HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-15-2020; 5-b - Zoning Atlas Amendment - Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZ) for Efland Station (formerly Beaver Crossing) 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: December 15, 2020
Action Agenda
Item No. 5-b
SUBJECT: Zoning Atlas Amendment: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning
District (MPD-CZ) for Efland Station (formerly Beaver Crossing)
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. MPD-CZ Application Package and Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597
Exhibit(s) only provided electronically Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2592
due to size — posted on the County
website as detailed below]
2. Vicinity and Current Zoning Maps
3. Future Land Use and Growth
Management Systems Maps
4. Project Correspondence and Staff
Comment(s)
5. Notes from Neighborhood Information
Meeting
6. Excerpt of Draft Planning Board Minutes
from November 4, 2020 and Statement
of Consistency
7. Notification Materials and Certification
8. Statement of Consistency
9. Ordinance amending the Orange County
Zoning Atlas — Draft Conditions of
Approval
PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing, receive the Planning Board/staff recommendation and
public comment, close the public hearing, and schedule action for a specific future date on an
applicant initiated Zoning Atlas Amendment for parcels within the Cheeks Township of Orange
County.
Specifically, Buc-ee's Limited is seeking to rezone 2 parcels totaling approximately 104 acres to
Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) district. As indicated herein, due to the
size of the application, it is available electronically 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'):
2
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 of parcels)
I II III '' I I I II 'I' ICI' I111"I I " '1 10 1 .. •:
[TH
•gyp• ° 0 • • O t ;
• b •b _^ PIN 9854-36-3711
O p'• � ,s
p O
Z'
N
inaedWed '• ,w
PIN 9854-16-1576
185 140 W e7�1665 ..}.S''40��'•r/ht C'E.�JVNn ` t1
1ELPS�4Iq00E ENT 1Oil
The basic facts concerning this application are as follows:
Applicant: Buc-ee's Limited (LTD)
327 FM 2004
Lake Jackson, TX 77566
A ent s : Elizabeth (Beth) Trahos Kelsey W. Hall, P.E. Earl Lewellyn, P.E.
Attorney Kimley-Horn Kimley-Horn
Nelson-Mullins 300 Morris Street 300 Morris Street
4140 Parklake Ave Suite 200 Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27612 Durham, NC 27701 Durham, NC 27701
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.
3
B. Township: Cheeks.
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, streams, wetland
areas).
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 70/1-85 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 70/1-85 Connector Road and Ben Johnson
Road, large undeveloped parcels of property zoned
Agricultural Residential (AR).
MPD Conditional Zoning (CZ) Process: Involves review/action of a rezoning petition and a
master concept 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 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).
4
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.
Please note, staff held a follow-up information meeting on October 28, 2020 to
review modifications to the application package (i.e. name change, land use
buffer/access management changes, etc.).
• Second Action — The Planning Board reviews the application at a regular meeting and
makes a recommendation to the BOCC.
Staff Comment. The Planning Board completed its review of the Project at its
November 4, 2020 regular meeting, voting unanimously to recommend approval.
• Third Action — The BOCC receives the Planning Board recommendation and makes a
decision at a previously advertised public hearing.
Staff Comment — If the public hearing is held remotely, there is a 24-hour waiting
period required before a decision can be effective 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. Intended 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;
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant has clarified it will be 60 pumps with 120
actual fuel nozzles/hoses (i.e. 2 fuel nozzles per pump).
b. 120-room multi-story hotel;
5
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.
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 70/1-85 Connector Road; and
c. Mt. Willing Road.
Development will be completed in 2 phases with the travel center completed in Phase 1 and
remaining land uses in Phase 2 (hereafter `the Project').
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 the 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; and
• Seek approval for the proposed Travel Center land use.
Staff has heard concerns from residents the MPD-CZ designation allows for more
intensive development activity than currently permitted. This is not necessarily
correct. If approved, the Project would result in more open space area and less
overall constructed building area than what is permitted by-right with the existing
zoning designation. The main difference between the existing O/RM district and the
MPD-CZ is the potential development of the proposed travel center as detailed herein.
6
Staff has also heard concerns approval of the MPD-CZ will eliminate existing Planning
Board and BOCC involvement with the review and approval of site plans.
As staff has detailed in numerous meetings, and herein, the majority of proposed land
uses are currently permitted 'by right'. This means the Planning Board and BOCC
already have no involvement with site plan review or approval.
For example, a 120 room hotel could be developed on the property today without
public notice/review/comment or review/action by Planning Board/BOCC members.
Staff would review/take action on a site plan submitted in accordance with Section 2.5
of the UDO.
The MPD-CZ process is providing an opportunity for more public review/comment
than would currently be allowed under the current general use zoning designation.
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:
yf e
Access drive—app.600 ft.
west of the US Highway 70/1-
!15.; ; '� _+ t+a 85 Connector Road
!��'f�".:'� �r'�%�•-r� '�. 1'i7.i..t.I f.T'l. �
Pd
i
-S:K Access drive—app. ' `" A
600 ft.east of Mt. Interstate 85/40 '
Willing Road
ii. Driveway off of US Highway 70/1-85 Connector Road, developed in Phase 1, 500 ft. north
of Ben Johnson Road including installation of a new traffic signal (shown below):
7
} _-----_-___--
- 401- _
NI
.� � New driveway �
■
�y
- T�J
x Yellow areas denote roadway
improvements(i.e.road widening/new .
4k pavement)including new travel lanes.
R
iii. Access of off Mt. Willing Road across from Turner Street controlled by a Stop Sign
constructed in Phase 2 (shown below):
-` STOP
I
q
Ilk-
New driveway `
'F
4P
+1 -%%
iv. Elimination of westbound Exit 160 off 1-85/40 (i.e. the Efland/Mt. Willing Exit) in Phase 1.
8
The exit will be combined with existing Exit 161 (US Highway 70/1-85 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 from west bound 1-85/40, travelers will
be required to:
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. These `improvements' would likely have involve eliminating 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, requires additional
review as part of NC DOT and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) processes,
which are independent of this zoning atlas amendment process.
If approved, the project will move forward consistent with the master concept plan. If
denied, the applicant will have to address modification(s) at a future date.
As a practical matter, the processing of this rezoning request is the first step in this
process.
During our initial review of the Project, staff made the following recommendation(s)
concerning the proposed location of right-in/right-out driveway points (Attachment 4):
➢ Eliminating the access drive(s) on the interstate on/off ramp west of US
Highway 70/1-85 Connector Road altogether; OR
➢ Limit the two proposed access drives to an `entrance only' east of Mt. Willing
Road and an `exit only' west of the US Highway 70/1-85 connector road versus
a right-in/right-out for both driveways as current designed.
If the proposed access drives were eliminated altogether, motorists would access
Interstate 40/85 from the Project either via the US Highway 70/1-85 Connector Road
9
or Mt. Willing Road. Staff made this recommendation in an effort to preserve Exit 160
as currently configured and reduce anticipated traffic conflicts.
NC DOT staff have indicated westbound Exit 160 may be
eliminated/relocated/redesigned to address anticipated traffic safety needs as traffic
volumes increase in the area. Further, the applicant expressed concern over not
having direct access to the Project via the on/off ramp.
Staff still believes there is merit to continue investigating limiting the proposed access
drives to be an `entrance only' and/or `exit only' thereby reducing potential vehicular
conflicts and continued study on preserving westbound Exit 160, recognizing the
ultimate decision on these components of the Project have to go through a separate
State and Federal review process.
ii. Installation of new traffic signals (i.e., new driveway/Exit 161 intersection with US
Highway 70/1-85 Connector Road and the intersection of the 1-85/40 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 70/1-85 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 4.
Improvements will need to be made to Mt. Willing Road to accommodate the
current/anticipated traffic flow. County Comprehensive/Transportation Planning staff
have recommended a roadway design consistent with the approved Efland-Buckhorn-
Mebane Access Management Plan (EBM AMP).
As currently envisioned, the widening of Mt. Willing Road would be addressed through
the typical County/NC DOT roadway improvement process. The applicant has
indicated a willingness to reserve/dedicate necessary right-of-way to accommodate
roadway improvements and abide by the following consistent with the EBM AMP:
10
Y
u u
`�4 F "
�
w „• , r w it m
YM
100 uN eLXY IWY
4 LANE DIVIDED (17'-6" RAISED MEDIAN)WITH CURB & GUTTER,
WIDE OUTSIDE LANES,AND SIDEWALKS
P05TE05PEED 35-45 MPH
AM-
4 G
MN W
4 LANE DIVIDED(17'-6-RAISED MEDIAN)WITH CURB & GUTTER,
BIKE LANES,AND SIDEWALKS
P06MV SPEED 35-45 MPH
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 in Phase 1).
The applicant has proposed a temporary access road from Mt. Willing Road for
emergency vehicle access (i.e., fire, ambulance, Sheriff, etc.). This temporary access
proposal 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, the proposed elimination of Exit 160, and
the individual right-in and right-outs allowing access to the proposed Travel Center off
of the Interstate on/off ramp.
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 but have received
acknowledgement, via email to the Director, they have capacity to serve the Project.
There are memorandums from the County Staff Engineer and City of Mebane in
Attachment 4 concerning provision of services.
11
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.
STAFF COMMENT. There have been numerous public comment(s) made over
stormwater runoff impacting adjacent parcels, including the County's Severn Mile
Creek Preserve. Staff has also heard complaint(s) from local residents over the
Project negatively impacting water quality.
The County has nutrient reduction strategies addressing water quality issues
consistent with State regulations. Typically these strategies are achieved with the
installation/management of stormwater control measures (SCMs).
State rules allow developers to pay `offset fees' to aid in meeting these regulations.
These fees are part of a `nutrient trading program' allowed under State rules to fund
riparian restoration/enhancement projects constructed elsewhere within the
watershed. The goal is to promote overall watershed health and compliance with
applicable nutrient reduction strategies.
Currently, the predominant strategy utilized in the State is the restoration and/or
enhancement of riparian forested buffers on agricultural lands.
The concern is use of offset payment methods will not address potential impacts to
adjacent water features (i.e. streams, wetlands, etc.). While the overall health of the
watershed may be `protected', the quality of local waterways could still be negatively
impacted.
It has been suggested by both staff and local residents the applicant be required to
either:
• Abide by nutrient reduction strategies as detailed in Section 6.14.7 of the UDO
without participation in the State recognized offsite mitigation program; or
• Any off-site mitigation has to occur in Orange County near the Property to
ensure preservation of local water quality.
Staff is supportive of imposing either as a condition.
Solid Waste: The applicant has indicated development within the project shall abide by the
Orange County Solid Waste Management Ordinance.
Land Use Buffers/Setbacks: The applicant is proposing:
• PIN 9854-16-1576:
o Northern property line:
■ 40 ft. land use buffer and setback;
STAFF COMMENT: Staff has recommended a 50 ft. land use buffer
and only allowing for vehicular access (i.e. travel lanes) within 75 ft. of
the northern property line. This effectively would impose a 75 ft. setback
for all structures.
The applicant has indicated they are amenable to a 50 ft. land use
buffer.
The applicant has offered, as a condition, to erect a 6 ft. wall outside of
the buffer creating additional shielding of the Project along the northern
property line as well.
12
o Western property line (Mt. Willing Road):
■ 40 ft. land use buffer and setback;
STAFF COMMENT: Staff has recommended a 50 ft. buffer and
setback.
NORTH CAKU-1NA M"16--
RT RESIDENCTIAL LISE
l 1�-
4 &'FENCE ON INTERIOR
f DEVELOPMENT OF40'SUFFER
(MIXED OPTION) I AREAS ENHANCED 3Cr JTI_ITYEASEME.NT „I
l aa'MIJ��ED GPTION ��EllELdPMENT
46'TYPE A SUF�F�
R1 RESIDENnAL USE 1 - t — �� ba'JII IIY WFMFNT TJ rM XE7 OPTIC.:
40'TYPE C BUFFER -
[OVFRF�AD UTILITY OP'ryONI
75'Flr'URE ROADWAY -
IK'PRC,-VFIVFNT RESERVATIOA fY I --- v Y _ — PRLSI
DEVELOPMENT AREA 4
G4'UT1L1 Y EASEMENT� -- - PRESERVED GHLL
}l SPACE AREA
1
I 1 10'7VREA HUFFk14.^.`..
I �i ] _ SMI%ED OPTION
- - rFIJTUf2E INTERNAL
�LAN65CJIfhHG(TYP,) 4
DEVELOPMENT
l lJ AREAS
r
MANAGEMENT FACIL I Y 7C TYPE A&FFER
IUIwrh C1PTIM&
o Southern property line - Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Buffer: The applicant is
proposing to develop/install/maintain an enhanced MTC Buffer as follows:
■ A 100 ft. buffer extending approximately 1,000 linear feet east from the
intersection of Mt. Willing Road consistent with Section 6.6.4 of the UDO;
■ 40 ft. buffer along approximately 1,220 linear feet of the interstate on/off ramp in
front of the proposed travel center;
STAFF COMMENT: Section 6.6.4 (A) (5) of the UDO allows for the
clearing of up to 50% of the MTC buffer to create a `visual break' along
the Interstate.
The applicant is proposing a managed buffer in this area versus a total
clearing of landscaping (i.e. foliage will be replanted and a buffer shall
be maintained in perpetuity).
■ East of the 40 ft. managed buffer, the applicant will maintain a 100 ft. buffer
extending approximately 220 linear feet towards the US Highway 70/1-85
Connector Road;
■ A 200 ft. enhanced MTC buffer running approximately 746 ft. east towards the
US Highway 70/1-85 Connector Road.
13
The MTC buffer proposal is depicted as follows on the submitted master concept plan:
M = DEVELOPMENT
-LOPMEN-
DEVELOPMEN- Lr C6-b AREA 2
1 F"
�'M`I X,L151 17,T 0 1
I-P
:AREA 1
�J T
I
J P I I
'FAUTY
%XEDOPTCNy
66 W&URLMAN D BRUFF®R
MY TYFE F BUFFER 4'rTK NUFFER I OV TYK F BUFFER
SDKPUQLMFON) MJM=5W7JQN)
IDECIUL 0
111 QFF4FT-RCUMAJOR 7rff.VrMFF F SUFFER
I-A'P.RTA7JNMRRJrQR I-WI-Q INTERSTATE 11,(;Jm.CmLvJLfi) 10'OMEN
TMWARTJ
MIDOR
o Eastern property line (US Highway 70/1-85 Connector Road):
■ 40 ft. land use buffer and setback.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff does not have a concern with this proposal.
• PIN 9854-36-3711:
• Northern Property line (south of railroad):
■ 40 ft. land use buffer and setback.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff does not have a concern with this proposal
relating to the setback/buffer from the railroad right-of-way.
• Western Property line (adjacent to existing Home Park):
■ 40 ft. land use buffer and setback.
STAFF COMMENT: Development adjacent to the existing Home Park
(i.e. manufactured housing community) is limited to serving various
transit needs as determined by Orange County. There will be no
`commercial' development activities. As a result, staff does not have a
concern with this proposal.
Staff does recommend allowing for an access easement which would
allow residents from the Home Park to access the Project and, more
importantly, the development area intended to support regional transit
needs.
• Eastern Property line (US Highway 70/1-85 Connector Road):
■ 40 ft. land use buffer and setback.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff does not have a concern with this proposal
relating to the US Highway 70/1-85 Connector Road right-of-way.
14
AGRICULTURAU
RESIDENTIAL USE
pf;11ELQPMEh1"C
AREA 6 30'G`YERHEA7
ENFVk [3 JTILIT"EASEVENT
aU'TYPE d BUFfiEwR
�Mlnra{�tION}
STORMWATER
AO'TYPE C BUFFER MANAGE=MFNI FACT-Ilv
(OVERHEAD UTILITY OPTION)
70' 1 YPE A RUFi EFL
IMIXED OPTION) f
fRSERvCO GREEN -. 'r �
SPACE AREA
-- - DEVELOPMENT �• � ��
• .�r AREA 3
•°` ,0 °
i BF WETLAND BUFrER
- 1 W dTILITY
1 f5 l
s •'+j f
P W D OPT14N} o V Ldph ENT i'' AGRICULTUF1
AREA 2 � � RESIDENTIAL USE
-------------
40'TYPE C BUFFER
(M[XED OPTION)
STAFF COMMENT: Per Section 6.8.12 (C) of the UDO, land use buffers are based on
proposed development as well as existing land use(s) on the adjacent parcel. Further,
Section 6.8.7 (D) (1) (a) of the UDO requires parking areas to provide a- landscape area
at least ten feet in width, exclusive of drainage and/or utility easements, between the
vehicular use areas and the right of way or adjacent property line.
• Stream buffers shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.13 of the UDO and
range from 65 to 80 ft. based on slope;
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. Stream buffers are protected consistent
with Section 6.13 of the UDO.
ii. Steep slopes along the southeastern property line are going to be preserved in
established open space/Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) buffers;
15
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 by staff will be necessary, presuming approval of the rezoning
application, to address environmental impacts associated with anticipated
development.
Staff is concerned about fuel storage, and potential impacts arising from a leak, but
the UDO does not contain a measureable standard by which we can regulate.
Storage tanks are permitted through the State.
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 60 gas pumps/120 gas nozzles that will have to be addressed
during future site plan review and State permitting of the fuel storage tanks.
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 I.
Staff and the applicant have recommended the imposition of various condition(s) to address
development impacts as contained in Attachment 9.
Other pertinent information concerning the proposed MPD-CZ is as follows:
• Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Designation: As previously detailed herein, both parcels
are located within the Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN).
The FLUM can be accessed utilizing the following link:
http-//www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4054/Future-Land-Use-Map-PDF.
• Comprehensive Plan: Per Appendix F, "Relationships Between Land Use Categories
and Zoning Districts Matrix" of the adopted Orange County Comprehensive Plan, the
MPD-CZ district is a permissible zoning designation for property located within a CITAN.
For more information on the definition of activity node, and to review the allowed zoning
designations permitted within same, the Comprehensive Plan can be accessed utilizing
the following link:
http://www.orangecountync.gov/1242/2030-Comprehensive-Plan.
• Growth Management System Map Designation: As previously indicated herein, both
parcels within an `Urban' designated area.
STAFF COMMENT: The Growth Management System Map is a tool utilized by
staff to identify permit review thresholds for residential (i.e. subdivision) projects.
16
• Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA): The
parcels are located within Orange County's Primary Service Area meaning public utilities
(i.e. water and sewer) could be extended. As detailed above, public utility service would
be provided by the Orange-Alamance Water System (OAWS) and the City of Mebane.
The document can be accessed utilizing the following link:
http://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4190/Water-and-Sewer-
Management-Planning-and-Boundary-Agreement-PDF.
• Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan: The parcels are located within an area the small area
plan designates as supporting high-intensity/urban style development including non-
residential development(s).
The adopted plan can be accessed utilizing the following link:
https://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/4196/Efland-Mebane-Small-
Area-Plan-PDF.
Analysis: As required under Section 2.9.2 (E) of the LIDO, 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
17
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.
During review of the Project, local residents identified the following concerns related to the
Project, which staff is including herein for information purposes only:
a. The Project is out of character with the rural Efland Community;
b. Development of a `120 nozzle gas station' is inconsistent with a County goal of
reducing dependency on fossil fuels;
c. Stormwater runoff from the Project will have a negative impact on adjacent
sensitive water features as well as the County's Seven Mile Creek Preserve;
d. Insufficient information has been provided ensuring adequate protection of
groundwater from fuel contamination;
e. The Project will significantly increase/exacerbate existing light pollution in the area;
f. There is no justification for an 80 ft. tall freestanding sign.
Neighborhood Information Meeting: A neighborhood information meeting for the project was
held on September 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.
Planning staff held a virtual outreach meeting on October 28, 2020 to review applicant
modification(s) to the Project including, but not limited to: name change (from Beaver Crossing
to Efland Station), access management and landscaping modifications.
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
BOCC public hearing where the proposal is to be reviewed. These notices were mailed on
November 25, 2020, 19 days before the meeting. Staff also posted the subject parcels with
signs indicating the date/time of the public hearing on December 4, 2020, 11 days before the
meeting. For more information, please refer to Attachment 7.
Courtesy Review: This request was submitted to the City of Mebane and Orange-Alamance
Water System (OAWS) as part of our courtesy review program. To date, staff has not received
comment(s) from OAWS staff.
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed the zoning atlas amendment
at its November 4, 2020 regular meeting. At this meeting the Board voted unanimously to
18
recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 8) and the proposed Zoning
Atlas Amendment (Attachment 9).
Excerpts of the minutes from the meeting, as well as the Board's signed statement of
consistency, are included in Attachment 6. Agenda materials from the meeting can be viewed
at: https://www.co.orange.nc.us/AgendaCenter/Planning-Board-26.
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.
Presuming:
a. BOCC and applicant acceptance of recommended conditions as contained in Attachment
9;
b. Direction from the BOCC, with the applicants consent as imposition of conditions must be
mutual, on imposition of the following addressing staff concerns on:
i. Stormwater:
Imposition of a condition that requires the applicant to either:
1. Abide by nutrient reduction strategies as detailed in Section 6.14.7 of
the UDO without participation in the State recognized offsite mitigation
program; or
2. Any off-site mitigation has to occur in Orange County near the Property,
within the County's Upper Eno Protected or Critical Watershed
Protection Overlay District, to ensure preservation of local water quality.
ii. Access Management:
1. Driveway access from the Interstate on/off ramp be restricted to 2
driveways, one allowing access to the Project east of Mt. Willing Road
(i.e. a right turn into the Project only) and one allowing access to the
on/off ramp west of the US Highway 70/1-85 Connector Road (i.e. a right
turn out of the Project only);
Staff shall continue to work with the applicant and NC DOT officials to preserve
westbound Exit 160 as being part of a dual westbound exit for both Exit(s) 160
and 161 at the existing Exit 161 location.
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.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goal is applicable to
this agenda item:
19
GOAL: ESTABLISH SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE LAND-USE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes
and educational levels with respect to the development and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, policies, and decisions. Fair treatment means that no
group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental
consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or
policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no Orange County Environmental Responsibility Goal
impact associated with this item notwithstanding the Project will adhere to existing adopted
local, State, and Federal environmental regulations.
RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends the Board:
1. Receive the request;
2. Conduct the public hearing and accept comment;
3. Provide direction to staff and the applicant on any additional conditions consistent with
Section 2.9.2 (F) (3) of the UDO;
4. Close the public hearing
5. Authorize the acceptance of written comment(s) via e-mail to the Board at
ocbocc@orangecountync.gov or by delivery to the Planning Department's office at 131
West Margaret Lane, 2nd floor, Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278, until 9:00 a.m. on
Thursday December 17, 2020;
STAFF COMMENT. In accordance with Session Law 2020-3 Section 4.31(a),
regarding remote meetings during declared emergencies, while voting may be
allowed on the night of the meeting, staff is recommending the Board vote at a
subsequent meeting due to the complex nature of the project.
Session Law 2020-3 further allows the record to be supplemented by written
comments on items heard at a public hearing by accepting written comments for
24 hours after the public hearing is closed. Due to the late hour at which this
public hearing is expected to conclude, staff is recommending an additional period
of time in excess of this 24 hour period to accept written comments.
6. Schedule a vote to approve the:
a. Statement of Consistency (Attachment 8), and
b. Zoning Atlas Amendment (Attachment 9)
at the Board's January 19, 2021 business meeting as recommended by the Planning
Board and Planning Director. No additional public comments shall be received on
this item at the January 19, 2021 business meeting.
ORA Zoning NC 20
FORREST AVE
i
i
.SOl1TMERN DR ; �,
a' I
p
Zoo !
J
LL' OF
00
W
J
J
m I\
N TURNER
w 0 orUpper`Eno �,
Prot 854363711
Y 5�
�' 9854161576,E _ hJ
Z _ - _
� r r r r r
Ck
a ,
a t�
_ � o
I
Q Project Parcels AR NC2
�
- 0 Watersheds - 0 R1RM Upper Eno
EC5
Efland Interstate
11 Zoning: O/RM rr i in=500 feet
Q Efland Village 12 Overlayers: Efland Interstate CCOUNTY A Feet
a 500
Major Transportation Corridor NoPlanning and Inspections Department(BC)
Major Transportation Corridor 0 LC1 Upper Eno Protected 10/23/2020
O:\GIS Workspace\Projects\Efland Station\Efland Station.aprx\Zoning
Future Land Use Map 21
F�QRRES1T AVE.
i
i
SQU�TjHERN DR I �,
p I
Ji
LO
LU
J i
I
c�
N TURNER ST
Z, Upper Eno yap o�``
Protected 9854363711 0
� hJ5
9854161576 ��
Z
v
4 9
FN�
,,'��
0 Project Parcels
Watershed Critical Areas
� Upper Eno �
. . Water Supply Watersheds Critical
Resource Protection Areas N tin=500feet
ORANGE Feet
Agricultural Residential COUNTY 0 500
Planning and Inspections Department(BC)
Commercial-Industrial Transition 10/23/2020
O:\GIS Workspace\Projects\Efland Station\Efland Station.aprx\Future Land Use Map
Growth Management System 22
HH I IL 11FORRESTAVE
i
i
SOUTHERN-DR
C) >
� I
Q
J I
L.L
LEI
} � I
J �
J I\S
I
I
� � I
N TURNER-ST =
wh/LL
9854363711 0 0�
5�
9854161576 ��hJ
Z•
v
I /
6
FN�
ON�1/S�IV RD
/EST TEN RD
0 Project Parcels N 1 in=500 feet
ORS GE Feet
Urban Designated coUN7 0 500
Planning and Inspections Department(BC)
Rural Designated 10/23/2020
O:\GIS Workspace\Projects\Efland Station\Efland Station.aprx\Growth Management System
23
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Administration 131 W. Margaret Lane
(919) 245-2575 Suite 201
(919) 644-3002 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181
www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278
W-2 �+ r
August 31, 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
STAFF INITIAL REVIEW COMMENTS
To Whom It May Concern:
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 (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.
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 land and involve approximately 500,000 sq.ft. of building area supporting
previous identified land use categories (hereafter `the Project').
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).
1
24
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.
As a general reminder the timeline for the review of the project remains as
follows:
a. August 14 through August 28, 2020 — Staff review and comment.
b. September 14 through 18, 2020 — Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM). A
NIM shall be held allowing local property owners to ask the applicant questions
and for staff to provide information on the process associated with the review of
the project.
Given current COVID-19 pandemic protocols, this will be an on-line meeting
sponsored/administered by the applicant with presentation materials linked on
the County website.
The applicant is responsible for sending out notices to all property owners within
1,000 ft. of the Property notifying them of the date/time of the NIM.
These notices are required to be sent 15 days prior to the date of the NIM and
are required to have a statement on the actual envelope indicate the letter is
Notification of a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) — Beaver Crossing.
Staff will assume responsibility for posting a sign on the Property advertising the
NIM
c. October 7, 2020 —Anticipated Planning Board meeting;
d. November 5, 2020 — First available date for public hearing by the BOCC.
NOTE: The public hearing will be a virtual meeting.
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.
In reviewing the submitted application package, staff would like to offer the
following observation(s) and comment(s):
I. COMMENT(S):
A. GENERAL:
1. Staff is continuing to review language on utility permitting and connection
standards with the Orange Alamance Water (water provided) and the City
of Mebane (sewer provider) staff and will provide additional feedback as
soon as possible.
2. The Property is located within an area defined as a High Quality Water
(HQW) zoned by the State of North Carolina. As site specific
2
25
development plans are submitted, the State will be reviewing the proposal
for compliance with applicable standards.
Please note 'uncovered areas' in HQW zones shall be limited at any one
time to a maximum total area of 20 acres within the boundaries of the
Property. Larger areas may be uncovered with the written approval of the
Director of the Division of Land Resources of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources.
3. When reviewing similar development proposals, conditions have been
recommended by advisory board/elected officials requiring a specific
number, or percentage of required, parking be designed to accommodate
electrical charging stations. Staff believes there will be similar interest for
the Project.
Section 2.5 H Sustainable Design of the Narrative contains the following
statement:
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations: (i) a paved EV charging station
area including the required electrical conduit system will be
reserved within Development Area 1, (but completion of the
charging station installation would occur at Applicant's sole
discretion) and, (ii) as to other Development Areas, EV charging
stations will be encouraged, provided that such facilities shall be
ancillary to a principal land use and as a service to patrons or
employees.
It is staff's opinion advisory board/elected officials will be looking for
specifics (i.e. actual number of stations).
4. When reviewing similar development proposals, conditions have been
recommended by advisory board/elected officials requiring the
creation/designation of parking spaces to support `park and ride' activities.
Staff believes there will be similar interest for the Project.
5. The Narrative will need more information on the anticipated water
needs/usage of the Project. Staff is concerned existing infrastructure is
not suitable to support all anticipated land uses and comply with
applicable State Fire Codes.
6. Sewer services will be provided by the City of Mebane. Consistent with
the current inter-local agreement with the City, there is a maximum daily
sewer allocation for this entire area.
The Narrative needs to provide additional detail on the anticipated sewer
needs/usage for the Project. Staff is concerned this one development
could negatively impact available sewer service to the entire area based
on the engineering design for the existing 12 inch sanitary sewer line.
Staff needs this additional detail on anticipated sewer flow to review with
the City of Mebane and formulate a response.
At a minimum, staff may be looking at a condition requiring low flow toilets
and/or low flow users to ensure the continued viability of the system as a
whole.
3
26
7. In general, staff will be recommending conditions for this Project that the
applicant shall comply with all utility connection requirements/policies
enforced by the City of Mebane and Orange Alamance Waster System
Incorporated.
II. SPECIFIC — NARRATIVE:
A. Page 6 of the narrative contains a few grammatical errors that should be
corrected, detailed below:
To that end, and in accordance with the provision of Section 2.9.2 of the
(UDO), we hereby submit this application requests to rezone the
approximately 104.55 acres of land generally depicted on Sheet CI.0 (the
Property") to the Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-
CZJ oonig designation to allow for the development of the Project
consistent with the land uses, development standards and other terms and
provisions of this rezoning plan (including these Development Standards
and accompanying Sheets, the "Rezoning Plan').
B. Page 7 of the narrative `estimates' the amount of open space for the project
at 30%. Staff believes the narrative can definitively state the amount of
proposed open space for the Project.
As an aside, there is language in the same paragraph indicating the
proposed open space will be 'well in excess of UDO minimum standards'.
Typically, the minimum open space area required for such projects is 30%
when you factor in total limits on impervious surface area for non-residential
development, landscaping/buffering requirements, installation of stormwater
control measures, etc.
C. Page 7, second paragraph of the narrative contains a few grammatical errors
that should be corrected, detailed below:
Significant new internal roads,_ an4-pedestrian improvements, and
off-site traffic improvements are proposed to serve the new
development activities and support/improve mobility and assure
appropriate access management. These new roadway
improvements will ensure acceptable levels of service in the area,
remove the duplicative ramp activity on 1- 40185 between Hwy 70
and Mt. Willing Road, and—re-route obtrusive overhead
transmission lines along that section of the 1-40185 frontage, and
provide much needed connectivity from Mt. Willing Road/Turner
Road by way of a new street through the Project to connect with
the 1-85 Connector, among other improvements.
Staff believes the following comment(s)/observation(s) should be
considered/addressed:
i. It might be prudent to include a reference to the various map(s)
and/or document(s) where this information is for the layperson
reading the narrative;
4
27
ii. Be mindful some may not agree with your characterization of the
current location of the overhead power lines as being `obtrusive'.
Some may argue they are only `obtrusive' to you and that your
proposed relocation plan will only transfer the problem to 'others';
iii. The narrative uses the term `acceptable levels of service'. Be
mindful that there will be some property owners within the
notification area who would argue the proposed traffic impacts of
the project are not acceptable to them;
iv. Staff is not clear on what is meant by the statement `remove
duplicative ramp activity on 1-40185 between Hwy 70 and Mt.
Willing Road'.
D. The narrative on page 7 provides a synopsis of beneficial impacts with the
development of 'Phase 1' of the Project (i.e. the Buc-ee's Travel center).
There is, however, no overview of the project as a whole. Staff is concerned
a lack of analysis/explanation of the anticipated benefits of the Project as a
whole will become a focal point of criticism.
E. Page 9 of the narrative uses the term `vacant' to describe property to the
south of the Project.
As a general observation, staff has seen previous projects criticized for using
the term `vacant' with residents arguing there is nothing inherently wrong
with property that is undeveloped.
Staff suggests you consider revising language within the document to
indicate property without land uses/developments be referred to as
`undeveloped' rather than 'vacant'.
F. Page 10 of the narrative, under Section 1-5 (B) contains the following
language:
`Therefore, there will be instances where modifications will be
allowed without requiring administrative review under the UDO ...'
Staff believes what you are trying to articulate is that certain modifications to
the Project will not require 'BOCC review/approval'. Technically, the Project
is always under `administrative review' by staff consistent with the
provision(s) of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
Staff does not want someone to argue your narrative is inconsistent with the
UDO.
G. Consistent with Section 1-5 (C) of the Narrative, staff understands you are
requesting `vested rights' for the Project. This request, however, may not be
necessarily required.
What this proposal represents is, ultimately, the adoption of a new zoning
district governing development of approximately 104 acres of property.
There will be development requirements, conditions, and a list of permitted
land uses for this new district. If approved, the new zoning district is not
subject to being extinguished without formal County action to rezone the
property consistent with Section 2.8 of the UDO.
5
28
Staff is continuing to review language with the Attorney's office and will
provide additional analysis in the near future.
H. Page 16 Section 2-3 Project Development Areas subsection (A) of the
Narrative inadvertently repeats a phrase twice:
For ease of ease of reference and as an organizing feature
associated with the master planned nature of the Project, a series
of 6 Development Areas (as defined in Section 1-5 above) are
generally depicted on Sheets C2.0 & 2.1 along preserved
green/open space areas .
Staff also recommends you add the following language to the last paragraph
of this section:
The exact boundaries of the Development Areas and preserved
green/open space areas may be modified to account for
Development/Site Elements (as defined below) and other
modifications needed to fulfill the design and development intent of
the Rezoning Plan. Please note in this context, modification refers
specifically to location and not required minimums. An approved
dimensional standards (i.e. floor area ratio limits, minimum
percentage of property reserved/preserved as open space,
minimum number of required parking spaces, etc.) shall be adhered
to unless otherwise modified in accordance with the provisions of
the UDO.
I. Section 2-4 Permitted Uses, Development Levels, and Use Conversion
Rights (page 17) subsection (A):
i. Staff recommends revising number 1 as follows:
The Property may contain and may be developed with
uses permitted by right in the MPD-CZ district as
proposed herein, together with accessory uses as
allowed in the MPD-CZ district, but except as
expressly limited by the provisions of subsections 2-
48. and C. below.
Sheet C 2.0 of the Master Concept Plan makes reference to
specific land use categories being developed within the Project.
These are the land use categories you are proposing for
development within the Project. Reference needs to be made
that allowable land use categories are linked to your `rezoning
plan' and `master concept plan'.
ii. Staff recommends you list out the requested land use categories
in the narrative as currently depicted within the Master Concept
Plan for the Project. A new Section 1.a could be include within
the narrative reading as follows:
1 (A) As submitted, the Project will allow
development of individual land uses consistent with
the following land use categories in accordance with
6
29
Section 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses of the County's
UDO.
i. -Manufacturing, Assembly, Processing,
and Distribution Uses — Food Uses,
excluding those land uses identified
herein-,_
ii. Manufacturinq, Assembly, Processing,
and Distribution Uses — Other Uses,
limited specifically to Research Facility
with Manufacturinq;
iii. Medical Uses, excluding those land
uses identified herein;
iv. Office and Financial Services Uses,
excluding those land uses identified
herein;
V. Automotive/Transportation Uses limited
specifically to Motor Vehicle Service
Station (i.e. gas station) and Bus/rail
Passenger Shelters land uses;
vi Service Uses limited specifically to Eating
and Drinkin�q Establishments and Short
Term Rental — Non-host Occupied land
uses.
Development of individual land uses shall occur
consistent with the standards imposed as part of the
MPD-CZ approval process and those specific
re ulq ation(s) contained within the UDO allowing for
the development of that specific land use.
iii. Staff recommends you include language indicating the proposed
car wash is considered to be an accessory use to the proposed
Motor Vehicle Service Station.
Further, in order for the `car wash' to be considered an 'accessory
use', it shall be located within the same development district as
the proposed Motor Vehicle Service Station (i.e. Development
Area 1);
iv. The Narrative will need to provide more detail on what 'temporary
uses' are envisioned for the Project. Currently, there is no
allowance for 'temporary' activities within an MPD-CZ district.
J. Section 2-4 Permitted Uses, Development Levels, and Use Conversion
Rights (page 17) subsection (B):
i. Please correct the following grammatical issue:
Except for the uses allowed for Development Area 1
(including without limitation retail sales to include among
7
30
other uses the sale of gas and related products and
services and quick service EDEE uses with drive-through
facilities , no gas station nor convenience store/gasoline
sales uses and will be allowed on the Property, and no
fast food restaurant with drive-thru window facility will be
allowed on the Property. For the purposes of this
provision, the term "gasoline sales" shall including
petroleum, ethanol, diesel or other motor vehicle fuels.
ii. Number 2:
1. Staff believes you are attempting to reference allowable land
uses for a MPD-CZ district as detailed in Section 5.2 of the
UDO. If this assumption is correct, please revise existing
language accordingly:
i. Staff recommends you provide a list of all 'prohibited'
land uses for each proposed category, for example:
a. Manufacturing, Assembly, Processing, and
Distribution Uses — Food Uses: The
following land uses are expressly
prohibited:
i. Animal Feed Preparation,
Manufacturing, Packaging, and
Distribution;
ii. Animal Slauqhterinq and Processing,
Packaging, and Distribution;
iii. Seafood Preparation, Packaging,
and Distribution;
iv. Starch, Vegetable Fats and Oils
Manufacturing; and
V. Tobacco Processing, Preparation,
Packaging, and Distribution
b. Manufacturing, Assembly, Processing, and
Distribution Uses — Other Uses, is
expressly limited to Research Facility with
Manufacturing;
C. Medical Uses. The following land uses are
expressly prohibited:
i. Hospital,
ii. Veterinary Hospital
d. Office and Financial Services Uses. The
following land uses are expressly
prohibited:
i. Building/ rade contractor offices
with external equipment storage
yards:
8
31
ii. Pawnshop/payday loan services;
e Automotive/Transportation Uses is
expressly limited specifically Motor Vehicle
Service Station (i.e. gas station) and
Bus/rail Passenger Shelters land uses;
f. Service Uses limited specifically to Eating
and Drinking Establishments and Short
Term Rental — Non-host Occupied land
uses;
This list is consistent with existing UDO language and
simplifies what will and will not be permitted within the
Project.
b. The narrative should be revised to include additional
detail(s) on proposed development activities, namely:
i. A description/identification of each individual
development area or `pod' within the Project
(i.e. acreage of development area, intended
access, allowable floor area, etc.);
ii. Anticipated number of buildings and their size;
iii. An explanation on the anticipated number of
.parking spaces;
iv. An explanation of loading berths/zones for
each area or 'pod';
This information should also be placed on the Master
Concept Plan as well (Sheet C 2.0 and/or c 2.1).
K. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:
i. IN GENERAL: The Narrative needs to contain a summary of the
findings of the Environmental Assessment (Exhibit F) as you begin
the discussion of the Project's `performance standards'.
Specifically, an analysis of the information demonstrating
compliance with applicable standards (i.e. Section 6.16.3 (B) of the
UDO) which will be vital in documenting your rationale for arguing
an Environmental Impact Statement, as detailed in Section 6.16.4
of the UDO, is not required for the Project.
ii. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): the Narrative indicates the Project will
observe a FAR of 0.65 or 28,314 sq.ft.of building floor area per
acre of property. If we presume single-story building(s) for the
Project, this would translate to a maximum of 2,944,656 sq.ft. of
building area (67 acres).
Staff realizes we will not be dealing with single-story structures
throughout the project, but is concerned this proposed FAR is
inconsistent with the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)
submitted for this project, which estimates traffic generated for
9
32
approximately 500,000 sq.ft. of building area/land uses (Exhibit F).
The FAR either needs to be:
• Modified to be consistent with the building square footage
utilized in the development of the TIA,
• The TIA need to be modified to document traffic impacts
anticipated for the square footage of proposed building
area based on a FAR of .65, or
• A condition needs to be recommended that floor area
exceeding that studied as part of the TIA will require
modification to the MPD-CZ consistent with Section 2.9.2
of the UDO.
The FAR for the Project should also be listed on the Master
Concept Plan, specifically sheet(s) C 2.0 and/or 2.1.
iii. Open Space: the Narrative indicates there will be a minimum of
30% open space for the project, translating to approximately 32
acres of land area. Please correct the narrative to reflect 30% of
the proposed 104 acre development site.
iv. Proposed building height for the Project is listed at a maximum of
60 ft. Existing language indicates `accessory structures' may
exceed 60 ft. in overall height. Typically there are additional
setback requirements for structures exceeding 40 ft. in height per
Section 3.7 of the UDO. Staff recommends references in the
narrative to a '60 ft. height limit' be replaced with the following:
Buildings within the development shall abide by the
height limitations and allowances established within
Section 3.4 Office/Research and Manufacturinq of the
UDO. Building height shall be limited to 35 ft. 2 feet of
additional height shall be allowed for one foot increase in
require setback from an external road/property line with a
maximum cap of 60 ft.
Additional information is required on the anticipated accessory land
uses exceeding the 60 ft. height limit. Put simply: the applicant will
need to provide a detailed list of land uses, other than signs,
exceeding the height limit and the rationale for same.
Height limit(s) will also need to be listed on the Master Concept
Plan, specifically sheet(s) C 2.0 and/or 2.1.
v. A total impervious surface limit should be established for the
project. Under current regulations, development with this area of
the County could be a maximum of 70% with compliance
development of stormwater control measures.
After conferring with the Director, it has been recommended the
narrative contain language discussing the cumulative/shared nature
of the development (i.e. shared access roads, shared parking,
common stormwater control measures, open space preservation,
10
33
etc.) resulting in an overall reduction in the amount of land
clearing/grading that will be required to accommodate the Project.
This will result in an overall reduction in the anticipated
environmental impact of the Project thereby potentially justifying
additional impervious surface area.
vi. The Narrative indicates the Project will comply with the provision(s)
of Section(s) 6.13 Stream Buffers and 6.21 Flood Regulations of
the UDO. This includes preserving required buffers around
identified water features (i.e. streams, wetlands, floodplain, etc.) as
defined in the UDO.
vii. The Narrative appears to indicate the Project will comply with the
provision(s) of Section(s) 6.14 Stormwater and 6.15 Erosion
Control of the UDO.
Orange County Erosion Control and Stormwater Management
staffs are reviewing the proposed conditions. As a general
observation: If it is your intention to make use of nutrient buy-down
tools, the Narrative should contain language denoting same.
viii. Staff encourages the applicant to use on-site ponds, designed to
capture runoff, for irrigation purposes as detailed on page 22 of the
Narrative.
L. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS: The Narrative indicates the project shall
abide by the provisions of Section 6.4 Performance Standards of the UDO
inclusive (i.e. noise, vibration, air pollution, etc.).
M. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS: The proposed architectural
design standards appears consistent with the provisions of Section 6.5
Architectural Design Standards of the UDO.
N. SETBACKS: Staff is recommending the following:
i. 100 ft. perimeter structure setback from all external property lines
and right-of-way (i.e. Mt. Willing Road, the Interstate, etc.);
ii. Vehicular use areas (i.e. access drive-isle, parking, loading berths):
1. 100 ft. from residentially zoned property (i.e. the property
north of the Project);
2. 50 ft. from all other property lines/external public rights-of-
way;
3. Staff is recommending all internal setbacks be 20 ft.
iii. Signage: the proposed setbacks appear reasonable. Having said
that, staff would like to discuss the potential need for more
restrictive setbacks for signs exceeding 48 ft. Specifically, staff is
looking to address potential impacts from a large sign becoming
compromised and collapsing.
11
34
O. LANDSCAPING: The Narrative contains landscaping and buffering
requirements in Section 2.5 Performance Standards (E) beginning on page
26.
i. In General: The section should provide detail on the landscape
and buffer management standards for the Project, including the
amount of proposed foliage within identified landscaped areas.
ii. Section 6.8.7 (F) of the LIDO, the County establishes various buffer
types outlining the number/species of foliage required within every
100 linear ft. of property. The narrative will need to define what
level of landscaping is going to be required consistent with this
standard.
