels may be responsible for installing stormwater control measures (SCMs). Stormwater facilities will be designed to meet current Ordinances with the development of each individual Development Area within the Project. Nitrogen and Phosphorus load contributions leaving the site must be held to 2.20 lbs per acre per year and 0.33 lbs per acre per year respectively. These standards shall be met via offset payments (nutrient buy-down payments) and/or on-site SCMs consistent with State law and the UDO. k. Erosion Control regulations. The Project shall comply with the provisions of Section 6.15 of the UDO. l. Flood regulations: The Project shall comply with the provisions of Section 6.21 of the UDO. 16 VI. PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED LAND USES: a. Permitted Uses: Shall be limited to those identified uses consistent with existing definitions contained within the UDO. i. Development Area 1: Approximately 26.59± acres in area developed within Phase I of the Project. Permitted uses shall be limited to: 1. Motor Vehicle Service Station limited to no more than 120 fueling positions.17 2. Retail and Eating and Drinking Establishment uses subject to the following conditions: 16 At this time there are no identified floodplains on the Property. 17 The applicant has indicated the need for the proposed individual fuel pumps is that motorists will stop to fuel their cars then go into the retail center for a prolonged period of time thereby limiting access to the fuel pump. Staff has heard numerous concerns from adjacent property owners related to the number of proposed pumps as well as the storage tanks necessary to support same. 184 a. Located within a single structure no more than 70,100 sq.ft. in area; b. Accessory use shall be limited to a car wash. ii. Development Area 2: Approximately 17.07 ± acres in area developed within Phase 2 of the Project. Permitted uses shall be limited to: 1. Eating and Drinking Establishments limited to 32,000 sq.ft. of building area; 2. Retail uses limited to 30,000 sq.ft. of building area; and 3. Office and Financial Services uses limited to 4,000 sq.ft. of building area. iii. Development Area 3: Approximately 3.88 ± acres in area developed within Phase 2 of the Project. Permitted uses shall be limited to: 1. Eating and Drinking Establishments limited to 8,000 sq.ft. of building area; and 2. Retail Uses limited to 16,000 sq.ft. of building area iv. Development Area 4: Approximately 3.84 ± acres in area developed within Phase 2 of the Project. Permitted uses shall be limited to: 1. Short-Term Rental- Non-Host Occupied. v. Development Area 5: Approximately 21.05 ± acres in area developed within Phase 2 of the Project. Permitted uses shall be limited to: 1. Medical Uses; 2. Office and Financial Service; 3. Manufacturing, Assembly, Processing and Distribution Uses- Food Uses; 4. Manufacturing, Assembly, Processing and Distribution Uses- Other Uses limited specifically to Research Facility with Manufacturing, totaling no more than 150,000 square feet in approximately four (4) buildings. vi. Development Area 6: Approximately 1.62± acres directly adjacent to the railroad tracks. This area will be reserved for development by others to support area transit. No buildings or parking are planned for this site as a part of the Project. Bus/Rail Passenger Shelters are permitted. b. Prohibited Uses: 185 i. No Eating and Drinking establishment with a drive-thru facility shall be permitted to be developed on the Property except as follows: 1. A take-out window shall be permitted for picking up pre- ordered food. ii. Except for Development Area 1, no Motor Vehicle Service Station, including but not limited to gas station, convenience store/gasoline sales uses, shall be allowed on the Property. For the purposes of this provision, the term “gasoline sales” shall include petroleum, ethanol, diesel or other motor vehicle fuels;18 iii. The following Manufacturing, Assembly, Processing and Distribution Uses – Food land uses are expressly prohibited: 1. Animal Feed Preparation, Manufacturing, Packaging, and Distribution; 2. Animal Slaughtering and Processing, Packaging and Distribution; 3. Seafood Preparation, Packaging and Distribution; 4. Starch, Vegetable Fats and Oils Manufacturing; and 5. Tobacco Processing, Preparation, Packaging and Distribution. iv. All Manufacturing, Assembly, Processing and Distribution Uses – Other land uses are expressly prohibited except for Research Facility with Manufacturing land uses. v. The following Medical Uses are expressly prohibited: 1. Hospital; and; 2. Veterinary Hospital. vi. The following Office and Financial Services Uses are expressly prohibited: 1. Building/Trade contractor offices with external equipment storage; and 2. Pawnshop/ payday loan services. vii. All Automotive/Transportation Uses are prohibited with the exception of: 1. Motor Vehicle Service limited to development within Development Area 1; and 2. Bus/Rail Passenger Shelters. 18 This condition means the only Motor Vehicle Service land use (i.e. gas station) developed within the Project shall be in Development Area 1. 186 viii. All Service Uses are prohibited with the exception of: 1. Eating and Drinking Establishments; 2. Car Wash as a customary accessory use to a Motor Vehicle Service land use limited to Development Area 1; and 3. Short-Term Rental- Non-Host Occupied limited to development within Development Area 4. VII. UTILITIES: a. Development within the Project shall be served by utility systems provided and maintained by: i. Public water - Orange Alamance Water System (OAWS) ii. Sewer services – City of Mebane 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 aforementioned utility providers 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 OAWS 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 and appropriate utility entity; e. Fire-flow test(s) of all installed hydrants shall be conducted, in coordination with OAWS and Orange County Emergency Services, to ensure compliance with applicable State Fire Code standards. VIII OTHER: a. Structures erected within the Project shall be designed to allow for incorporation of solar infrastructure installation on rooftops or in adjacent areas. b. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations: i. A paved EV charging station area serving no less than ten (10) vehicles including the required electrical conduit system will be constructed within Development Area 1, (completion of the charging station installation would occur at Applicant’s sole discretion) ii. EV charging stations will be encouraged within other Development Areas provided that such facilities shall be ancillary to a principal land use and as a service to patrons or employees 187 c. Consideration of L.E.E.D certified practices for components of the Project where feasible 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, Greg Wilder, Interim 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 188