Sheet C 6.0 of the Master Concept Plan contains this information.
Staff recommends it be placed in the Narrative as well.
Staff shall provide comment(s) on proposed buffers in the next
section of this document.
iii. Number 4 Planting Requirement(s) — Street Trees. Language
within this section of the Narrative is inconsistent with information
provided on Sheet C 6.0. There are going to be instances where a
canopy tree will be required more than once for every 100 linear ft.
iv. Number 6 Planting Requirements — Foundation Plantings. Staff is
recommending the following:
1. A minimum of 40% of the building foundation in District 1
shall be landscaped with foliage by means of raised planters,
sidewalk cutouts, or portable planters.
v. Number 7 Planting Requirements — Vehicular Use Areas. Staff is
recommending the following:
1. The Project shall comply with the provisions of Section 6.8.7
(D) (1) of the UDO requiring all parking areas observe a
vegetative buffer, at least 10 ft. in width, separating parking
from adjacent open space, vehicular use areas, property
lines, etc.
vi. Number 9 Interior Landscaping. Staff is recommending the
following:
1. Language appears to indicate interior parking lot
landscaping shall be installed where above/below ground
utility and stormwater infrastructure allows.
Development of the Project will be required to take into
consideration these factors while allowing for the installation
of required landscaping.
Staff believes the Project can and should comply with all
internal tree planting standards.
vii. Please revise this section of the Narrative to contain the following
additional detail(s):
12
35
1. Canopy trees installed within a landscape island shall be, at
a minimum, 1 % inch caliper at dbh at time of installation;
2. Staff recommends inclusion of a typical 'tree grate area'
design schematic showing the 'tree grate area' design as
well as the anticipated installation of proposed foliage.
P. SIGNS: Staff summarizes the proposed signage for the Project as follows:
i. Current County sign regulation(s) would allow the following within
an O/RM district general use zoning district:
1. 1 on premise sign with a height limit of 24 ft. and a maximum
area of 72 sq.ft. for parcels that are large than 60,000 sq.ft.
and have more than 300 linear ft. of frontage on a NC
Department of Transportation maintained roadway;
2. 1 wall sign per building fagade with frontage on a street right-
of-way. Maximum allowable area for a wall sign is 64 sq.ft.
for parcels that are larger than 60,000 sq.ft., have more than
300 linear ft. of frontage on a NC Department of
Transportation maintained roadway, and contain a structure
with more than 100 linear ft. of building length facing a public
right-of-way;
3. Window signs are limited to a maximum of 30% of the total
window area within the sign is to be located;
4. Per Section 6.12.13 a service station would be allowed
signage on the gas pumps as follows:
a. No internal or external illumination shall be
permitted;
b. Signs shall be limited to four square feet in area;
c. Signs must advertise items for sale on the
property. Under no circumstances may a sign
advertise a sale, activity, business, or product not
associated with the principal use of property
5. With respect to signage on a canopy, the UDO currently
indicates advertising material shall be limited to trademarks,
logos, and the name of the service station or other similar
display limited to six square feet of area. Signage on the
canopy is usually reserved to the portion of the canopy
facing/with frontage along a right-of-way.
ii.The submitted application proposes the following:
1. Development Area 1 (i.e. Buc-ees Travel Center):
a. 1 on premise sign approximately 100 ft. tall with a
total sign area of 601 sq.ft.; - Roughly constituting
a 800% increase in allowable sign area;
13
36
b. 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.); - Roughly
constituting a 400% increase in allowable sign
area per sign;
c. Logos on the canopy — 4 total logos each
approximately 50 sq.ft. in area (total cumulative
sign area of 200 sq.ft.); - Roughly constituting a
900% increase in allowable sign area per sign;
d. 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.) — A negligible
increase in allowable sign area (i.e. allowed 4
sq.ft. proposing 5.5 sq.ft.).
2. Other development areas:
a. 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);
b. Wall Signs: 64 sq.ft. of wall sign area for each
individual tenant space (insufficient information to
determine cumulative sign area);
c. Directional and temporary/construction/real estate
signage consistent with the provisions of Section
6.12 Signs of the UDO.
A rough estimate of total requested sign area for the Project appears to be
between 2,800 and 3,600 sq.ft. depending on the number of individual
tenants requiring wall signage.
While the Conditional Zoning process allows the County to make
additional signage allowances (i.e. height, allowable sign area, etc.), the
requested signage is several orders of magnitude beyond what we current
regulations would allow on the property.
The Narrative should contain information justifying the nature of the
request based on the overall Property area of 04 acres and the specific
design elements of the Project.
For example, the applicant may choose to include language within the
Narrative arguing that under current regulations, the 104 acres of property
zoned O/R M general use could be subdivided to create approximately 24
separate 4 acres lots, each with its own sign allotment.
In this scenario, there would be a maximum of:
• 24 freestanding signs (1 for each separate parcel) totaling 1,728
sq.ft, of allowable sign area; and
14
37
• 24 wall signs (presuming 1 sign for a single building on the 24
separate parcels) totaling 1,536 sq.ft. of sign area.
The Narrative would have to `demonstrate' how the proposed signage for
the Project would be consistent with the overall development potential of
this 104 acres of O/R M zoned property if you were dealing with multiple,
individual parcels.
As a general observation staff is concerned over the proposed 100 ft. free
standing sign for in Development Area 1 (i.e. Buc-ee's Travel center) and
recommends a maximum height limit of 60 ft. for the proposed sign. This
recommendation takes into consideration this site is higher elevation than
surrounding properties and the Interstate.
With respect to flags, staff recommends a maximum of 3 flags be allowed
per individual development area, with a size limit of 24 sq.ft. per flag,
consistent with Section 6.12.12 (A) of the UDO. Staff is not comfortable
with the proposal to allow 2 flags each development area comply with the
provision(s) of your proposal as articulated on page 29 of The Narrative.
Staff is not comfortable recommending approval of the proposed standard,
specifically each individual building being allowed to have 2 flags, as this
is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Section.
Q. LIGHTING: Staff has the following comment(s)/recom mend ation(s):
i. An audit of current lighting levels should be completed and made
part of the Narrative.
This audit will establish the baseline of existing illumination in and
around the Property, most notably along the Interstate service road,
allowing for a determination as to how much light already exists in
the area.
Once the results of this audit are available, staff would have no
problem recommending a condition for Development Area 1 (i.e.
Buc-ee's Travel center) that: there shall be no net increase in
existing foot-candle/lumen levels along the southern property line
adjacent to the Interstate service road with development in
Development Area 1 of the Project.
ii. Staff has no concerns over the proposed maximum pole height of
36 ft.
iii. Staff agrees with the recommended condition that all fixtures shall
be full-cut off design consistent with Section 6.11.6 of the UDO.
iv. If the location of outdoor lighting fixtures is known, a formal lighting
plan is required to be submitted as part of the MPD-CZ application
(refer to Section 6.11.5 (B) of the UDO). If not, please add
language indicating same within the Narrative.
v. Staff recommends the applicant add language to the narrative
indicating all security lights shall abide by the requirements of
Section 6.11.3 (J) of the UDO.
15
38
vi. Add language indicating formal lighting plans shall be submitted
with all site plans where outdoor lighting is proposed.
vii. Add language that lighting for the project shall comply with
applicable NC Department of Transportation requirements for
roadway lighting.
R. PARKING: At this time, staff has no comments on the proposed parking
ratios (i.e. number of spaces per sq.ft. of building area based on land use)
contained in Section III of the Narrative (page 32).
III. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS (TIA):
There are 2 phases to the Project, specifically:
• Construction of a 120 pump gas station (Phase 1); and
• Construction of:
0 120-room hotel (square footage of structure unknown);
0 8,000 sq.ft. of medical office space;
0 30,000 sq.ft. of specialty retail space;
o A 3,500 sq.ft. drive-in bank;
0 12,000 sq.ft. of casual restaurant; and
0 20,000 SF of high-turnover sit-down restaurant space
(Phase 2).
As previously indicated herein the overall size of the structures referenced
within the TIA appears inconsistent with the Narrative and information
provided on the Master Concept Plan.
In reviewing the TIA, staff would offer these initial comments:
A. On August 31, 2020 staff was informed by NC Department of
Transportation (NC DOT) staff they required clarification on various issues
and had `tabled' their review of the TIA proposal until responses were
received.
PLEASE NOTE: DOT's review of this TIA is essential to the Project being
able to move forward in the zoning atlas amendment process.
B. Staff is concerned the proposed square footages for structures, as
detailed on the Master Concept Plan and within the Project narrative, are
not clearly reflected within the TIA.
Put simply, there appears to be more building area generating potential
traffic impacts that are not addressed in the submittal we are currently
reviewing.
C. Staff would like to review the possibility of reserving a 50 ft. right-of-way
along the northern property line to accommodate a future access road for
parcels fronting on Southern Drive to obtain access to Mt. Willing Road.
16
39
This could be a separate roadway or some form of internal connectivity for
these adjacent parcels to the internal roadway network within the Project.
This is to address potential loss of Southern Drive as an access for these
parcels in the event of railroad expansion.
D. Staff is concerned about the proposed drive access points along the
Interstate exit ramp running parallel with the southern Property line.
Specifically, staff is concerned about what appears to be 2-way traffic
access onto the exit ramp from Development Area 1 (i.e. Buc-ee's Travel
center).
Staff will be recommending to the applicant and NC DOT the proposal be
revised to allow for right-turn only for these driveways, specifically:
• Entrance to the Project near the intersection of Mt. Willing Road;
• Exit onto the allowing drivers to access Development Area 1 near
the intersection of the UD Highway 70 connector.
This presumes NC DOT allows for the development of driveway/access
roads onto the exit ramp serving Development Area 1.
E. Orange County Planning supports the proposed US Highway 70
connector improvements as detailed on the Master Concept Plan and
referenced within the TIA.
F. Mt. Willing Road is on the County's adopted 2019 Efland-Buckhorn-
Mebane Access Management Plan (EBM AMP) as well as the Orange
County CTP. Staff will be recommending the incorporation of the
following:
i. 4-Lane divided cross section (page 20 of the EBM AMP)
ii. The current right-of-way for Mt. Willing Road is 60 ft. Staff is
recommending a 25' reservation of additional right-of-way along
the western boundary of the Property in support of future
improvements along the roadway.
iii. Staff will be requiring a 100 right-of-way (41F) or 110' right-of-
way (4G) — NOTE: sample cross sections on next page;
iv. County staff will recommend to the BOCC that Mt. Willing Road
improvements be approved as a County priority in SPOT 7 and
subsequent processes.
17
40
ll ll Q Q ' L-6,:4,
4 F YDEWAtR Win
5A fWAL[
_10 z• 14' �r tTb'MEDUv tz• tA• z_' 1a
Nx Nv
f00'MN.2G"fO/WAV
4 LANE DIVIDED (17'-6" RAISED MEDIAN)WITH CURB&GUTTER,
WIDE OUTSIDE LANES,AND SIDEWALKS
P05TED SPEED 35-45 MPH
e-I e
4 w Nx Wn acE 11 11 U U p� mx ►a
(V= 1ry fAMWK` 2 L5 E 17' tt' 77-CEP.W
NN
T N4
t1aNN RIGiIEQF WAY _ ___ _
4 LANE DIVIDED(17'-6"RAISED MEDIAN)WITH CURB&GUTTER,
BIKE LANES,AND SIDEWALKS
P05TED SPEED 35-45 MPH
G. Mt. Willing at 1-40 EB off ramp should be considered for a signalized
intersection in Phase 2.
H. Stop sign currently at the off ramp; there is a 4-way stop intersection with
W. Ten Road just south of this juncture. Staff will be working with the
applicant to secure the necessary right-of-way dedication to facilitate
these proposals.
I. 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:
i. A bus stop location with signage
ii. A bus shelter with signage
J. 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.
K. 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, etc.) might be included.
18
41
IV. MASTER PLAN SET:
A. Section 6.7.1 (B) (1) of the UDO requires a map of the development site.
While the Master Concept Plan set provides the majority of required
detail(s), specifically Sheet(s) C 2.0 and 2.1 the submittal should be
modified as indicated:
i. Label and identify the various `lines' on the submitted map(s). Staff
recommends you use different colors to help distinguish the
information contained on the individual maps.
ii. Sheet(s) C 2.0 and 2.1 should display the stream/wetland buffer
area per Section 6.13 of the UDO.
iii. As previously indicated herein, Sheet(s) C 2.0 and 2.1 should
display the following information:
1. Proposed floor area ratio (FAR) for the Project.
2. Proposed impervious surface area for the Project.
3. Proposed open space.
4. Breakdown of landscape/buffer area (i.e. acreage) for the
Project.
5. Proposed setbacks (internal and external).
6. Anticipated number of parking spaces, loading berths/stalls,
etc.
7. Maximum allowable building height (in general and per each
individual development `pod' if there will be a difference).
8. Anticipated number of parking spaces with access to
alternative energy charging stations (if proposed).
iv. The Project will involve the relocation of existing overhead utility
lines. Staff will need documentation indicating the relocated power
line/easement(s) have been approved, and if development is
located within the easement said activity has been approved by the
utility provider.
v. Sheet C 6.0 and 6.1 serves as the landscape master plan for the
project. Staff recommend(s) the following:
1. A 75 ft. land use buffer along the northern property line
separating the residential land uses from Development
Area(s) 5 and 3. Planting requirements would follow what is
proposed for the Type F buffer option as depicted on Sheet
6.1.
2. The proposed tree planting requirements appear to be
consistent with the provisions of Section 6.8.6 (F) of the
UDO.
19
42
3. Denote internal landscaping (i.e. parking lot and parking lot
perimeter, building, preservation of existing significant
foliage, etc.) on Sheet 6.0 of the Master Concept Plan set.
4. Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) buffers, including
requested breaks consistent with Section 6.6.4 of the UDO.
Staff is recognizes the proposal calls for a managed MTC
buffer, versus a cleared 'visual break', for the approximately
1,200 linear ft. of Property along the Interstate exit.
This proposed 'managed MTC buffer break' constitutes a
design standard exceeding current UDO requirements.
vi. The roadway cross-section on Sheet C 5.0 appears acceptable for
internal roadway development. Staff recommends the drawing be
updated to show typical landscaping installation as well.
vii. Provide language (Sheet C 2.0) indicating if denoted stormwater
control measures (SCMs) are:
1. For illustrative purposes (i.e. final SCM location shall be
determined with the submittal of a formal stormwater
management plan in accordance with the UDO);
2. Are anticipated to serve as master drainage basin areas or
for specific 'pods'.
viii. Sheet C 4.0: Section 6.7.1 (B) (6) of the UDO requires a map
detailing the utility master plan for the project. While this Sheet
provides the majority of required detail(s), the submittal should be
modified as indicated:
1. Provide notes detailing anticipated/proposed utility lines (i.e.
water/sewer) anticipated within the project.
2. Denote the anticipated location of sidewalks to assist staff
ascertain if there will be any conflicts with utility location.
3. The map will need to be modified to include the detailed
design calculations for the project indicating that the
proposed utility lines are sufficient for expected development
and associated/estimated density for the project.
4. Include a note indicating: 'All onsite utilities shall be
underground unless approved by the Board of County
Commissioners'.
5. Indicate connection points to various utility lines.
6. Denote the location of any anticipated/planned utility
infrastructure (i.e. pump stations, etc.).
7. Provide detail on anticipated fire flow for the proposed utility
lines with detail on how same will support the project. As a
general reminder fire flow requirements are necessary for
consideration when sizing water lines.
20
43
8. Provide detail on the anticipated placement of manholes and
elevations same. This will include the provision of a typical
manhole construction detail.
9. Denote anticipated stub out locations.
10.Additional detail on expected build-out. This information
shall be essential in evaluating the ability of installed
infrastructure to meet current and future needs of the project.
Please note this document represents staff comments on the project thus far and
should in no way be construed as our final determination.
Additional correspondence shall be provided as necessary outlining our
comments on the project. This will include comment(s) from other County agencies (i.e.
Erosion Control/Stormwater, Fire Marshal, Solid Waste, County's Attorney office, etc.)
and external review partners (i.e. NC Department of Transportation, City of Mebane,
Orange-Alamance Water, etc.)
We will of course be more than happy to meet with you in person to review these
comments, any new issues, and methods of complying with other regulatory
requirements. Please contact me at (919) 245-2597 and/or
mharvey(aD-orangecountync.gov schedule and/or discuss the project in greater detail.
Sincerely,
Mich el D. Harve AIC CFM, CZO
Current Planning Supervisor
Orange County
CC: Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager;
Craig Benedict, Planning Director;
Steve Brantley; Economic Development;
James Bryan, County Attorney's Office;
Chris Rollins, City of Mebane;
Cy Stobber, City of Mebane;
Chuck Edwards, NC DOT;
OAWS staff;
Elizabeth (Beth) Trahos, Attorney for the Applicant
File.
21
44
Kimley>>>Horn
October 15, 2020
Michael D. Harvey AICP, CFM, CZO
Current Planning Supervisor
Orange County
131 W. Margaret Lane
Suite 201
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Conditional Zoning Atlas Amendment
Master Plan Development (MPD)
Comment Responses
Review Comments found on page:
GeneralComments .................................................................................................................................I
NarrativeComments:..............................................................................................................................3
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Comments: ..............................................................................14
MasterPlan Set Comments:..................................................................................................................17
EngineeringComments: .......................................................................................................................19
Environment, Agriculture,Parks& Recreation Comments:.................................................................22
SolidWaste Comments:........................................................................................................................22
General Comments
1. Staff is continuing to review language on utility permitting and connection standards with the Orange
Alamance Water (water provided) and the City of Mebane (sewer provider) staff and will provide
additional feedback as soon as possible.
Response: Comment noted. Kimley-Horn is working to schedule meetings with Orange
Alamance Water and the City of Mebane to discuss the improvements necessary for
connection to existing water and sewer near the site.
2. The Property is located within an area defined as a High-Quality Water (HQW) zoned by the State
of North Carolina. As site specific development plans are submitted, the State will be reviewing the
proposal for compliance with applicable standards. Please note `uncovered areas' in HQW zones
shall be limited at any one time to a maximum total area of 20 acres within the boundaries of the
Property. Larger areas may be uncovered with the written approval of the Director of the Division of
Land Resources of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
00 Morris Street, Suite 200,
45
Kimley)))Horn Page
Response: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.
3. When reviewing similar development proposals, conditions have been recommended by advisory
board/elected officials requiring a specific number, or percentage of required, parking be designed
to accommodate electrical charging stations. Staff believes there will be similar interest for the
Project. Section 2.5 H Sustainable Design of the Narrative contains the following statement:
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. (i) a paved EV charging station area including the required
electrical conduit system will be reserved within Development Area 1, (but completion of the
charging station installation would occur at Applicant's sole discretion) and, (ii) as to other
Development Areas, EV charging stations will be encouraged,provided that such facilities shall
be ancillary to a principal land use and as a service to patrons or employees.
It is staffs opinion advisory board/elected officials will be looking for specifics (i.e. actual number of
stations).
Response: No less than 10 electric vehicle charging stations will be provided within
Development Area 1. Refer to Sheet C2.0 of the Rezoning Plan and Section 2-5.B.12 of the
Narrative for details.
4. When reviewing similar development proposals, conditions have been recommended by advisory
board/elected officials requiring the creation/designation of parking spaces to support`park and ride'
activities. Staff believes there will be similar interest for the Project.
Response: A portion of the site (Development has been reserved for a Future Transit
N Area 6)
Amenity to be designed and constructed by others as described within Sections 3-2 and
Section 2-4.0 of the Narrative.
5. The Narrative will need more information on the anticipated water needs/usage of the Project. Staff
is concerned existing infrastructure is not suitable to support all anticipated land uses and comply
with applicable State Fire Codes.
Response:Additional information regarding anticipated water needs and usage of the project
is now provided within Section IV of the Narrative.
6. Sewer services will be provided by the City of Mebane. Consistent with the current inter-local
agreement with the City,there is a maximum daily sewer allocation for this entire area. The Narrative
needs to provide additional detail on the anticipated sewer needs/usage for the Project. Staff is
concerned this one development could negatively impact available sewer service to the entire area
based on the engineering design for the existing 12-inch sanitary sewer line. Staff needs this
additional detail on anticipated sewer flow to review with the City of Mebane and formulate a
response. At a minimum, staff may be looking at a condition requiring low flow toilets and/or low flow
users to ensure the continued viability of the system as a whole.
Response: Additional information regarding anticipated sanitary sewer needs and usage of
the project is now provided within Section IV of the Narrative.
7. In general, staff will be recommending conditions for this Project that the applicant shall comply with
all utility connection requirements/policies enforced by the City of Mebane and Orange Alamance
Waster System Incorporated.
Response: Comment noted. Kimley-Horn is working to schedule meetings with Orange
Alamance Water and the City of Mebane to discuss the improvements necessary for
connection to existing water and sewer near the site.
00 Morris Street, Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 . .:
I
46
Kimley>>>Horn Page 3
Narrative Comments:
A. Page 6 of the narrative contains a few grammatical errors that should be corrected, detailed below:
To that end, and in accordance with the provision of Section 2.9.2 of the (UDO), we hereby
submit this application request to rezone the approximately 104.55 acres of land generally
depicted on Sheet C1.0 (the Property') to the Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning
(MPD- CZ) designation to allow for the development of the Project consistent with the land
uses, development standards and other terms and provisions of this rezoning plan (including
these Development Standards and accompanying Sheets, the "Rezoning Plan').
Response: The Narrative has been revised as noted above. Refer to Section 1-1 of the
Narrative for details.
B. Page 7 of the narrative 'estimates' the amount of open space for the project at 30%. Staff believes
the narrative can definitively state the amount of proposed open space for the Project. As an aside,
there is language in the same paragraph indicating the proposed open space will be 'well in excess
of LIDO minimum standards.' Typically, the minimum open space area required for such projects is
30% when you factor in total limits on impervious surface area for non-residential development,
landscaping/buffering requirements, installation of stormwater control measures, etc.
Response: The Narrative has been revised to show the percentage of open space depicted
on the Rezoning Plan and proposed with the project. Refer to Sections 1-1 and 2.4.0 of the
Narrative for details.
C. Page 7, second paragraph of the narrative contains a few grammatical errors that should be
corrected, detailed below:
Significant new internal roads, pedestrian improvements, and off-site traffic improvements are
proposed to serve the new development activities and support/improve mobility and assure
appropriate access management. These new roadway improvements will ensure acceptable
levels of service in the area, remove the duplicative ramp activity on 1- 40185 between Hwy 70
and Mt. Willing Road, re-route obtrusive overhead transmission lines along that section of the
1-40185 frontage, and provide much needed connectivity from Mt. Willing Road/Turner Road by
way of a new street through the Project to connect with the 1-85 Connector, among other
improvements.
Response: The Narrative has been revised as noted above. Refer to Section 1-1 of the
Narrative for details.
Staff believes the following comment(s)/observation(s) should be considered/addressed:
i. It might be prudent to include a reference to the various map(s) and/or document(s) where
this information is for the layperson reading the narrative;
Response: Comment noted. Additional references to relevant maps and documents
have been added throughout the Narrative as deemed necessary.
ii. Be mindful some may not agree with your characterization of the current location of the
overhead power lines as being 'obtrusive'. Some may argue they are only 'obtrusive' to you
and that your proposed relocation plan will only transfer the problem to 'others';
Response: The overhead powerline relocation will remain within the limits of the
proposed development and is not anticipated to impact adjacent property owners.
00 Morris Street, Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 • .:
47
Kimley>>>Horn Page 4
iii. The narrative uses the term 'acceptable levels of service'. Be mindful that there will be some
property owners within the notification area who would argue the proposed traffic impacts of
the project are not acceptable to them;
Response: Comment noted. The term "Level of Service" is a quantitative engineering
measure of traffic operations correlated to volume to capacity ratios, vehicle delay,
density, and other measured paraments at acceptable levels as defined by the Highway
Capacity Manual and NCDOT.
iv. Staff is not clear on what is meant by the statement 'remove duplicative ramp activity on I-
40/85 between Hwy 70 and Mt. Willing Road'.
Response: This statement is in reference to removal of Westbound 1-40 Exit 160,which
duplicates the function of Exit 161.
D. The narrative on page 7 provides a synopsis of beneficial impacts with the development of'Phase
1' of the Project(i.e. the Buc-ee's Travel center). There is, however, no overview of the project as a
whole. Staff is concerned a lack of analysis/explanation of the anticipated benefits of the Project as
a whole will become a focal point of criticism.
Response: The Narrative has been revised to provide more explanation for the project has a
whole. Refer to Section 1-1 of the Narrative for details.
E. Page 9 of the narrative uses the term 'vacant' to describe property to the south of the Project. As a
general observation, staff has seen previous projects criticized for using the term 'vacant' with
residents arguing there is nothing inherently wrong with property that is undeveloped. Staff suggests
you consider revising language within the document to indicate property without land
uses/developments be referred to as 'undeveloped' rather than 'vacant'.
Response: The reference in the Narrative to adjacent `vacant' properties has been revised to
show that the properties are `undeveloped' as recommended. Refer to Section 1-3 of the
Narrative for details.
F. Page 10 of the narrative, under Section 1-5 (B) contains the following language:
'Therefore, there will be instances where modifications will be allowed without requiring
administrative review under the UDO ..."
Staff believes what you are trying to articulate is that certain modifications to the Project will not
require 'BOCC review/approval'. Technically, the Project is always under'administrative review' by
staff consistent with the provision(s) of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Staff does not
want someone to argue your narrative is inconsistent with the UDO.
Response: The Narrative has been revised to specify that certain modifications to the project
will not require Board of County Commissioners review and approval. Refer to Section 1-6.13
of the Narrative for details.
G. Consistent with Section 1-5 (C)of the Narrative, staff understands you are requesting 'vested rights'
for the Project. This request, however, may not be necessarily required. What this proposal
represents is, ultimately, the adoption of a new zoning district governing development of
approximately 104 acres of property. There will be development requirements, conditions, and a list
of permitted land uses for this new district. If approved, the new zoning district is not subject to being
extinguished without formal County action to rezone the property consistent with Section 2.8 of the
UDO. Staff is continuing to review language with the Attorney's office and will provide additional
analysis in the near future.
Response: Comment noted. If necessary, the Narrative will be revised upon additional
analysis by Orange County.
00 Morris Street, Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 . .:
I
48
Kimley>>>Horn Page 5
H. Page 16 Section 2-3 Project Development Areas subsection (A) of the Narrative inadvertently
repeats a phrase twice:
For ease of reference and as an organizing feature associated with the master planned nature
of the Project, a series of 6 Development Areas(as defined in Section 1-5 above) are generally
depicted on Sheets C2.0 & 2.1 along preserved green/open space areas.
Staff also recommends you add the following language to the last paragraph of this section:
The exact boundaries of the Development Areas and preserved green/open space areas may
be modified to account for Development/Site Elements (as defined below) and other
modifications needed to fulfill the design and development intent of the Rezoning Plan. Please
note in this context, modification refers specifically to location and not required minimums. An
approved dimensional standard (i.e. floor area ratio limits, minimum percentage of property
reserved/preserved as open space, minimum number of required parking spaces, etc.) shall
be adhered to unless otherwise modified in accordance with the provisions of the UDO.
Response: The Narrative has been revised as noted above. Refer to Section 2-3 of the
Narrative for details.
I. Section 2-4 Permitted Uses, Development Levels, and Use Conversion Rights(page 17)subsection
(A):
i. Staff recommends revising number 1 as follows:
The Property may contain and may be developed with uses permitted by right in the
MPD-CZ district as proposed herein, together with accessory uses as allowed in the
MPD-CZ district, but except as expressly limited by the provisions of subsections 2-
4B. and C. below.
Sheet C 2.0 of the Master Concept Plan makes reference to specific land use categories being
developed within the Project. These are the land use categories you are proposing for
development within the Project. Reference needs to be made that allowable land use
linked to our'rezonin Ian and master concept plan'.
categories are li g p
g Y
been revised as
Response: The Narrative has be requested. Refer to Section 2-4 of the
p
Narrative for details.
ii. Staff recommends you list out the requested land use categories in the narrative as currently
depicted within the Master Concept Plan for the Project. A new Section 1.a could be included
within the narrative reading as follows:
1(A)As submitted, the Project will allow development of individual land uses consistent
with the following land use categories in accordance with Section 5.2 Table of Permitted
Uses of the County's UDO:
i. Manufacturing. Assembly, Processing, and Distribution Uses — Food Uses,
excluding those land uses identified herein;
ii. Manufacturing, Assembly, Processing and Distribution Uses — Other Uses,
limited specifically to Research Facility with Manufacturing;
iii. Medical Uses, excluding those land uses identified herein;
iv. Office and Financial Services Uses, excluding those land uses identified herein,
v. Automotive/Transportation Uses limited specifically to Motor Vehicle Service
Station (i.e. gas station) and Bus/rail Passenger Shelters land uses:
vi. Service Uses limited specifically to Eating and Drinking Establishments and
Short-Term Rental—Non-host Occupied land uses.
Development of individual land uses shall occur consistent with the standards imposed as part
of the MPD-CZ approval process and those specific regulation(s) contained within the UDO
allowing for the development of that specific land use.
00 Morris Street, Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 • .:
49
Kim ey>>>Horn Page 6
Response: The Narrative has been revised as requested. Refer to Section 2-4 of the
Narrative for details.Additional Uses have been added to describe all permitted uses.
iii. Staff recommends you include language indicating the proposed car wash is considered to be
an accessory use to the proposed Motor Vehicle Service Station. Further, in order for the 'car
wash' to be considered an 'accessory use', it shall be located within the same development
district as the proposed Motor Vehicle Service Station (i.e. Development Area 1)
Response: The car wash is now located within Development Area 1 and is described
as an accessory use. Refer to Section 2-4 of the Narrative and Sheet C2.0 of the
Rezoning Plan for details.
iv. The Narrative will need to provide more detail on what'temporary uses'are envisioned for the
Project. Currently, there is no allowance for'temporary' activities within an MPD-CZ district.
Response: References to `temporary uses' have been removed from the Narrative.
J. Section 2-4 Permitted Uses, Development Levels, and Use Conversion Rights(page 17)subsection
(B):
i. Please correct the following grammatical issue:
Except for the uses allowed for Development Area 1 (including without limitation
retail sales to include among other uses the sale of gas and related products and
services and quick service EDEE uses with drive-through facilities), no gas station nor
convenience store/gasoline sales uses and will be allowed on the Property, and no fast
food restaurant with drive-thru window facility will 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.
Response: The Narrative has been revised as requested. Refer to Section 2-4.13 of the
Narrative for details. The language has also been revised to indicate that no drive-thru
windows will be permitted. Take out windows are allowed to accommodate a prevalent
practice that has developed during the COVID crisis.
ii. Number 2:
1. Staff believes you are attempting to reference allowable land uses for a MPD-CZ district
as detailed in Section 5.2 of the UDO. If this assumption is correct, please revise existing
language accordingly:
i. Staff recommends you provide a list of all 'prohibited' land uses for each
proposed category, for example:
a. Manufacturing, Assembly, Processing, and Distribution Uses—Food
Uses: The following land uses are expressly prohibited.
i. Animal Feed Preparation, Manufacturing, Packaging, and
Distribution;
ii. Animal Slaughtering and Processing, Packaging, and
Distribution,
iii. Seafood Preparation, Packaging, and Distribution.
iv. Starch, Vegetable Fats and Oils Manufacturing: and
v. Tobacco Processing, Preparation, Packaging, and Distribution
b. Manufacturing, Assembly, Processing, and Distribution Uses—Other
Uses, is expressly limited to Research Facility with Manufacturing,
c. Medical Uses. the following land uses are expressly prohibited.
i. Hospital;
ii. Veterinary Hospital
III 11911 00 Morris Street, Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 • .:
50
Kimley>>>Horn Page 7
d. Office and Financial Services Uses. The following land uses are
expressly prohibited:
i. Buildinglfrade contractor offices with external equipment
storage yards;
ii. Pawnshop/payday loan services;
e. Automotive/Transportation Uses is expressly limited specifically Motor
Vehicle Service Station (i.e. gas station) and Bus/rail Passenger
Shelters land uses:
f. Service Uses limited specifically to Eating and Drinking
Establishments and Short Term Rental — Non-host Occupied land
uses;
This list is consistent with existing LIDO language and simplifies what will and will not be
permitted within the Project.
Response: The Narrative has been revised to include a detailed list of prohibited land
use categories similar to the sample list provided above. Refer to Section 24.13 of the
Narrative for details.
a. The narrative should be revised to include additional detail(s) on proposed development
activities, namely:
i. A description/identification of each individual development area or pod'within the Project
(i.e. acreage of development area, intended access, allowable floor area, etc.);
ii. Anticipated number of buildings and their size;
iii. An explanation on the anticipated number of parking spaces;
iv. An explanation of loading berths/zones for each area or`pod;
This information should also be placed on the Master Concept Plan as well(Sheet C 2.0 and/or
C2.1).
Response: The Narrative has been revised to provide additional details on the proposed
development to the greatest extent possible. Refer to Section 2-4.0 of the Narrative for
and Sheet C2.0 of the Rezoning Plan for details.
K. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:
i. IN GENERAL: The Narrative needs to contain a summary of the findings of the Environmental
Assessment (Exhibit F) as you begin the discussion of the Project's 'performance standards'.
Specifically, an analysis of the information demonstrating compliance with applicable standards
(i.e. Section 6.16.3(B) of the LIDO)which will be vital in documenting your rationale for arguing
an Environmental Impact Statement, as detailed in Section 6.16.4 of the UDO, is not required
for the Project.
Response: A summary of the findings of the Environmental Assessment are now
included within the Narrative. Refer to Section 1-5 of the Narrative for details.
ii. Floor Area Ratio(FAR): the Narrative indicates the Project will observe a FAR of 0.65 or 28,314
sq.ft. of building floor area per acre of property. If we presume single-story building(s) for the
Project, this would translate to a maximum of 2,944,656 sq.ft. of building area (67 acres). Staff
realizes we will not be dealing with single-story structures throughout the project, but is
concerned this proposed FAR is inconsistent with the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)
submitted for this project, which estimates traffic generated for approximately 500,000 sq.ft. of
building area/land uses (Exhibit F). The FAR either needs to be:
• Modified to be consistent with the building square footage utilized in the development of
the TIA,
00 Morris Street, 00 Durham, NC 27701 • .:
51
Kimley>>>Horn Page 8
• The TIA need to be modified to document traffic impacts anticipated for the square footage
of proposed building area based on a FAR of 0.65, or
• A condition needs to be recommended that floor area exceeding that studied as part of
the TIA will require modification to the MPD-CZ consistent with Section 2.9.2 of the UDO.
The FAR for the Project should also be listed on the Master Concept Plan, specifically sheet(s)
C 2.0 and/or 2.1.
Response: The Narrative has been modified to specify that the FAR for each
Development Area shall not exceed 0.65 provided that the total development of the
project shall not exceed 500,000 SF of gross floor area. The addition of this provision
within the Narrative allows for total development of the site to be consistent with the
TIA. Refer to Section 2-5.A.2 of the Narrative and Sheet C2.0 of the Rezoning Plan for
details.
iii. Open Space: The Narrative indicates there will be a minimum of 30% open space for the
project,translating to approximately 32 acres of land area. Please correct the narrative to reflect
30% of the proposed 104 acre development site.
Response: The Narrative has been corrected to show a minimum of 40 acres of open
space for the project which equates to approximately 38% of the site. Refer to Section
2-5 of the Narrative for details.
j
for the Proect is listed at a maximum of 60 ft. Existing language
iv. Proposed building height �
indicates 'accessory structures' may exceed 60 ft. in overall height. Typically, there are
additional setback requirements for structures exceeding 40 ft. in height per Section 3.7 of the
UDO. Staff recommends references in the narrative to a'60 ft. height limit' be replaced with the
following:
Buildings within the development shall abide by the height limitations and allowances
established within Section 3.4 Office/Research and Manufacturing of the UDO.
Building height shall be limited to 35 ft. 2 feet of additional height shall be allowed for
one foot increase in require setback from an external road/property line with a
maximum cap of 60 ft.
Additional information is required on the anticipated accessory land uses exceeding the 60 ft.
height limit. Put simply: the applicant will need to provide a detailed list of land uses, other than
signs, exceeding the height limit and the rationale for same. Height limit(s)will also need to be
listed on the Master Concept Plan, specifically sheet(s) C 2.0 and/or 2.1.
Response:The Narrative has been revised to modify the language for allowable building
height above 35' and additional detail is provided for land uses that may exceed the 60'
i height limit. Refer to Section 2-5.A.4 of the Narrative and Sheet C2.0 of the Rezoning
j Plan for details.
v. A total impervious surface limit should be established for the project. Under current regulations,
development with this area of the County could be a maximum of 70% with compliance
development of stormwater control measures. After conferring with the Director, it has been
recommended the narrative contain language discussing the cumulative/shared nature of the
development (i.e. shared access roads, shared parking, common stormwater control
measures, open space preservation, etc.) resulting in an overall reduction in the amount of land
clearing/grading that will be required to accommodate the Project. This will result in an overall
reduction in the anticipated environmental impact of the Project thereby potentially justifying
additional impervious surface area.
00 Morris Street, Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 101 • .:
52
Kimley>>>Horn Page 9
Response: A total impervious surface limit of 62% is now proposed for the project,
which is more restrictive than the maximum of 70% permitted under the UDO. Refer to
Section 2-5.A.1 of the Narrative for details.
vi. The Narrative indicates the Project will comply with the provision(s) of Section(s) 6.13 Stream
Buffers and 6.21 Flood Regulations of the LIDO. This includes preserving required buffers
around identified water features(i.e. streams,wetlands, floodplain, etc.)as defined in the UDO.
Response: Comment noted. Additional language has been added to Section 2-5.13.5 of
the Narrative to specify preservation of required buffers around identified water features
where possible and Sheet 3.1 of the Rezoning Plans shows the buffers to be preserved.
vii. The Narrative appears to indicate the Project will comply with the provision(s) of Section(s)
6.14 Stormwater and 6.15 Erosion Control of the LIDO. Orange County Erosion Control and
Stormwater Management staffs are reviewing the proposed conditions. As a general
observation: If it is your intention to make use of nutrient buy-down tools, the Narrative should
contain language denoting same.
Response: The Narrative has been revised to specify that water quality requirements
will be met on site by SCMs or nutrient buy-down payments. Refer to Section 2-5.13.8.c.ii
of the Narrative for details.
viii. Staff encourages the applicant to use on-site ponds, designed to capture runoff, for irrigation
purposes as detailed on page 22 of the Narrative.
Response: The applicant will attempt to utilize onsite runoff to the greatest extent
practical for irrigation purposes and to provide regional stormwater ponds that will be
available to individual site developers for irrigation purposes. Refer to Section 2-5 of
the Narrative for details.
L. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS: The Narrative indicates the project shall abide by the provisions of
Section 6.4 Performance Standards of the LIDO inclusive (i.e. noise, vibration, air pollution, etc.).
Response: Comment noted. Refer to Section 2-5 of the Narrative for details.
M. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS: The proposed architectural design standards appears
consistent with the provisions of Section 6.5 Architectural Design Standards of the LIDO.
Response: Comment noted. Refer to Section 2-5 of the Narrative for details.
N. SETBACKS: Staff is recommending the following:
i. 100 ft. perimeter structure setback from all external property lines and right-of-way (i.e. Mt.
Willing Road, the Interstate, etc.);
Response: The proposed setbacks are provided within Section 2-5 of the Narrative.
Although a full 100' perimeter structure setback is not proposed,significant buffers are
proposed along all external property lines and right-of-way and planting and screening
requirements along the rear property line have been increased to address concerns
from adjacent property owners. Refer to Sheets C6.0, C6.1, and C6.2 for information on
proposed buffers.
ii. Vehicular use areas (i.e. access drive-aisle, parking, loading berths):
1. 100 ft. from residentially zoned property (i.e. the property north of the Project);
2. 50 ft. from all other property lines/external public rights-of-way;
3. Staff is recommending all internal setbacks be 20 ft.
53
Kimley>>>Horn Page 10
Response: The proposed setbacks are provided within Section 2-5 of the
Narrative. Although a full 100' setback is not proposed along the northern
property boundary,enhanced plantings and a 6'fence will be provided to screen
adjacent residentially zoned parcels from the development. Additionally, a
variable width buffer is provided along external public rights-of-way (between
40' and 200'). All internal setbacks for Development Areas 2-5 are 20' and a 10'
buffer is now proposed within Development Area 1. Refer to Sheets C6.0, C6.1,
and C6.2 for additional information on proposed buffers.
iii. Signage: the proposed setbacks appear reasonable. Having said that, staff would like to
discuss the potential need for more restrictive setbacks for signs exceeding 48 ft. Specifically,
staff is looking to address potential impacts from a large sign becoming compromised and
collapsing.
Response: The sign has been relocated such that it is further than 200 feet from 40/85.
The sign will be designed to meet building code standards.
O. LANDSCAPING: The Narrative contains landscaping and buffering requirements in Section 2.5
Performance Standards (E) beginning on page 26.
i. In General: The section should provide detail on the landscape and buffer management
standards for the Project, including the amount of proposed foliage within identified landscaped
areas.
Response: Section 2-5.E of the Narrative has been updated to include additional detail
on the landscaping and buffer management standards. All required internal
landscaping shall be installed and maintained by the developer or their successor in
perpetuity. The"Land Use Buffers"section of the Narrative has been updated to include
the exact quantities and types of proposed foliage as requested. Please see the
"Landscape Buffer Requirements & Calculations" table for more information.
ii. Section 6.8.7 (F) of the UDO, the County establishes various buffer types outlining the
number/species of foliage required within every 100 linear ft. of property. The narrative will
need to define what level of landscaping is going to be required consistent with this standard.
Sheet C 6.0 of the Master Concept Plan contains this information. Staff recommends it be
placed in the Narrative as well. Staff shall provide comment(s) on proposed buffers in the next
section of this document.
Response: In Section 2.5.E. the "Land Use Buffers" section of the Narrative has been
updated to include the exact quantities and types of proposed foliage as requested.
Please see the "Landscape Buffer Requirements & Calculations" table for more
information.
iii. Number 4 Planting Requirement(s) — Street Trees. Language within this section of the
Narrative is inconsistent with information provided on Sheet C 6.0. There are going to be
instances where a canopy tree will be required more than once for every 100 linear ft.
Response: Section 2-5.E of the Narrative has been revised to note that street trees will
be installed per the requirements illustrated on the Landscape Buffer Plan (Sheet C6.0).
iv. Number 6 Planting Requirements — Foundation Plantings. Staff is recommending the
following:
1. A minimum of 40% of the building foundation in District 1 shall be landscaped with
foliage by means of raised planters, sidewalk cutouts, or portable planters.
00 Morris Street, Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 . .:
54
Kimley>>>Horn Page 11
Response: For all building foundations within Development Area 1, Planting areas will
be provided adjacent to the three primary sides (excluding the rear) of all buildings in
the form of landscape islands. 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. Section 2-5.E.8 of the
Narrative has been updated to reflect this requirement.
v. Number 7 Planting Requirements—Vehicular Use Areas. Staff is recommending the following:
1. The Project shall comply with the provisions of Section 6.8.7(D) (1) of the LIDO
requiring all parking areas observe a vegetative buffer, at least 10 ft. in width,
separating parking from adjacent open space, vehicular use areas, property lines, etc.
Response: The Narrative has been updated to clarify the Rezoning Plan request as
related to planting requirements within vehicular use areas. Refer to Section 2-5.E.9 for
details.
vi. Number 9 Interior Landscaping. Staff is recommending the following:
1. Language appears to indicate interior parking lot landscaping shall be installed where
above/below ground utility and stormwater infrastructure allows. Development of the
Project will be required to take into consideration these factors while allowing for the
installation of required landscaping. Staff believes the Project can and should comply
with all internal tree planting standards.
Response: The Narrative has been updated to clarify the Rezoning Plan request as
related to planting requirements within vehicular use areas. Refer to Section 2-5.E.9 for
details.
vii. Please revise this section of the Narrative to contain the following additional detail(s):
1. Canopy trees installed within a landscape island shall be, at a minimum, 1 '/2 inch
caliper at dbh at time of installation;
Response: The Narrative has been updated to require that all canopy trees
installed within a landscape island shall be a minimum of 1 %inch caliper at DBH
at the time of planting. See Section 2.5.E.3 of the Narrative.
2. Staff recommends inclusion of a typical'tree grate area' design schematic showing the
'tree grate area' design as well as the anticipated installation of proposed foliage.
Response: Tree grate areas are not currently proposed because all trees will be
installed outside of the sidewalk within the proposed streetscape. Refer to Sheet
C6.0 of the Rezoning Plan for details. Additionally, all applicable construction
details will be included as part of the submitted site plan package after
completion of the rezoning process.
P. SIGNS: Staff summarizes the proposed signage for the Project as follows:
i. Current County sign regulation(s)would allow the following within an O/RM district general use
zoning district:
1. 1 on premise sign with a height limit of 24 ft. and a maximum area of 72 sq.ft. for
parcels that are large than 60,000 sq.ft. and have more than 300 linear ft. of frontage
on a NC Department of Transportation maintained roadway;
2. 1 wall sign per building fagade with frontage on a street right- of-way. Maximum
allowable area for a wall sign is 64 sq.ft. for parcels that are larger than 60,000 sq.ft.,
00 Morris Street, Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 . .:
55
Kimley>>>Horn Page 12
have more than 300 linear ft. of frontage on a NC Department of Transportation
maintained roadway, and contain a structure with more than 100 linear ft. of building
length facing a public right-of-way;
3. Window signs are limited to a maximum of 30%of the total window area within the sign
is to be located;
4. Per Section 6.12.13 a service station would be allowed signage on the gas pumps as
follows:
a. No internal or external illumination shall be permitted;
b. Signs shaft be limited to four square feet in area;
c. Signs must advertise items for sale on the property. Under no circumstances may
a sign advertise a sale, activity, business, or product not associated with the
principal use of property
5. With respect to signage on a canopy, the UDO currently indicates advertising material
shall be limited to trademarks, logos, and the name of the service station or other
similar display limited to six square feet of area. Signage on the canopy is usually
reserved to the portion of the canopy facing/with frontage along a right-of-way.
ii. The submitted application proposes the following:
1. Development Area 1 (i.e. Buc-ees Travel Center):
a. 1 on premise sign approximately 100 ft. tall with a total sign area of 601 sq.ft.; -
Roughly constituting a 800% increase in allowable sign area;
b. 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.); - Roughly constituting a 400% increase in allowable sign area
per sign;
c. Logos on the canopy — 4 total logos each approximately 50 sq.ft. in area (total
cumulative sign area of 200 sq.ft.); - Roughly constituting a 900% increase in
allowable sign area per sign;
e as pumps advertising fuel type, each sign
several separate 9
d. A total of 16 signs on se p g p p
5.5 sq.ft. in area (total of approximately 88 sq.ft.) — A negligible increase in
allowable sign area (i.e. allowed 4 sq.ft. proposing 5.5 sq.ft.).
2. Other development areas:
a. 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);
b. Wall Signs: 64 sq.ft. of wall sign area for each individual tenant space (insufficient
information to determine cumulative sign area);
c. Directional and temporary/construction/real estate signage consistent with the
provisions of Section 6.12 Signs of the LIDO.
A rough estimate of total requested sign area for the Project appears to be between 2,800 and
3,600 sq.ft. depending on the number of individual tenants requiring wall signage. While the
Conditional Zoning process allows the County to make additional signage allowances (i.e.
height, allowable sign area, etc.), the requested signage is several orders of magnitude beyond
what we current regulations would allow on the property. The Narrative should contain
information justifying the nature of the request based on the overall Property area of 104 acres
and the specific design elements of the Project.
For example, the applicant may choose to include language within the Narrative arguing that
under current regulations, the 104 acres of property zoned O/R M general use could be
subdivided to create approximately 24 separate 4 acres lots, each with its own sign allotment.
In this scenario, there would be a maximum of:
00 Morris Street, 00 Durham, NC 27701 . .:
56
Kimley>>>Horn Page 13
24 freestanding signs(1 for each separate parcel)totaling 1,728 sq.ft. of allowable sign
area; and
24 wall signs(presuming 1 sign for a single building on the 24 separate parcels)totaling
1,536 sq.ft. of sign area.
The Narrative would have to 'demonstrate' how the proposed signage for the Project would be
consistent with the overall development potential of this 104 acres of O/R M zoned property if
you were dealing with multiple, individual parcels.
As a general observation staff is concerned over the proposed 100 ft. free standing sign for in
Development Area 1 (i.e. Buc-ee's Travel center) and recommends a maximum height limit of
60 ft. for the proposed sign. This recommendation takes into consideration this site is higher
elevation than surrounding properties and the Interstate.
With respect to flags, staff recommends a maximum of 3 flags be allowed per individual
development area, with a size limit of 24 sq.ft. per flag, consistent with Section 6.12.12 (A) of
the UDO. Staff is not comfortable with the proposal to allow 2 flags each development area
comply with the provision(s) of your proposal as articulated on page 29 of The Narrative. Staff
is not comfortable recommending approval of the proposed standard, specifically each
individual building being allowed to have 2 flags, as this is inconsistent with the spirit and intent
of Section.
Response: The sign standards have been revised within Section 2-5.F of the Narrative.
The narrative reflects the argument made here that total signage is consistent with that
permitted if the site is developed on a piecemeal basis. The height limit has been
reduced to eighty (80)feet.Please see Exhibit D.1. Flags have been removed as signage
option.
Q. LIGHTING: Staff has the following comment(s)/recommendation(s):
i. An audit of current lighting levels should be completed and made part of the Narrative. This
audit will establish the baseline of existing illumination in and around the Property, most notably
along the Interstate service road, allowing for a determination as to how much light already
exists in the area. Once the results of this audit are available, staff would have no problem
recommending a condition for Development Area 1 (i.e. Buc-ee's Travel center)that there shall
be no net increase in existing foot-candle/lumen levels along the southern property line
adjacent to the Interstate service road with development in Development Area 1 of the Project.
Response: A study has been completed to determine existing light levels. Please see
Exhibit J. This standard has been addressed in Section 2-5.G of the Narrative.
ii. Staff has no concerns over the proposed maximum pole height of 36 ft.
Response: Comment noted.
iii. Staff agrees with the recommended condition that all fixtures shall be full-cut off design
consistent with Section 6.11.6 of the LIDO.
Response: Comment noted.
iv. If the location of outdoor lighting fixtures is known, a formal lighting plan is required to be
submitted as part of the MPD-CZ application (refer to Section 6.11.5 (B) of the LIDO). If not,
please add language indicating same within the Narrative.
00 Morris Street, Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 . .:
57
Kimley>>>Horn Page 14
Response: Additional language has been added to the Narrative to specify that lighting
plans will be submitted as part of the site plan process. Refer to Section 2-5 of the
Narrative for details.
v. Staff recommends the applicant add language to the narrative indicating all security lights shall
abide by the requirements of Section 6.11.3 (J) of the UDO.
Response: Language has been added to specify that security lighting within
Development Areas 2 -5 shall abide by the requirements of Section 6.11.3(J)of the LIDO.
Refer to Section 2-5.G.2 of the Narrative for details.
vi. Add language indicating formal lighting plans shall be submitted with all site plans where
outdoor lighting is proposed.
Response: The requested language has been added to the narrative. Refer to Section
2-5 for details.
vii. Add language that lighting for the project shall comply with applicable NC Department of
Transportation requirements for roadway lighting.
Response: The Narrative has been revised to specify that lighting for the project will
comply with applicable NCDOT requirements.
R. PARKING:At this time, staff has no comments on the proposed parking ratios(i.e. number of spaces
per sq.ft. of building area based on land use) contained in Section III of the Narrative (page 32).
Response: Comment noted.
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Comments:
There are 2 phases to the Project, specifically:
Construction of a 120 pump gas station (Phase 1); and
Construction of:
120-room hotel (square footage of structure unknown);
8,000 sq.ft. of medical office space;
• 30,000 sq.ft. of specialty retail space;
A 3,500 sq.ft. drive-in bank;
12,000 sq.ft. of casual restaurant; and
20,000 SF of high-turnover sit-down restaurant space (Phase 2).
I
As previously indicated herein the overall size of the structures referenced within the TIA appears
inconsistent with the Narrative and information provided on the Master Concept Plan.
Response: The Narrative has been modified to specify that the FAR for each Development Area
shall not exceed 0.65 provided that the total development of the project shall not exceed 500,000
SF of gross floor area. The addition of this provision within the Narrative allows for total
development of the site to be consistent with the TIA. Refer to Section 2-5.A.2 of the Narrative
and Sheet C2.0 of the Rezoning Plan for details.
i
In reviewing the TIA, staff would offer these initial comments:
A. On Augu
st 31 2020 staff was informed p d b NC Department of Transportation (NC DOT) staff they
required clarification on various issues and ha
d 'tabled' their review of the TIA proposal until
58
Kimley>>>Horn Page 15
responses were received. PLEASE NOTE: DOT's review of this TIA is essential to the Project being
able to move forward in the zoning atlas amendment process.
Response: Comment noted. As a result of their preliminary review, NCDOT requested
supplemental sensitivity analyses. Recognizing that this information was forthcoming,their
review was paused. The Congestion Management Unit of NCDOT has now completed their
review of all associated analyses and has forwarded their comments to the District Engineer.
We expect formal comments from NCDOT before 10120.
B. Staff is concerned the proposed square footages for structures, as detailed on the Master Concept
Plan and within the Project narrative, are not clearly reflected within the TIA. Put simply, there
appears to be more building area generating potential traffic impacts that are not addressed in the
submittal we are currently reviewing.
Response: The Narrative has been modified to specify that the FAR for each Development
Area shall not exceed 0.65 provided that the total development of the project shall not exceed
500,000 SF of gross floor area. The addition of this provision within the Narrative allows for
total development of the site to be consistent with the TIA. Refer to Section 2-5.A.2 of the
Narrative and Sheet C2.0 of the Rezoning Plan for details.
C. Staff would like to review the possibility of reserving a 50 ft. right-of-way along the northern property
line to accommodate a future access road for parcels fronting on Southern Drive to obtain access
to Mt. Willing Road. This could be a separate roadway or some form of internal connectivity for
these adjacent parcels to the internal roadway network within the Project.This is to address potential
loss of Southern Drive as an access for these parcels in the event of railroad expansion.
Response: At this time, a 50' right-of-way is not proposed along the northern property line
because there is existing access from these properties to Mt.Willing Road through Southern
Drive.
D. Staff is concerned about the proposed drive access points along the Interstate exit ramp running
parallel with the southern Property line. Specifically, staff is concerned about what appears to be 2-
way traffic access onto the exit ramp from Development Area 1 (i.e. Buc-ee's Travel center). Staff
will be recommending to the applicant and NC DOT the proposal be revised to allow for right-turn
only for these driveways, specifically:
• Entrance to the Project near the intersection of Mt. Willing Road;
• Exit onto the allowing drivers to access Development Area 1 near the intersection of the
f UD Highway 70 connector.
i This presumes NC DOT allows for the development of driveway/access roads onto the exit ramp
serving Development Area 1.
Response: The two Development 1 driveways onto the service road are limited to right-
in/right-out movements only. Two-way traffic onto the service road is not proposed. The
proposed number and configuration of site driveways is necessary to provide adequate
capacity for and efficient dispersal of overall projected traffic demands.
E. Orange County Planning supports the proposed US Highway 70 connector improvements as
detailed on the Master Concept Plan and referenced within the TIA.
Response: Comment noted.
F. Mt. Willing Road is on the County's adopted 2019 Efland-Buckhorn- Mebane Access Management
Plan (EBM AMP) as well as the Orange County CTP. Staff will be recommending the incorporation
of the following:
00 Morris Street, Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 1011 • .:
59
Kimley>>>Horn Page 16
i. 4-Lane divided cross section (page 20 of the EBM AMP)
Response: A 4-lane divided cross section is not proposed or deemed necessary as part
of this project, but a 25' reservation has been provided along Mt. Willing Road to
accommodate future expansion by others if desired.
ii. The current right-of-way for Mt. Willing Road is 60 ft. Staff is recommending a 25' reservation
of additional right-of-way along the western boundary of the Property in support of future
improvements along the roadway.
Response: A 25' reservation has been provided along Mt.Willing Road to accommodate
future expansion by others if desired.
iii. Staff will be requiring a 100 right-of-way (4F)or 110' right-of-way (4G)—NOTE: sample cross
sections on next page;
Response:A 25' reservation has been provided along Mt.Willing Road to accommodate
future expansion by others if desired.
iv. County staff will recommend to the BOCC that Mt. Willing Road improvements be approved as
a County priority in SPOT 7 and subsequent processes.
Response: Comment noted.
G. Mt. Willing at 1-40 EB off ramp should be considered for a signalized intersection in Phase 2.
Response: The applicant proposes to install a traffic signal at this intersection in Phase 2
subject to NCDOT approval.
H. Stop sign currently at the off ramp; there is a 4-way stop intersection with W. Ten Road just south
of this juncture. Staff will be working with the applicant to secure the necessary right-of-way
dedication to facilitate these proposals.
Response: The Applicant is not clear what right-of-way dedication or proposals are being
referenced. No improvements are being proposed at the subject 4-way stop intersection.
Please clarify.
I. 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:
i. A bus stop location with signage
f ii. A bus shelter with signage
Response: Development Area 6 is reserved for future transit improvements by others.
Additionally, Section 3-2 of the Narrative specifies the proposed transit improvements
committed as part of this project.
J. 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
Response:This area is being set aside for development by others. As such,there is no traffic
generated in association with this project.
K. 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, etc.) might be included.
Response:The Rezoning Plan provides a cross section to show the proposed improvements
included as part of the development. Refer to Sheet C5.0 for details.
00 Morris Street, Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 • .:
60
Kimley>>>Horn Page 17
Master Plan Set Comments:
L. Section 6.7.1 (B) (1) of the UDO requires a map of the development site. While the Master Concept
Plan set provides the majority of required detail(s), specifically Sheet(s) C 2.0 and 2.1 the submittal
should be modified as indicated:
i. Label and identify the various 'lines' on the submitted map(s). Staff recommends you use
different colors to help distinguish the information contained on the individual maps.
Response: The different line types have been called out on Sheets C2.0 and C2.1. The
line types have been differentiated in the sheet legends.
ii. Sheet(s) C 2.0 and 2.1 should display the stream/wetland buffer area per Section 6.13 of the
LIDO.
Response: The stream/wetland buffer area is now included as part of Sheets C2.0 and
C2.1 of the Rezoning Plan.
iii. As previously indicated herein, Sheet(s) C 2.0 and 2.1 should display the following information:
1. Proposed floor area ratio (FAR) for the Project.
2. Proposed impervious surface area for the Project.
3. Proposed open space.
4. Breakdown of landscape/buffer area (i.e. acreage) for the Project.
5. Proposed setbacks (internal and external).
6. Anticipated number of parking spaces, loading berths/stalls, etc.
7. Maximum allowable building height(in g general and per each individual development pod
if there will be a difference).
8. Anticipated number of parking spaces with access to alternative energy charging stations
(if proposed).
Response: The information referenced above is now included on Sheet C2.0 to the
greatest extent possible. Refer to the Rezoning Plan for details.
iv. The Project will involve the relocation of existing overhead utility lines. Staff will need
documentation indicating the relocated power line/easement(s) have been approved, and if
development is located within the easement said activity has been approved by the utility
provider.
Response: Comment noted. Documentation will be provided as soon as it becomes
available.
v. Sheet C 6.0 and 6.1 serves as the landscape master plan for the project. Staff recommend(s)
the following:
1. A 75 ft. land use buffer along the northern property line separating the residential land
uses from Development Area(s) 5 and 3. Planting requirements would follow what is
proposed for the Type F buffer option as depicted on Sheet 6.1.
Response: The buffer along the northern property line remains at 40 feet in width
but is planted as an enhanced Type D buffer. This new buffer type includes the
Type D requirements as well as a 6-foot-high fence.We feel that planting this buffer
any more densely will result in failure of the vegetation due to overcrowding. The
enhanced Type D buffer elevation is illustrated as a elevation graphic on Sheet
C6.1 Landscape Buffer Elevations.
00 Morris Street, 00 Durham, INIC 27701 . .:
61
Kimley>>>Horn Page 18
2. The proposed tree planting requirements appear to be consistent with the provisions of
Section 6.8.6 (F) of the UDO.
Response: Comment noted.
3. Denote internal landscaping (i.e. parking lot and parking lot perimeter, building,
preservation of existing significant foliage, etc.)on Sheet 6.0 of the Master Concept Plan
set.
Response: Internal landscaping has been noted on Sheet 6.0 Landscape Buffer
Plan of the plan set.
4. Major Transportation Corridor(MTC) buffers, including requested breaks consistent with
Section 6.6.4 of the UDO. Staff recognizes the proposal calls for a managed MTC buffer,
versus a cleared 'visual break', for the approximately 1,200 linear ft. of Property along
the Interstate exit. This proposed 'managed MTC buffer break' constitutes a design
standard exceeding current UDO requirements.
Response: Comment noted.
vi. The roadway cross-section on Sheet C 5.0 appears acceptable for internal roadway
development. Staff recommends the drawing be updated to show typical landscaping
installation as well.
Sheet C5.0 has been revised to show typical
Response: The cross section on
landscaping installation as requested.
vii. Provide language(Sheet C 2.0) indicating if denoted stormwater control measures(SCMs)are:
1. For illustrative purposes(i.e. final SCM location shall be determined with the submittal of
a formal stormwater management plan in accordance with the UDO);
Response: A note has been added to Sheet C2.0 to specify that SCMs are
conceptual in nature and the final location and design will be submitted separately.
2. Are anticipated to serve as master drainage basin areas or for specific'pods.'
Response: A note has been added to Sheet C2.0 to specify that the SCMs are
anticipated to serve as master drainage basin areas and are not exclusively
serving each pod.
viii. Sheet C 4.0: Section 6.7.1 (B) (6) of the UDO requires a map detailing the utility master plan
for the project. While this Sheet provides the majority of required detail(s), the submittal should
be modified as indicated:
1. Provide notes detailing anticipated/proposed utility lines (i.e. water/sewer) anticipated
within the project.
Response: Additional details are now provided on Sheet 4.0 to identify the
anticipated size of proposed water and sewer mains for the project.
2. Denote the anticipated location of sidewalks to assist staff ascertain if there will be any
conflicts with utility location.
Response: Sidewalks are shown where locations are known, and utilities have
been routed to avoid conflicts to the greatest extent possible. Refer to Sheet C4.0
for details.
kimley-horn.com 300 Morris Street, Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701
62
Kimley>>>Horn Page 19
3. The map will need to be modified to include the detailed design calculations for the
project indicating that the proposed utility lines are sufficient for expected development
and associated/estimated density for the project.
Response: Anticipated design flows for sanitary sewer and potable water are now
shown on a table on Sheet C4.0 (Water and Sewer Map).
4. Include a note indicating: 'All onsite utilities shall be underground unless approved by the
Board of County Commissioners'.
Response: The requested note has been added to Sheet C4.0 (Water and Sewer
Map).
5. Indicate connection points to various utility lines.
Response: Connection points have been called out on Sheet C4.0 (Water and
Sewer Map).
6. Denote the location of any anticipated/planned utility infrastructure (i.e. pump stations,
etc.).
Response: The location of anticipated infrastructure is provided on the plans. See
Sheet C4.0 for details.
7. Provide detail on anticipated fire flow for the proposed utility lines with detail on how
same will support the project. As a general reminder, fire flow requirements are
necessary for consideration when sizing water lines.
Response: A note has been added to Sheet C4.0 detailing the anticipated fire flow
and potential improvements required.
8. Provide detail on the anticipated placement of manholes and elevations same. This will
include the provision of a typical manhole construction detail.
Response: Anticipated manhole locations are shown on the plans, and elevations
for existing structures are shown on sheet C1.0 Existing Conditions. Proposed
structures will tie into existing structures, and the proposed elevations will
primarily be driven by site grading to be determined at the Site Plan level.
9. Denote anticipated stub out locations.
Response: Anticipated stub out locations are shown on the plan. Refer to Sheet
C4.0 for details.
10. Additional detail on expected build-out. This information shall be essential in evaluating
the ability of installed infrastructure to meet current and future needs of the project.
Response: A note detailing additional water needs for the full build-out has been
i
added to Sheet C4.0 (Water and Sewer Map).
Engineering 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.
00 Morris Street, 00 Durham, NC 27701 • .:
63
Kimley>>>Horn Page 20
See Attachment 1. This accommodation would allow for potential future public sewer service to
multiple private tracts that are located adjacent to the Project.
Response: Four easements are now provided to allow future public sewer service to
private tracts adjacent to the project. Refer to Sheet C4.0 (Water and Sewer Map) for
details.
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.
Response: Comment noted. 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.
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.
Response: Comment noted. Kimley-Horn is working to schedule meetings with Orange
Alamance Water to discuss the improvements necessary for connection to existing water
and sewer near the site.
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.
Response: Comment noted. Additional information on anticipated flows is now provided
within the Narrative and the Rezoning Plan.
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.
Response: The use of low flow water fixtures will be considered as part of the
discussions with OAWS to ensure that the available water capacity is taken into account
when necessary infrastructure improvements are designed and constructed.
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.
Response: Comment noted. Additional information on anticipated demands is now
provided within the Narrative and the Rezoning Plan.
v. Provide additional information on the proposed dead-end waterline near the intersection of Ben
Johnston Road on the east side of the Project. It appears that the proposed water line will exist
i
i
kimley-horn.com 300 Morris Street, Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 • .:
64
Kimley>>>Horn Page 21
as a dead end throughout both phases of the Project. Applicant shall ensure that NCDEQ and
OAWS design criteria and/or direction are followed specific to the proposed dead-end water line.
Response:A flushing hydrant and mechanical joint cap are now shown at the termination
of the proposed waterline. Refer to Sheet C4.0 for details.
vi. Water utility design, permitting, and construction shall conform to NCDEQ and/or OAWS
standards.
Response: Comment noted. Standards will be met as part of the site plan and
construction drawing review process.
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.
Response: Comment noted. Kimley-Horn is working to schedule meetings with the City
of Mebane to discuss the improvements necessary for connection to existing water and
sewer near the site.
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.
Response: Comment noted. Additional information on anticipated flows is now provided
within the Narrative and the Rezoning Plan.
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.
Response: The use of low flow water fixtures will be considered as part of the
discussions with the City of Mebane to ensure that the available sewer capacity is taken
into account when necessary infrastructure improvements are designed and
constructed.
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.
Response: Comment noted. Additional information on anticipated flows is now provided
j within the Narrative and the Rezoning Plan.
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.
Response: The existing terminal manhole is shown per surveyed information. Refer to
Sheet C1.0 for details.
W*1 300 Morris Street, Suite 00 Durham, NC 27701 . .:
65
Kimley>>>Horn Page 22
vi. Sewer utility design, permitting, and construction shall conform to NCDEQ and/or City of
Mebane standards.
Response: Comment noted. Standards will be met as part of the site plan and
construction drawing review process.
D. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT:
i. Stormwater management design, permitting, and construction shall conform to Section 6.14 of
the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
Response: Comment noted. Standards will be met as part of the site plan and
construction drawing review process.
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).
Response: Comment noted. Standards will be met as part of the site plan and
construction drawing review process.
Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Recreation Comments:
A. 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-ll, 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 % 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.
Response: Comment noted. Dedication of a conservation easement will be considered as
part of the rezoning process.
Solid Waste Comments:
00 Morris Street, Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 .:
66
Kimley>>>Horn Page 23
A. I have drafted a suggested revision to the subject Performance Standards for Solid Waste for the
Beaver Crossing Project. A copy of that document is attached for your review and comment. Given
the size and scope of this project, OCSW won't be able to provide recycling collection services there
so they will have to privately contract for that service along with garbage collection, cardboard
collection for recycling, and food waste collection for recycling. I am asking that my version be used
in place of what the applicant has in their application narrative.
Response: Comment noted. The Narrative has been revised to include the revised language.
00 Morris Street, Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 . .:
67
e6ane
Positively chcvmii7g
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,
lzzre�
Kyle Smith, P.E.
City of Mebane Utilities Director
CITY OF MEBANE 636 Corregidor St.I Mebane,NC 27302 0 919 563 3401 919 304 6836 ksmith@cityofinebane.com
68
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 byJ. Scouten, Orange County Solid Waste Management Dept. 8117120 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.
JS (OCSW) Sep 2020
69
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Current Planning 131 W. Margaret Lane
(919) 245-2575 "~ v Suite 201
(919) 644-3002 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY I P. O. Box 8181
www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278
on
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.
70
(map of parcels)
I LI II' Y I l ^"I I 'I -ICI' I I'll'"I - I " 'I - I'• J .• •q+% .�(. - •l�
...�.... - .. o •i • s
- DR
o •-
�
O �
• ° • ° r
• • o • ® 3
• • • •°
• o
O ro �• .c
Oy o
® O
N � �. Protected ..
. Watersh
r
l
k PIN •: 4 • •
1.Y..
d
185 541 7'7 W
-195 EF40 V•J
LOE .I .
I Er'P'$V,0 E ENT 100 / .- r '9
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:
0 120-room hotel (square footage of structure unknown);
0 150,000 sq.ft. of Office/Service/Manufacturing land uses;
0 8,000 sq.ft. of medical office space;
0 30,000 sq.ft. of specialty retail space;
o A 3,500 sq.ft. drive-in bank;
0 12,000 sq.ft. of casual restaurant; and
0 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,
71
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
• 1-85/40 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 1-85/40 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 1-85/40
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 1-85/US 70
Connector with the 1-85/40 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 185/40
freeway on/off ramp ranging from 4% to 6% with the average
highest elevation being approximately 630 ft.
d. Vegetation:
72
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 1-85/40
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.
11. PIN 9854-36-3711: An approximately 10 acre parcel of undeveloped property
with frontage on:
• Southern railroad (northern property line); and
• 1-85/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 1-85/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 1-85/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-11 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
73
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-
74
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.
75
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;
76
• Requires an EIS by a Federal or State agency;
• Fails to adequately protect identified in "Inventory 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 1-85/40);
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.
77
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.
78
ORANGE COUNTY
Department of Environment,
Agriculture,Parks&Recreation
MEMORANDUM
To: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, Planning and Inspections Dept.
From: Christian Himi,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
'/z 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.
79
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.
80
ORANGE COUNTY
��ft.
Department of Environment,
Agriculture,Parks&Recreation
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
81
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)
■ 1 00' ROW (4F) or 1 1 0' 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 1-40 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 1-40 Service Road ramps.
Staff would like to see an area of the project (either in Phase I or 11) 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.
82
NCDOT Cross Sections:
x
A
4
MK MDI. 11 J W MIµ FAN.
4FEWALK
1&
la 2' 1 i' 12' 17'-f MEPLAH 12' 1 A' 2 10
► + NK
10a M N-W HT OF WAY
4 LANE DIVIDED (17'-6" RAISED MEDIAN) WITH CURB & GUTTER,
WIDE OUTSIDE LANES, AND SIDEWALKS
P05TE1)5PEE❑35-45 MPH
- 4
A ^ MIN. MIX INKE V Y � �k. MR
/l [ + NJC LANE LANE 501WALA
T G„� 70' 2' 5' IT 77' 17'.drMEDMN do 97' 11' B' 2' 7p
MI R M IR
110-MI .R WOFWAY
4 LANE DIVIDED (17'-6" RAISED MEDIAN) WITH CURB & GUTTER,
BIKE LANES, AND SIDEWALKS
F o!3-rm 5PPPD 35-45 MPH
83
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
WNW-
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Permit and Inspection Information is NOW AVAILABLE ONLINEH 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.orangecountVnc.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.
1
84
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 mharvev@orangecountync.gov
❑ Patrick Mallett, Planner 2: (919) 245-2577 or pmallett@orangecountync.gov
❑ Molly Boyle, Planner 1: (919) 245-2599 or.mbovle@orangecountVnc.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.
z
85
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-70/1-85 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
• 1 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.
1
86
.w.
• 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
z
YoUrsTr'61.y AA+
yRestauran# Beachwood ONION Home2. uites bV Hilton! Trader J
I ism Cleveland Beachwood
Sep 24
ar 0 uw DoubleTree by Hilton
uw Hotel Cleveland East Be.
�r �St ep 24-25 -
1101
Red Lobs#er.�` , rt
• I
i +
r
- #�w
Embassyuites'by Hilton
Cleveland Beachwood
$IGr2 25
' 1 Q2
Life i . :` Super 8 I Wyndham
m *Frtnes r �1 Beachwood/ Cleveland...
Aloft Cleveland
Beachwood . {
-Sep 24-25
4
- I A Hotelsbby FA arriott
'�T IevelandtBeachwood
#:
UH Ablui �Aul Sep24-'25, f_
irtals Center Emergency-Rob rTi * �2g
ospital lyrnan•s.T Vern-
t + Dine-in, eliverr&-..
r
Harwrd-Rd'"Q r
amp eor Ieveland��ularrio#t S
Evr# e� _ hick-fil`At�.
. : •, �bu.' BABY' r
Y Y
88
i�
wnp 9F5 rIM1 -
�rf6M�.l.. .
Viand
Aft
♦•
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)
4
89
<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 1 300 Morris Street, Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701
Direct: 919 653-5874 1 Mobile: 919 971 2258 1 Main: 919 682 3583
Connect with us: Twitter I Linkedln I Facebook I Instagram I 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
5
90
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Engineering / Erosion
Control / Stormwater � 131 W. Margaret Lane
Suite 201
(919) 245-2575 ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181
(919) 644-3002 (FAX) NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278
www.orangecountync.gov
At
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):
91
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
92
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).
93
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,
CGr6g� 'J.
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
]t rJ ..OLN 3� bM =p.o-► YHfYRbl�.Il Wl�. ..
{lII Vim' �[noMWM-�i+a�NM it M4x. Mxa .rm� ,a6
IwWy'SYP�p NV-ld 89iSVV4 94.r
1111 �0Z:9 90 dHW 2i3M35 dA}H 2i31NM [.
UJOH O(AalwiN L.o Or�{ssoa0 a3nd3e
iocreas'.r,
I .f Yr
fig• �e 0- i° , , : 2W
oouj
c� ' I '
LU
LL
70
70
p IL
U
0 >J 00 P
tillI �•" �'' -w R� ry I
1 J - r
I - -
f
—
f _-------- a Y.
1 J-
co �,l I ti :
U
a w
I I
i
M
I r, 0 E
_0
C
LU
ol
-ai aY
_ _ - - T-
- [
Ok
ip
agP
a l_ a w '
:qa Ioid:d!a1w�IoW's HYId InOAY1 H3Na9 AUAVUD
6 [swt.rF Jweri'�Md�/uG I w NTpww•�'r!vel
��iRrun� 6u.uu�ld 16uu�wiEV� ur I �d Q®H�a^F�{�m
sa;elnossV p-inyndn sggOH w "" .� i 'N
5rb 9HYl�It cU.'r�r� 9 e � ,� 1 ,
� wo4J� g
F ;s.C-.0
❑
0 w - ,
I _! 1
O _zo2o¢zo � e _
M1 N
®. p
N
o ki
x
a —
N3z 1
1� 2w
_ N
u la +
a�un �n
0
W yl 1 ffi
�S 33b1 Li31N^
,r
rr
rr
y m
0
0
W
G'
W
N
C7 --
Z_ + a
FLn
!W Is
ZLLI ILL
N
o
QW
t7
a a ti a
a '
�.9
x r -
a
c�i a N
7
.mw.Wr>Qer....� wKnn�ai
r ; xxreasau�tt9.9aaeo[o�'d m� .0..3HId N3 3
$ b aK>t ww.�Wen w.ed�r.wr I'M.'>rol�•'^a'n.on - 31LiOHd ONtl N9'W-Id M39 ALAtlHE]
Sp A p `pJJ x OCJ'Atl1Il073JHvtl0 2 + Q
��✓ T1Ydi[70 i VJS co"avm NU JSEM
IWA..4 aw...,d 16.1 is,.. NOMNaM L BSVM OM 2NY83 Y-NACHXXM l
sajepossy y�Jny�dn sggaH ! !Smm AL Mm awm C g
�y R
?¢� LLI
:i
a 3 i
a s
(11 e
._I J SCim {a9 4
I
B
�3 3 a
a■I � p, sR
]I T� ■3 01
z
a M Vx 7 4
� h
` � � g � . . . .. . . ... ........
u, z l
z N
a7oa�.S'CgPig 8
71
o i _ �� n� � 3m row v f]YN oc+x.•I..fAI
N � gill
C: w�Gn zz o
6 rwz3 r _¢r5c,z�m-
w o�zw
... ... ......
Z-w
O
3WOQ3m d _ � IN 8
cwioU� ew-- �j -
Lza
1
z
C: o L o m m
J s I .
ly gR y �oWo "U zz-aJa
�'R i a� — � .t.cs w.l��,,; o w�?Nd��i
i .e ��x Q xwv Yno,9, &_�
_ oo � ;;
,.`....a, z K�
A Wo 0 2 LU Sun q
P�
IN
N _ x� zi aY
W {L - 'aw k'3o3
^L C - z wFmF
W >atr G �o �= aw w
Q d C dRd� 2
`s sc� All
y El � I
.y;1 ]liv Ll,.49 IH
[N -Iw
R YI q 4 w. Si qc
oo
97
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
n NELSON MtJLLII
ELIZABETH C. TRAHOS PARTNER
beth.trahos@nelsonmullins.com
GLENLAKE ONE I SUITE 200
4140 PARKLAKE AVENUE I RALEIGH, NC 27612
T 919.329.3884 F 919.329.3799
NELSONMULLINS.COM VCARD VIEW BIO
From: Plumley, Lisa <Lisa.PIumley@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.
1
98
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 1 Cell: (704)303-3848
Lisa.PIumley@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.
2
99
��mTFoh
m O�
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Roy COOPER J.ERIC BOYETTE
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
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
Mailing Address: Telephone:(336)570-6833 Location:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Fax:(336)570-6873 115 EAST CRESCENT SQUARE DRIVE
DIVISION 7,DISTRICT I Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968 GRAHAM,NC 27253
PO BOX 766
GRAHAM,NC 27253-0766 Website:www.ncdot.gov
100
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 Interchanjze 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 1-85/US 70 Connector to the westbound 160 on ramp and proceeding as
a single thru lane to Mt. Willing Road
101
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
102
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.
1-40/85 Eastbound Ramps and Mt. Willing Road Intersection:
103
• 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 Streetscave 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.
104
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,
D"uSigned by:
C. N dwarfs Jr. , Pf
C606@6060F9M58...
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
105
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Current Planning 131 W. Margaret Lane
(919) 245-2575 Suite 201
(919) 644-3002 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181
www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278
Fe MI
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:
106
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):
Y
-
® ® O O O
F�FSE� JE 9854363711
FEFN cF ° CHAP LLOYD LAND INVESTMENT
• ® ® •° o ° o ® ® COMPANY LLC
+-• 10
° • _°• • ° •a q 6177194
o
Upper.Eno
a ® o�a Protected
- • • J®• - Watershed �� • � c> ^t�
2 e o
L F!, F
_ OsiAg ry ti;
C�
—0 9854161576 o-
x R SL EFLAND HEIRS LLC
599 71493
185 3.140 1N Eh t E.
_ 185Ni4�E _----_._-.
9!85 add E ENT 188
7N
i 11 0
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).
107
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:
108
Setback from Freestanding Buildings and Signs
Property Lines Structures+Vehicular
Use:areas
Interstate 85 One hundred(100)feet average 10' from public right-
Interstate 40 Forty(40) feet minimum of-way
Interstate 85 Connector,'U.S. Forty(40) feet 10' from public right-
Highway 70 of-way
Mount Willing Road Forty(40) feet 10' from public right-
of-way
100' from residential
uses
External Rear Property Line Forty-(40) feet 10' from public right-
of-way
100' from residential
uses
Internal Front, Side, and Rear Zero (0) feet 5' from private right-
(Development Area 1) of-way
10' from public right-
of-way
Internal Front. Side, and Rear Twenty(20) feet 5' from private right-
(Development Areas 2-6) of-wav
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.
109
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
110
the redirected traffic demands as well as site traffic impact via Westbound
1-40 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: jklacncdot.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
111
has required removal of 1-40 Westbound Exit 160, eliminating the closely
spaced, high-speed freeway weaving maneuvers. The resulting operations
along the service road and movements onto the 1-40 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:
• 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;
• Erosion Control permitting standards as detailed in Section
6.15 of the UDO;
112
• 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. 1 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?
113
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: "[I]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:
114
• 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);
• 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);
• Hospital, Veterinary Clinic, Veterinary Hospital and other Medical
Uses subject to the standards identified in the Orange County
UDO;
• Office and Financial Services subject to use standards set out in
the UDO;
• Service Uses except as identified in the Table 5.2 of the UDO,
entitled "Table of Permitted Uses", in Section 62 (A)-(Q);
• Telecommunication Towers subject to standards in the UDO or a
special use permit depending on tower height; and
• 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.
115
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 1-40
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.
116
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
117
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:
• October 7, 2020 — Anticipated Planning Board meeting;
• 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:
118
EXHIBIT A
PowerPoint Presentation
119
Beaver Crossing
Existing Zoning: O/RM
Proposed Zoning: MPD-CZ
III
NELSON
MULLINS
120
Two Parcels totaling 104. 55± acres
J iller-1wl'""
r�
low—
NELSON MULLINS
T
s
121
General Area
Will ME
Mall
Bill
IMPIle
1 9 ` ;'
'ate n:lG+ y: yt:y
Owe
-
9-14
1
1 _ � •��
qQ�
Y
122
ExistingZoning
• Office/Research
Manufacturing (O/RM ) with
N R _ the following overlays :
Upper Eno Protected
�C - 2 Watershed Protection
Overlay District; Major
c
� 3 c Transportation Corridor
Overlay District; Efland
Interstate Overlay District
Master Plan n Development
-: � - - aste a
Conditional Zoning ( MPD-
CZ) retaining all overlays
NELSON
Comprehensive Plan - Commercial-Industrial 123
Transition Activity Node
Commercial-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."
Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan 124
• 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.
125
Site Plan
1 J4 d
MT
IL41 1� 1
Ai—
-AIim
/ f l
Lu
tLLJ
i J LJ
{ • I f +M1 SITE PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN s <J]
NATURE AND IS SUBJECT m
y CWkN6E. m S
Calle.fanyoudq. "'��.�
NELSON
126
Site Plan
�1tYf•rs'rr[�� '�1i�rAitc�:N•rAow _ . .. r
I 7
I
i------------ % \ I i rr II
I 1 L--_=J ---L-J r /
IL: 1 1 Irk
— —� -----D-�---,—
I----------- ' it / f `�� LAND USE BY DEVELOPMENT AREA
DEVELOPMENTA EA TOTAL AREA IAC.! USES LEGEND
{
_ RETAIL= .10SF
ASSTATI�'M1 1 25.04 GONWIh PCSITI U-1—ELINGONS
-� DEF POSITIGNS=4
EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT=12"SF
2 1080 RETAIL=10,O SF
OFFICE ANDFINANCIALSEW—S=3,5003F
EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT=20,000SF
3 1100 GEN ERAL.1 L-21,000SF
MOB_"
OB=6,000 SF
4 545 SHORTTERMRENTA--NON-HOSTOGCUPIED=120 KEYS —
CAR WASH WITH—TUNNEL
5 21.15 GFFICEI SERVICEI MANl1FACTlIRING=150,0005E
6 1.62 FUTURETRANSITAHENITY BYCThERS —
11T1LITYTGWER 0
PARCEL
INTERNAL ROADWAYS 5.%
PRESERVEDGREEN
SPACEAREA
TQTAL 104.55
7 NELSON MULLINS
1Z7
Mixed Use Project - Retail, Services, hotel, dining,
office flex
space/light industrial
• Phase I - Buc-eels Travel Center:
Fueling Stations
Car Wash
Retail Store -
■ Plentiful and Famously Clean Bathrooms
■ Family-friendly --
■ No tractor-trailers allowed
r
■ Homemade BBQ and sandwiches -� :
1;8
Mixed Use Project - Retail, Services, hotel, dining,
office flex space/light industrial
Phase 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.
129
Landscape Buffers and Open Space
k
HA RNL ~~
R1 RE$IGEM1ITIAL U$E i���— AQRICLILTURAL '.
RESIDENTIhLU3E y'� � �
iSli{ ,1 aEm4TAE.RLs�E.MAe.6i4E€hf/�Tx o. �1 . C&IffHi ELEMEHT rVao-=m R
fRGA9
pw20 9VR !—
illEVELOPMENT
M I II �pyTgMFJG YIIfIVCOF,1019 ti,. ui/,.q[asxi R"{�iln' R
R7 RESIUENTIRL USE it - xunmrEreelle.fr P�� J • `�
� 6�EYELOPYIFYIT,yIEil{ r PAESERVWGPEEW
lr urLliTc�snf r—`�•,� PRE$ERYE�piEEN I _ SPAIXAREA
9PAEE AREA
l.{F 1
1 ��� _ 2trTRf kfY/fFi
S G7 L' e ffil1TEA&IfKA I1 FI[]FMEM1fT qt
try 6EVELOPYAENT �� � AHF— `4 °Y- CULTURRLI
lay P6.aloEYrtluu9E � ���
LL
,1
- LL
rarvxwrAnoNoafnaooR 1-V54-09NTERSTATE Q"I°1°'aOP1f°'° Tflv�@��PO�R�iarq�N ENMR ��� d
COF dL�iR � \ J J
In
L.iNPY-A.E BUFFER RE—R—A GALGIIL441g19
AGRICULTURAL! `
RESIDENTL4L USE \
IL
LEflENO U W
LLJ
146VARLALLF WIDTIAMFFERCALCULATICN
} Vw.rx�m.Aart,F..u..E
,.u:,.aA.,x.u:,-�...�.. Kr, wrn,�6elow. $
Calllwwn you nrp. °DG.0
130
Landscape Buffers and Open Space
_ _ k
ti� G
j ��� 1',�40'TYPE{8LlFFER-tl4E RHEA D UTILITYBpIIOH�,,...
}� �oou� �a L v a v eZa
L � L � G 1 1 1 �o �pd d'� r • � �3��
S� - I#1MOINE6mIulE ��� Yx.,»•onr.,.r.,uinn � ��
! r—]4V TYP E B BUFFER-DMI DLJO L6 OPTION
ILL
O tl v v �g d
1 LL
W o
ln'TYPE F.
A;uFFER-MlxEotl PTION.aa.an n•rmxcu�cunnw �•nox C,]W.0 s.csuc ) 7ypE F BU FFEk-tlELI[Iu8u50PTION c.�loo�c Co
Z
C 4 9 9
+l
P Z
❑ II O M J
rW' a b ,;KF. �✓4, 'y+[ti.+0y. M �+k. 'a P 011
W
i � n m
j PTJ 40'TYPE{BUFFER-MixEDOPIION 1O" 2W-TYPEF BUFFER-6E{Ih000S OPTIONPCA S
J ��/ s<<sxv.aa.onaumGu cunam I—:,"-- ��aamnw.xnG u uuom n r.nox �C6.1
131
Economic Development Benefits
• Quality Jobs
Buc-ee's pays a living wage plus benefits
o Low barrier to entry
c) Office, medical, manufacturing, hospitality jobs also available
• Ad valorem and Sales Taxes f 13uc-CE'S (N
o Phase I - in excess of $ 1,000,000 APPLY
o At full build out, in excess of $2,000,000 NOW!
www.buc-ees.com
• START: $14-$17/hr.
• 40 hr. Work Weeks
• 3 Weeks Vacation
• Healthcare
• 401K in?
NELSON
132
Thank you . Any questions ?
Beth Trahos
beth.trahos@nelsonmullins.com
GLENLAKE ONE SUITE 200
4140 PARKLAKE AVENUE RALEIGH, NC 27612
T 919.329.3884 F 919.329.3799
133
EXHIBIT B
Roadway Improvements Map
134
b
STOP �% 144
-- -------------------- --------- -
-----A�r s
"1!
,,.
\} V1, v`\
j1t obi
�o
4.1
W. —F7
o� STOP •,' t.� �/r�- 'i•� r 7 ---- e
----— � STOP - I✓r�/'(• \
l40 EASr ' �— Ht MOVL LXISIING PAVLMLNT
FOR WE EXIT 100
. • � :. �� �� �..:- ode� / �. `\
LEGEND r lb ;
l EXISTING LANEAGE
BUC-EE'S SITE
BU ROADWAY
v h PROPOSED LANEAGE OFFSITE�, 1/ l�I/OADVV Al PROPOSED EDGE OF TRAVEL
llU l IOV EIVIEIVTS PROPOSED CURB!WD GUTTER
PROPOSED PAVED SHOULDER
EFLAND,NORTH CAROLINA '�-� A-
OCTOBER 08,2020 ——EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
N
0 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT
• a
OPROPOSED CONCRETE
MONOLITHIC ISLAND
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE
S O MEDIAN
GRAPHIC SCALE ASPHALT PAVEMENT
REMOVAL „m„
rlx rcc!i : TRAFFIC SIGNAL k6Fi »>Horn
135
DRAFT
1 MEETING MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 NOVEMBER 4,2020
4 REGULAR MEETING
5 (Due to current public health concerns,this meeting was held virtually.
6 Members of the Planning Board, staff and public participated remotely)
7
8 MEMBERS PRESENT: David Blankfard (Chair), Hillsborough Township Representative; Adam Beeman (Vice-Chair), Cedar
9 Grove Township Representative; Kim Piracci, Eno Township Representative; Susan Hunter, Chapel Hill Township
10 Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Randy Marshall, At-Large Representative; Hunter
11 Spitzer, At-Large Representative; Alexandra Allman, At-Large Representative; Melissa Poole, Little River Township
12 Representative; Carrie Fletcher, Bingham Township Representative; Gio Mollinedo,At-Large Representative;
13
14 MEMBERS ABSENT: Vacant,At-Large Representative;Vacant,At-Large Representative;
15
16 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Michael Harvey, Current
17 Planning Supervisor;Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Brian Carson, GIS Tech III, Christopher Sandt, Staff
18 Engineer; Molly Boyle: Planner; Tina Love,Administrative Support; Steve Brantley, Economic Development Director,
19 Amanda Garner,Assistant Economic Development Director;
20
21 APPLICANT AND ASSOCIATES PRESENT: Stan Beard, Buc-ee's Ltd., Director of Real Estate; Beth Trahos, Nelson Mullins,
22 Partner; Earl Lewellyn, Kimley-Horn, Engineer; Kelsey Westwood, Kimley-Horn, Engineer;
23
24 PROPERTY OWNER/PROPERTY OWNER REPRESENTATIVES: Ben Lloyd, Robbin Taylor-Hall
25
26 OTHERS PRESENT:John Bannon, Jeff Bruett, Erica Cartmill, Matt Cartmill, Jared Cates, Evelyn Cecil, Cathy Chapman,Jane
27 Cheshire-Allen, Bobby Cobb, Mary Cooter,Valerie Curry,Will Drummond, Laura Easterling, Rosemary Edwards, Donald
28 Efland, Knox Efland, Donald Efland, Marsha Efland, Paul Efland, Carroll Enterkin, Sherry Eshelman, Kathy Evans,
29 Alexandra Farrell, Caroline Foster,Jacob Foster, Chrisean Fuller, Matt Gandy, Sam Gharbo, Robert Golan,Alexandra
30 Griffin, Brian Harry, Jimmy Holcomb,Joseph Howard, Julie Laws, Jamie Lawson, Chad Lloyd,Jon Lorusso, Kristen
31 Marbais, Catherine Matthews, Diana Montgomery, Patricia O'Connor, Helen Pak-Harvey, Larmar Proctor, Steve Ramarge,
32 Noah Ranells, Michelle Rash, Linda Richardson,Andrea Riley, Loren Roberts, Eric Russell,Anne Shortlife, Chris Smith,
33 Heather Smith, Shontea Smith,Tim Spruill, Jeanne Tate,Aimee Tattersall, Del Ward, Richard Ward, Frances Wheeler, Rex
34 Williams, Laurie Wolfe, Elaine Wright, Janine Zanin; Kaye Brown
35
36 Perdita Holtz reviewed the technical processes and rules for the virtual meeting
37
38 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
39 Chair David Blankfard called the meeting to order.
40
41 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATION ITEMS
42 a. Planning Calendar for November and December
43
44 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
45 October 7, 2020
46
47 Adam Beeman: I have a correction on line 115, it should say that aren't.
48
49 MOTION by Adam Beeman to approved the October 7, 2020 Planning Board Meeting Minutes with correction. Seconded
50 by Carrie Fletcher.
51
52 ROLLCALL VOTE:
53 Susan Hunter: Yes
54 Adam Beeman: Yes
55 Patricia Roberts: Yes
56 Melissa Poole: Yes
136
DRAFT
57 Alexandra Allman Yes
58 Carrie Fletcher Yes
59 Kim Piracci: Yes
60 Gio Mollinedo Yes
61 David Blankfard: Yes
62 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
63
64 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA.
65
66 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE
67
68 INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC CHARGE
69 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, appoints the
70 Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development law of the County. The
71 general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB
72 shall do so in a manner, which considers the present and future needs of its citizens and businesses
73 through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare
74 of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and
75 quality public services during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations.
76
77 PUBLIC CHARGE
78 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to
79 conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At
80 any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will
81 ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should
82 decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment
83 to this public charge is observed.
84
85 Randy Marshall Arrived
86
87 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS
88
89 David Blankfard: There are 18 speakers with 3 minutes each to speak so what does the Board think about how late to run
90 this meeting?
91
92 Planning Board Member consensus was to try to end the meeting by 10:00 p.m. and possibly reconvene at a later date.
93
94 AGENDA ITEM 7: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT(MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION—EFLAND STATION) —To review
95 and make a recommendation to the BOCC on a developer-initiated application for and MPD-CZ(Master
96 Plan Development Conditional Zoning). The proposed project encompasses approximately 104 acres
97 located north of Interstate 85/40,west of Mt.Willing Road,within Cheeks Township. The two parcels
98 comprising the proposed project are currently zoned Office/Research and Manufacturing (0/RM)with
99 three different overlay districts(overlay districts are to remain unchanged). This item is scheduled for
100 BOCC public hearing on December 15, 2020.
101 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
102
103 Michael Harvey presented a PowerPoint Presentation
104 The Applicant's Representatives Stan Beard and Beth Trahos Presented a Project PowerPoint Presentation
105
106 Gio Mollinedo left the meeting at approximately 7:45 p.m.
107
108 The Applicant's Representatives Earl Lewellyn Presented a PowerPoint Transportation Presentation for the Project.
109
110 David Blankfard: I had a question for Earl, you said you based the traffic impact on a 10% increase from actual data from
111 Buc-ee's, if you took the actual data from Buc-ee's would that change your recommendations for the exit 160 for removing
112 it?
137
DRAFT
113
114 Earl Lewellyn: If we dropped back the traffic generation intensity by that 10%would we still be recommending removal of
115 160, yes we would indeed. It was an issue brought up even before we instituted that addition.
116
117 David Blankfard: Would that exit have to be removed on day one?
118
119 Earl Lewellyn: My personal recommendation is yes,you would absolutely want to have it operational at day one and 1
120 believe that is the opinion of NCDOT too.
121
122 Melissa Poole: There is a hotel in phase 2 do you already have that or it's just a proposal and you don't know what it will
123 be?
124
125 Beth Trahos: There is not a specific hotel user today.
126
127 Stan Beard: If I can address some of the phase 2 questions,we only call it phase 2 because it will be subsequent to Buc-
128 ee's operating and breaking in as we get the kinks out of our operating,traffic. We watch that very intently for the first half a
129 year and then once we get comfortable with where we are and everyone else around us,we will start fielding inquiries from
130 other users, hotels, retail shops, sit-down restaurants who like think we are a good fit for them. A hotel, and please keep in
131 mind that we will continue to own this entire development for the foreseeable future. We're going to be very stringent who
132 the hotel is, it's going to be in the higher up major chain type of offerings. The same thing with sit down restaurants.
133
134 Melissa Poole: My question is around a lot of public comments that I've seen have been around potential crime and I know
135 that is a concern. It always is any time you've got any industrialized space, particularly when you are going to have a hotel.
136 So, can you commit to an internal entry to rooms hotel versus an external.
137
138 Stan Beard: This will be a hallway hotel,there will not be a motel situation at all.
139
140 Melissa Poole: On pages 114-115 from the memo from Department of Environment,Ag and Parks and Rec(DEAPR)
141 regarding the Seven Mile Creek watershed, and it references; the staff recognizes the site plan submitted shows the
142 developers effort to preserve the watershed (I'm summarizing that)as the easement grantee,the County would be
143 responsible for monitoring the site. It looks like a recommendation, I'm just curious as to with this recommendation,what's
144 going on with that?
145
146 Michael Harvey: You're talking about Christian Hirni's memo(shared screen). Obviously, as Ms.Trahos has indicated,
147 there are several open spaces areas (Mr. Harvey identified the areas on the map denoting open space) and the darker
148 areas are stream buffers around identified wetland areas and streams. In discussions with DEAPR staff there was a
149 question on whether or not there would have to be conservation easements put around these areas to preserve and protect
150 the water features.The applicant has already indicated that they are going to comply with Section 6-13, the stream buffer
151 standards, of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). As a result, the natural area in and around these streams would
152 have to be protected with either a 65 or 85 foot buffer. In certain instances,there will actually be more land are preserved,
153 though designed open space, in a natural state increasing established County buffers. I believe what Mr. Hirni was
154 referring to is that we(the County)would have to monitor development activities to ensure that the buffer is protected
155 consistent with existing land use regulations. One of the concerns Mr. Hirni has also talked about is the potential for
156 environmental degradation of the Seven Mile Creek preserve which is the area south of the Project(shown on GIS). This is
157 the area(Mr. Harvey identified an area of property at the southeastern portion of the project)that does flow, at least is
158 anticipated to flow, across the interstate approximately 1,000 feet south to property owned by Orange County and others
159 within the Seven Mile Creek Preserve area. What the County is also obligated to do is hold this applicant to existing
160 stormwater control measures as detailed within the UDO, including nutrient(nitrogen and prosperous) removal as part of
161 our stormwater rules. When you look at the totality of the development and you look at DEAPR's memo and staff
162 conditions,we believe that we have addressed DEAPR's concern and that a conservation easement is not going to be
163 necessarily warranted due to existing compliance with County regulatory standards. There are going to be multiple moving
164 parts to that issue but it needs to be remembered what regulations we have in place and how they will be enforced on this
165 project if approved.
166
167 Craig Benedict: To restate the summary, if approved,the master plan development rezoning is a document that gets
168 recorded and stays with the land. These uses and various regulations they have to adhere to are ongoing commitments by
138
DRAFT
169 the property owner and monitored by the County because it is a rezoning and we have to ensure that what was in that
170 master plan document continues in the future.
171
172 Adam Beeman: The traffic analysis, has that taken into account all the residents that get off that exit every day to go home.
173 I'm one of those residents and I'm not feeling the shutdown of exit 160. You offer me no alternatives to get home other
174 than running through traffic lights that I don't have to do now. Why can't those driveways come out to the intersection
175 where you want to put lights? If you were to put a light at the intersection,why can't your driveways come out there and not
176 be on that ramp? I understand NCDOT's long-term plan but there's no way to address any of the residents that live north of
177 Hwy. 70, I'm of those thousands of residents that get off that exit every day and I know you've estimated 185 seconds but 1
178 don't believe that, if I get caught at that light, I'm going to go up and over and get caught at another light so that adding at
179 least 3 or 4 minutes to my commute just to get off the ramp. I don't know why we have to have the right in/right out and lose
180 the 160 exit. Right now, a lot of us depend on getting off that exit and getting home, it's the only way for us to get home.
181
182 Earl Lewellyn: The first and biggest concern is that with the additional increase in traffic,whether it from this project or
183 another,that the weaving area between the ramps combined with the speed of exiting traffic onto the service road whether
184 there's another ramp there or not, is in fact a problem from a capacity standpoint and a safety standpoint. It may not be
185 dramatic today but with increases in traffic,whether the accesses occur onto the service road or not,that traffic if it is going
186 westbound still has to use that facility to get east and west. That is the biggest criteria. We have struggled with trying to
187 find options as well that would satisfy DOT's criteria, maintaining access for the public through the existing path. The
188 reason we did the comparison is because we always hear people say they had to wait at a traffic signal. In these
189 operations, traffic signals probably along Mt. Willing Road, cycle lengths are going to be somewhere in the nature of 60 to
190 70 seconds. Cycle lengths along the US 70 connector and the interchange ramps along the US 70 connector are probably
191 going to be in the order of 90 seconds just given the volumes and the number of phases that have to be there. That is what
192 is driving the travel time that we mentioned. It's basically the delay at the signals and it depends on when you hit the signal
193 and that's why there is variation in those times from the simulations and simply just traveling along the street. We feel that
194 is very accurate and calibrated with current conditions.
195
196 Adam Beeman: You are inserting two light into the equation that right now we don't have to contend with at all the biggest
197 contention is coming off the ramp and hitting the stop sign on Mt.Willing and hanging a right and going out into the country.
198 We will have to come of 161, hit a light, come back up over that ramp, hit another light and then continue on our route. If
199 there was the 70/85 connector that didn't force us into Hillsborough and you could make a left onto 70 then I would say
200 have at it and do what you have to do but that interjection of those two lights is going to make a huge difference on a lot of
201 people's lives in northern Orange County. There is no other way for us to get there. If we take the 85 connector it forces us
202 down 70 and you have to ride up 86 or you have to come back up. There is no good way. I think a lot of people aren't
203 going to be happy. I don't know the answer to it but I'm not happy about the lights. I understand the timing and the queues
204 and add Buc-ee's traffic now the commuters have to contend with all the traffic in and out of your store. It's going to be a
205 real turn off for the residents north of the County. I, for one, I want the development but I'm not a fan of how you are going
206 to get this traffic flow. It is going to have a huge impact on a lot of people out in Northern Orange County. A lot of people
207 come from Virginia down Efland-Cedar Grove. I don't know why there are so many driveways. If you could stay away from
208 Mt. Willing at all costs,then it might negate some of the impact but there are a lot of people who travel out to the country to
209 go home and come to the highway to go to work every day.
210
211 Earl Lewellyn: I respect what you are saying. I actually live not too far away and travel through this area myself. Most
212 often on the weekends, occasionally during the week. I certainly don't want this to be a problem area either. That is why we
213 did the comparison to quantify how much additional time will be spent just traveling whether it's that signal or traveling
214 through there. The other thing to keep in mind is these right in and out assess points,traffic on the service road will
215 continue moving through and there will be two lanes all the way through so we have to keep that in mind. The real reason
216 we're doing this is primarily safety and capacity that is related to the existing exit 160 configuration.
217
218 Stan Beard: There is no getting around the aggravation that all the Efland folks feel about this situation. If I were part of
219 that, I would have that same aggravation.What we have strived to do all along,from the first day we met with the local DOT
220 engineer and moving through the various planning stages with those guys to figure out a way to make this work for
221 everybody. They were adamant that our development or any development at this tract, this 100 acres on 40/85, if any
222 development came along, it would trigger some fairly massive traffic changes. As we all know, no one likes to say it and no
223 one wants to hear it,with growth comes some shifts in traffic patterns and habits. Where we are here is that most
224 intersections east of here and plenty of intersections west of here are all lit. When you get down to the bottom of the ramp,
139
DRAFT
225 you are looking at a signal. What you guys have managed to do is to stay out of that issue for a while and what we are
226 seeing now is what we believe to be a great site for Buc-ee's. We really like being here;this is a cool site for us. Given the
227 fact that we are who we are,we have the ability to work with the County and work with you guys figuring out all sorts of
228 ways to as least impactful as we can. The traffic issues are unavoidable if we or anyone else is to go there, NCDOT is
229 going to stick to their guns and say we don't like the braided ramp, never have, we're getting rid of them and whoever
230 comes in is going to get rid of them. What we've done is our traffic studies are based on our traffic. The last thing, the very
231 last thing that Buc-ee's needs is a traffic problem and that means the traffic problem throughout that whole intersection.
232 What we hope we have done and we have experience in doing this and we have feedback from NCDOT and our engineers
233 all along the way,that we are creating a more efficient, safe intersection. It's going to cost you a couple of minutes or more
234 and I apologize for that being a guy who has great respect for my own exit ramp when I come home. We are hoping you
235 guys in Efland, that this can become a real development for Efland that isn't 2 million square feet of distribution center.
236 That is only'/z million square feet of cool stuff. Buc-ee's and a nice hotel, nice sit down restaurants where it becomes part
237 of Efland and part of your commute.We have looked at every other way.To get DOT's permission to construct a project on
238 that 100 acres is going to take answering their concerns and their big concern is that eventually that is a failing system and
239 it will fail and they'll have accidents and they'll have to spend 12 million to fix it where we're here and we will spend the
240 dollars to make this work for us and for the neighborhood.
241
242 Michael Harvey: I want to remind the Board in order for any reconfiguration of these exits to occur,there has to be NCDOT
243 and Federal Highway Administration action through various processes independent of this Zoning Atlas Amendment. If
244 elimination of(westbound) Exit 160 is approved,the project moves forward consistent with this master plan. If it's not
245 approved, then the applicant will have to work with NCDOT and the County Planning staff to develop and incorporate
246 another solution. Keep in mind there is an external process that will have to occur in order for this to become reality. Staff
247 has made recommendations on conditions associated with traffic management and impacts.
248
249 Carrie Fletcher: For Mr. Beard,first of all why do you think having a giant travel oriented business right there in Efland,we
250 have several large refueling stations, not in the very far distance from where you want to build, an exit or two over. Do we
251 really have a need for such a large refueling station? What justifies the use of this land for such a large project? Two, how
252 do we keep Orange County's vision of a rural community and I bought into Orange County ten years ago because it was a
253 rural community. Many people still have that vision. I understand the need for development, I understand the zoning, 1
254 understand the whole reason behind why we are reaching out for people to come and do projects like this but what will
255 keep people thinking Orange County is a rural community. Have we changes our mind on how we want to envision
256 ourselves. The third is the property you're going to build this on,who owns this right and how do you get access to it? I'm
257 unclear on that. Maybe I am blurry on that but I would like clarification on that.
258
259 Stan Beard: The first answer is our business is to be the best pit stop off of any road trip you've been on. The clean
260 restroom and plentiful foods available all of that,the friendly atmosphere is a Buc-ee's experience. We've been doing this a
261 long time,we have a bunch of stores in Texas and we are in Alabama and about to open in Georgia. Building in Florida
262 and South Carolina so what we want to do and the reason we are here at this site is that we want to be in the middle of
263 somebody's trip road trip either going East, West, North, South that needs to stop for a clean restroom, reasonable gas and
264 cool stuff to buy. That brings us to a freeway system that has two merged interstates for a stretch that carries a 125,000
265 cars per day on that stretch. It travels East/West through Orange County and it is in the middle of a well-traveled length of
266 folks going from Virginia all the way over towards this way. Where we are now, is it's on a 100 acre tract next to the
267 freeway bounded by the railway and the 70185 connector and so I respect the fact that Orange County is a rural place and 1
268 agree I think it is and I think the Efland area in particular is beautiful and very rural feeling. I do not think that this tract is a
269 rural tract. I think it is an undeveloped 100 acres that could very easily be a truck stop which we are not. We are would
270 rather not be compared to the truck stops. We have the ability here to fit into a spot where a distribution center might go or
271 a warehousing farm. We're in a position where we can give back a lot of good things, benefits, less intensive development,
272 more green space. You've heard it all but it's true,we are not covering up 2 million square feet of this 100 acres with
273 buildings. We are one quarter of that. That is why we are there,we are there because it is a good opportunity for us and it
274 fits within our strategy of reaching a wide range of folks.There are going to be local folks who shop there but 70%of them
275 are traveling from all over the place and they are going to get to stop in Efland, Orange County for 45 minutes and you
276 never know they might stay. I hope I answered the rural part. I will say that we, I don't get too detailed, but I'm fairly certain
277 that we follow along with all of the comprehensive use plans,the nodes.
278
140
DRAFT
279 Beth Trahos: I was going to add briefly that is another attractive element of this site. It is one of your Commercial Industrial
280 Activity nodes so this is among the uses that are recommended by your Future Land Use map for this property. I think that
281 is another reason that it's attractive for this use.
282
283 Stan Beard: As to who owns it, some of the Efland family owns it and then the smaller parcel is owned by Ben Lloyd. Local
284 folks who have been around awhile and I think you will hear from Ben later that he wasn't even going to talk to us until he
285 came and saw it. He saw an operating Buc-ee's and it changed his mind. I hope I answered your questions.
286
287 Carrie Fletcher: I think you did a fine job and I appreciate the time to do all that. Those are my main concerns. I think the
288 project actually looks quite well thought out. I always have concerns about major building in Orange County because 1
289 enjoy the rural life style and I'm sure a lot of people that are going to have comments tonight are also going to be
290 concerned about that aspect of your building. We protect our Orange County quite adamantly and vigorously it's very
291 personal for many of us so I hope you appreciate my questions and thank you for your time.
292
293 Stan Beard: We think our positioning in that area is very appropriate for what we are and we do think that if you go to
294 Highway 70 just a mile north and drive that whole stretch,you would never know we were there.
295
296 Carrie Fletcher: I'm not sure about that giant sign though.
297
298 Adam Beeman: I know you can't tell us about current tenants for the Efland Station but maybe you could fill us in on the
299 type of tenants you have at other ones as far as major restaurants. What type of restaurants or brands tend to follow Buc-
300 ee's.
301
302 Stan Beard: Again,we are very particular about who our neighbors are and so who we allow to be our neighbors and who
303 usually want to be our neighbors are fairly well established regional or national sit down type restaurants, Chili's, Olive
304 Garden, Lone Star Steakhouse, it will not be fast food or drive thru. We restrict drive thru. We have pick up windows like
305 Panera or a Qdoba or those types that are in smaller shopping center regional, neighborhood type stuff,you'll see in our
306 other developments. We are extremely protective of our brand and our operating. We are all about creating the safest
307 place on the freeway for you, your family,your wife,your daughters to stop in the middle of the night, alone and go to the
308 restroom and hear a cheery voice and get a nice sandwich.
309
310 Chair Blankfard asked if Planning Board members had additional questions at this time. Hearing none, he suggested
311 opening up the meeting to public comments. Members of the public were required to sign up with staff in advance and
312 were called upon in the order they contacted staff. Perdita Holtz and Brian Carson facilitated the technical aspects of the
313 public comment time.
314
315 Kaye Brown: I'm Kaye Brown and just 49 days ago I heard the Buc-ee's Travel Center was coming to the site 4,000 feet
316 from a small horse farm I've owned since 1988 and less than one week ago today, I learned that Buc-ee's plans for the
317 efficient grab and go needs of the tens of thousands of daily customers will mean that I can no longer travel Ben Johnson
318 Road to either the interstates or US 70 and I have for three decades just to get to my farm. Why this rush to push this
319 negative project through in 49 days? A time when we've had COVID panic and election panic and now we have a Buc-ee's
320 in Efland panic. Why hasn't a project of this size and impact been through the typical developer/community dialogues with
321 advisory panels and focus groups? Well as a licensed general contractor,with a degree in real estate design and
322 development, I think I know why. Efland Station doesn't need focus groups because it doesn't have anything at all to do
323 with Efland. Efland is merely being asked to house the Buc-ee's. How do I know this? Because you just heard Stan Beard
324 speaking for Buc-ee's and he has been asked numerous time why did you choose Efland for this project and he
325 consistently replies, 125,000 cars pass this site every day that's why,this site was made for Buc-ee's. Well, I frankly
326 applaud his straight up honest answer. The company's business model, quite simply to the largest number of these
327 travelers to the stores quickly and efficiently for a pleasant but brief visit. So why are Buc-ee's so big? Well their founder
328 Beaver Aplin said in the Texas monthly interview last year,we like to be spacious,we like to give everybody their own
329 space,their own shopping experience. It's one of the reasons it gets so big because if you try to enhance the place
330 everywhere it grows and grows and the next thing you know,well it might all seem a touch overkill, he said. Yes, it does,
331 overkill, here we are one week after the final road plans were posted in a week filled with many panics and I ask has
332 anybody has time to look at these plans, much less collect their thoughts in time to express them to you. Buc-ee's has built
333 this exact rural prototype elsewhere which is very lucky because it give you a chance to learn from the experiences of many
334 others. It's quite easy to compare the pre-imposed occupancy, travel estimates for a project of this size. Planning
141
DRAFT
335 departments have these projects on file. DOTs know current traffic counts, do the two match? Or, are we, in Orange
336 County going to be like Robertsdale,Alabama or Benton or Madisonville,Texas all places that suffered hugely from the
337 costly underestimates of Buc-ee's traffic and as everybody admits Buc-ee's is a heavy traffic generator. They choose their
338 own estimates so I ask you, please get those numbers so you can make the right choice.
339
340 Matt Cartmill: This is a big proposal and will have a big impact on Orange County. (bad connection—audio garbled)we
341 have no say in how this property gets developed. New zoning will give Buc-ee's and the Planning Department mutually
342 agreeable negotiating conditions which neither you nor the community will ever get to review again. Otherwise, Mr. Beard
343 the director of real estate said in a meeting on Thursday, quote: zoning gives the community a say in future development
344 that isn't true as Mr. Beard ought to know. He said,this rezoning is more restrictive than what's there at the moment. But
345 MPD-CZ zoning is carte blanc zoning. Promises about future development which would (bad connection—audio garbled)
346 Whatever Buc-ee's thinks is good for its bottom-line when the time comes. Mr. Beard admitted on Thursday that it was at
347 least 6 to 8 years and whatever then if anything will have to serve Buc-ee's needs. Local needs aren't their concern.
348 They're focused on the thousands of cars moving through their huge parking lot. The surrounding community is a nuisance
349 that Buc-ee's has to barricade the site with a fence on the north boundary. Their proposed roadway change isn't designed
350 for(bad connection—audio garbled)traffic in and out of their acres of grab and go merchandising with little real concern for
351 their effect on Mr. Beeman and other local folks. Buc-ee's spokesman tell all their plans have local needs in mind and that
352 Buc-ee's will anchor wonderful future development, hotels and elegant shops, restaurants that will somehow want to come
353 and locate next to a gas station. This is imaginary (bad connection—audio garbled)a real trap. Tell us that zoning places
354 severe restriction on future development. It'won't. They asked their 120 nozzles each with it's own pump somehow add
355 up to only 60 pumps. They hope that all this misdirect will pay off for them in the short run and they hope to keep that as
356 short as possible by pushing this proposal through on the fastest track they can. Efland and Orange County don't need the
357 world's largest gas station. We need sensible development on a local scale meets local needs and what we need first off is
358 more time for deliberation. I ask to table this proposal. Give more time that way all the results for good and for ill Buc-ee's
359 would bring this town and this county.
360
361 Tim Spruill: My wife and I moved from Chapel Hill 21 years ago to Efland in order to get away from an urban environment.
362 Exit 160 was then and is now the perfect place of Efland. A small peaceful rural town that still has trees, cows and nature.
363 This was exactly what we wanted until now not much has changed. Buc-ee's will change all of that. Most of the current
364 land that Buc-ee's will be located on will be covered in concrete and buildings, about approximately 60 acres. The entire
365 pasture and old field eco system will be destroyed and with it all of the animals and plants that make Efland rural and
366 pleasant and a draw for probably most of the people who live there. The remaining opposed 40 acres of open space will be
367 a lawn, a monoculture with minimal eco system function, very unlike the native soil and trees and vegetation that currently
368 limit carbon releases to the atmosphere at a time when global warming is a primary concern for humanity decreasing
369 carbon sync is not in line with sustainability principles. Buc-ee's will be providing what is already available, lots of gas
370 stations to fuel more carbon emissions and lots of concrete. In addition, it will draw thousands of cars and the associated
371 pollution and present potential contamination of soil, air and water. I strongly oppose this proposed development as it is not
372 in line with the existing zoning designation which should not be changed and in addition it is hardly consistent with
373 maintaining the existing rural character of Efland. The County needs to be serious about supporting sustainable
374 community, maintaining the existing 0/RM designation will be the evidence of that.
375
376 Jared Cates: Hello, I live 1000 feet from the proposed site and I am not anti-development but I feel that Buc-ee's will
377 negatively impact our community's quality of life and has the potential to stifle future economic growth in the area due to
378 overwhelming traffic. When we moved to Efland,we researched the development plans for the area and heard rumors of a
379 Target being developed in a portion of this same proposed site. We knew that development was coming and still made a
380 decision to purchase our home because of existing area plans and the 0/RM zoning of the nearby site was seemingly
381 designated with significant community input. Also, I can buy more things at a Target than Chinese-made beaver trinkets.
382 However,we would not have moved to Efland had we known that one of the largest gas stations in the country, a 24/7
383 monstrosity that provides no goods or services that our community actually needs, will be moving in within 1000 feet of our
384 home. What is the point of community planning if residents cannot actually plan their lives and investments appropriately
385 around what the community has planned for? Orange County has proven it can be innovative with economic development
386 and land use planning at critical urban/rural nodes and that it listens to its citizens when making long-term plans, however,
387 this proposal is the opposite of innovative. It does not fit with what this area has planned for in short-and long-term growth
388 particularly when it comes to traffic impacts on surrounding roads. Buc-ee's claims that one of the largest gas stations in
389 the world makes sense to be situated in Efland, a critical transportation node for western and northern Orange County.
390 Even with the proposed road infrastructure improvements that node cannot handle a 25,000 plus daily trips this
142
DRAFT
391 development would bring to the immediate area. The at grade rail crossing at Mt.Willing Road is already a debacle for
392 future growth in the area and is quite concerning as not included in the developer's TIA or road improvement plans. It's also
393 quite concerning to me that NCDOT has seemingly changed their stance on exit 160 after telling me in September that they
394 were not concerned that background traffic growth trends or quote/unquote any development would necessitate the closure
395 of Exit 160 Westbound, quite interesting. We already have several locally owned gas stations in Efland,we do not need
396 more. While Buc-ee's may help Orange County's coffers in the short term, it would create long-term infrastructure
397 challenges that will not be paid for by Buc-ee's. The developers have stated that phase 2 may not even be considered for
398 development for 6 to 8 years. The travel center anchor would not serve Efland or Orange County residents or even
399 guarantee infrastructure for the establishment of needed services with its concept plan. We've been told that either Buc-
400 ee's or something similar to RTLP which honestly just feels like a threat. I think it's a threat I'm willing to gamble with. 1
401 believe a warehouse would create less issues for the surrounding community and commuters related to traffic congestion,
402 light and noise pollution and criminal activity than the largest 24/7 gas station in the country has the potential to create.
403 Please read the much more detailed concerns and information that our group of western Orange neighbors have pulled
404 together and our website voices4efland.com and please read the reasons that 975 voices for Efland and Orange petition
405 signers share our same concerns on change.org. I ask you to please vote against this rezoning petition that is not aligned
406 with the years of work done by this county to prepare this site for development with our community's input.
407
408 Jeff Bruett: I have a lot of concerns here, I've just recently found out about this project in early October and I've been doing
409 a little bit of reading and listening to the plans. There is nothing that has to be done to exit 160. Buc-ee's does not have to
410 attach to that road at all. That's not necessary, Buc-ee's can connect to Mt.Willing Road and the 85/70 connector. You're
411 going to start Phase 1 and Phase 1 involves deleting exit 160 completely. Nobody is going to be able to get off at exit 160
412 and get home, thousands of people go up through this way and it connects all the way up to Highway 86 up in Northern
413 Orange County and you are going to completely cut everybody off from that. There is no reason Buc-ee's has to be
414 connected to this road and because it's being connected, now it's being altered and now it has to meet all the latest
415 NCDOT plans when in actuality, south of the interstate you've got the same exact traffic plan as you've got on the north
416 side of the interstate. All Buc-ee's has to do is connect to Mt. Willing Road and the 85/70 connector and then the roads
417 need to be modified on Highway 70 because you cannot go west when you come off 161 onto Highway 70. This whole
418 thing does not take into consideration any accidents that happen on the interstate which happen very often. Now people
419 have no way of getting off of the interstate and getting onto 70. And I don't know how long this thing is going to take to
420 build but this exit is going to be closed the whole entire time. These things need to be done, the interstate/Highway 70
421 needs to be redesigned so people can go west on it and people that are driving east on Highway 70 to avoid Buc-ee's that
422 want to go to work and get on the interstate on exit 161, they need a way to turn south off of 70 onto the connector road.
423 That would be a simple solution to make this problem so people that live in this community and don't need to go to Buc-ee's
424 don't have to drive by Buc-ee's every time we have to go home. You're channeling us all through Buc-ee's and we don't
425 like it,we don't care for it and rezoning this place and then snub our noses in all this has got the whole community upset
426 and we're not happy about it and it needs to be reconsidered.
427
428 Heather Smith: During college, I was forced to move from campus housing because the school decided to bulldoze it for a
429 parking lot, after college my husband and I moved into a Hillsborough rental for$600 a month, an investor flipped it and
430 listed it as a rental for$1900 a month this year. We moved to another rental in 2013 until the landlord gave up 30 days to
431 move out so he could sell it for$375,000 which was above what we could afford as young first time home buyers but we
432 decided it was time to find a home. We were outbid on properties in Orange County until we eventually found our home in
433 Efland. One of the few affordable places remaining in the County. We felt satisfaction and relief knowing we had
434 ownership. For the past 5 years we have diligently tended our acre, planted fruit trees, pollinator plants and bees that
435 forage in nearby fields. I have driven daily down that braided ramp dreading the day that heritage trees and golden rod
436 would be replaced by development. However, I would have never imagined that this would be the development slated for
437 this space or that once again I would feel so utterly powerless against development after having invested in ownership.
438 You see that's the peril of private land. What happens on the land around me and impacts my quality of life that's why we
439 have regulations and government to protect air,water, light, noise, property values and a community that residents have
440 invested in over many years. From negative impacts and predatory developments that are a peril to us all. Preferably, the
441 threats of you could get a warehouse instead, a warehouse that could be built on the current 0/RM zoning would not have
442 impacts as lasting or severe as those from a corporation built on the pillars of rampant consumption and fossil fuels. A
443 model that requires drawing people who visit so they can marvel at the sheer spectacle of it. There's a dangling carrot of
444 Phase 2 that would bring additional businesses like banks and dining establishments that people in our community might
445 use but let's not forget that Phase 2 is not promised or that the developer stated it would be at least 6 to 8 years before they
446 consider adding those pieces to the puzzle. There are many unknown, uncalculated costs that we're not considering as the
143
DRAFT
447 conversation is centered on logistics. We could easily take Durham as a cautionary tale. More than half the land in
448 Durham is owned by people who do not live there. In fact,they do not even live in the state. That means residents do not
449 have ownership of their community and corporations with no connection other than deep pockets dictate the community's
450 future. I have weighed the potential for tax revenue and jobs, I have pondered alternative developments, based on other
451 Buc-ee's, I continue to conclude that this development will bring a cascade of impacts that will alter my life as a homeowner
452 in Efland for the next 40 years. If my neighborhood even remains residential for that long. Since there is no gas station of
453 this size in North Carolina,we unfortunately don't have a way to place a dollar sign on the negatives but once we degrade
454 the environment,we don't get it back. There is no way to know if my property value will be hurt by the diminished night sky,
455 noise and traffic or if this change will create a wave of land grabs that will gentrify the area causing our property taxes to go
456 up, not down, as some residents seem to think this would do. Both of those outcomes make me feel like my investment in
457 Orange County is being sacrificed. One thing I do know for certain is I did not sign up for this when I bought my home here
458 and I'm opposed to zoning for Efland Station.
459
460 Chris Smith: Hi folks, I am among the residents of Efland who received a letter informing me of the proposal to build Efland
461 Station since I live within 1000 feet of the parcels, it was required. The list of mixed uses sounded attractive though but
462 never having heard of a Buc-ee's, I started my research and it didn't take very long to get past their marketing language
463 and photos to begin reading assessments of their business and to realize the impact they will have on the Efland
464 community. I read how Denton,Texas eagerly accepted their Buc-ee's with incentives and open arms. Denton was locked
465 up in a legal battle over a tax valuation that Buc-ee's declared too high even after they promised many millions and more
466 before construction. I read about the town of Corinth where the local officials challenged Buc-ee's traffic assessments and
467 discovered that the totals to be greatly under-counted. Corinth's mayor wrote that a mixed-use development of similar size
468 made more tax revenue than a single Buc-ee's location. The promises Buc-ee's offered did not hold to scrutiny for the
469 Town of Corinth and they rejected the development. Buc-ee's promises quality jobs and touts their hourly wages and
470 benefits for entry-level workers and it is typical to argue with quarantine for more an hour. Again, it didn't take long to find
471 hundreds of job reviews across multiple platforms detailing why$14 an hour from Buc-ee's isn't worth it. I wondered what
472 the environmental impacts are living close to a gas station built for the informal Texas credo of bigger is better, I read peer
473 review research about the many trade-offs associated with our carbon bound habits. Gasoline and cancer causing
474 benzene in the air and ground water escaping through methods by which corporate environmental engineers are unaware
475 or overlooked. What does Efland get for playing host to 25,000 daily vehicle movements? All of the so called
476 improvements make the travel center work but don't solve any problems or concerns for Efland. We get to endure a host of
477 traffic headaches created so that all roads will lead to Buc-ee's. We'll be the ones looking up every night at a cartoon
478 beaver that's at least 20 feet taller than regulations because it's good for business. Me in my home and on my own
479 property will breathe the stale air of hot gas pumps and car fumes in the summer and listen to the constant drone of
480 engines through their fence called a wall at the last meeting and 30 feet short of regulation buffer in the winter. For these
481 reasons and more detailed at Voices4Efland.com I oppose the request for the Master Plan Conditional Zoning and the
482 effective removal of the Efland community from a decade's long planning process. Development begets development until
483 Efland residents new and old will find themselves run out or bought out. Buc-ee's promises to make good money,traveler's
484 stopping by are sure to marvel at the stuffed beaver toys and clean bathrooms but if they less than a thousand away from
485 the oasis of consumption and disregard for the future they'll find me living less well than I did before Buc-ee's came to
486 Efland, assuming that the future of economic development around me won't impact my ability to live here.
487
488 Patricia O'Connor: Hi, I live in Mebane off West Ten Road approximately 3 miles from the proposed Buc-ee's development.
489 First, I will offer that I am not opposed to development. It's necessary for a community to survive and thrive and I'm not
490 naive enough to think that things will stay the same because I want them to but development should be thoughtful.
491 Something that will enhance and add real value to the lives of the citizens in the community where it resides. Point one,
492 while Buc-ee's could provide about 175 jobs, I believe the overall impact of the project would be negative. From that 175
493 subtract the number of people in the community who might lose their jobs and livelihoods because they can't compete with
494 the giant. The small businesses who could be put out of business. It's hard to predict right now who those will be but there
495 are sure to be causalities. Number 2,the environmental impact will be enormous,you can't add that much impervious
496 surface to an area that borders a watershed without creating conditions for potential contamination. A single gallon of
497 gasoline could contaminate 750 thousand gallons of water. The dribs and drabs dropping onto the concrete surface from
498 refueling or spillage during filling the underground tanks is enough. Never mind the catastrophic breach of one of those
499 tanks. How much would it cost to provide another water source for Hillsborough if the water was contaminated and who
500 would foot the bill. You can bet it won't be Buc-ee's. Other than the 10 EV charging stations mandated by current MPD-CZ
501 standards,there is nothing green about the project. No mention of green building materials or use of solar panels. Does
502 Buc-ee's have a written working environmental policy in place? Does the policy strive to make important improvements in
144
DRAFT
503 manufacturing, reducing and reusing first and then recycling? Do they comply with the industry's voluntary testing or is
504 there environmental concern combined to the petroleum storage and possible leakage? Point 4,the 24-hour noise and
505 light pollution would impact the nearby neighbors in a negative way. It's a known fact that constant and incessant noise can
506 lead to increased stress and anxiety which of you would want to live next to Buc-ee's? Are you really ok with telling the
507 concerns homeowners to just suck it up? Additionally, light pollution can wreak havoc across a broad range of animal
508 species often affecting hormone levels, breeding cycles, activity paths and vulnerability to predators. The human need to
509 have beef jerky or a Barbeque sandwich at 2 a.m. shouldn't be more important than caring for our environment. Point 5,
510 the amount of traffic that Buc-ee's hopes to draw will be disruptive to Efland, Hillsborough and perhaps even Mebane.
511 Maintenance of the surrounding roads will be left to our state and offset some of the tax revenue generated. Number 6,the
512 feel of the rural community will be forever lost. Buc-ee's is already insisting on heightened signs and reduced buffers as if
513 their sheer size isn't enough to let everybody know where they are. They are already dictating how business is to be done
514 in our neighborhood which doesn't sound like the cooperative business partner interested in enhancing the community it
515 want so inhabit. I oppose Buc-ee's for all these reasons.
516
517 Aimee Tattersall: Buc-ee's plans for Efland Station include 60 pumps stations and 120 nozzles for pumping gasoline. 1
518 come before you today to make the case that like it or not, gasoline will start being phased out over the next two decades in
519 favor of electricity which can be produced by several renewable resources such as solar,wind and biomass. If approved, it
520 will be two years into this decade before Buc-ee's is opens, at least. On October 23, 2020,the BBC aired this interview
521 entitled,Why BP is Betting Against Oil. BP's chief economist, Spencer Dale,warns that fossil fuel industry against
522 complacency about the speed of the coming transition to renewable energy. I implore you to listen to this 17 minute
523 interview before making any decisions about the wisdom of approving 120 gasoline nozzles in Efland. The link is in my
524 written report. The CEO of BP, Bernard Looney, said in the introduction of the interview that BP's goal is to become net
525 zero by 2050 or sooner and to help the world get to net zero. The carbon budget is finite and time is running out. Quoting
526 from the interview,the fossil fuel industry being too complacent about the speed of which renewable energy will disrupt their
527 business in next three decades,that's the contention of Spence Dale chief economist for BP and the extended interview
528 with BBC, Spencer Dale explains the thinking behind his company's plan to cut its own oil and gas production by 40%
529 before the end of this decade and it's not just about heading off the threat of catastrophic climate change, even in their
530 business as usual scenario, they expect to unprecedentedly fast shift towards solar,wind and biomass energy. Renewable
531 energy will penetrate the energy system more quickly than any fuel ever seen in history. 120 gasoline nozzles have a short
532 future in Efland but have the potential of long-term damage. Thank you listening.
533
534 Andrea Riley: I currently live on Brookhollow Road in Efland and I am definitely opposed to this change of the zoning. 1
535 cannot imagine a worse proposal for the Efland area. The first point I want to make is that under the MPD-CZ the site plan
536 is conceptual only for Buc-ee's. They have not committed to the second phase, it is all conceptual and at this point,there
537 will be no more consultation on future development with the Efland community or with elected officials if this is passed.
538 This will only allow for the change of the zoning and the zoning is conceptual only. There is no consequential proposal to
539 build anything except the 120 pump gas station so if you go ahead and ok this rezoning, you will not have any more input.
540 We will not have any more input and even the County Commissioners will not have any more input into what happens if
541 there is a Phase 2. It's very obvious that the sales people from Buc-ee's, Mr. Beard and the lawyer, Ms.Trahos, are
542 interested in promoting the interest of Buc-ee's. They are here to sell us a bill of goods basically. Do we trust this company
543 to give us straight information. This company has been involved in tax evaluation battles in Texas,their home state.
544 They've been involved in potentially illegal price fixing business practices with Alabama and this increase traffic
545 infrastructure cost due to the unforeseen traffic congestion has affected various communities. Please listen to the people
546 who came before me, do your research, go online, look at Voice4Efland and see all of the this information that is there for
547 you to read. They are not telling the truth about the impact that this development will have on this community. I am glad to
548 see I'm upsetting Mr. Beard because you're upsetting me. I don't want this proposal to go through and I hope that you
549 people vote against it. If it does go forward, there will be a lot of people going to the Orange County Commissioners trying
550 to stop this because this is not something this community wants or needs. One of the most important aspects of this is the
551 discharge that unqualified the underlying aquafer is going to be affected because of the extent of impervious surfaces. This
552 is all going to affect the underground water. It's going to affect the Seven Mile Creek and the Eno and the water that goes
553 to Hillsborough if there is any contamination that occurs, cleanup of the aquifer would be practically impossible and this is in
554 a region that has been required by the state to emulate critically unhealthy air quality resulting mainly from vehicle
555 emissions. We do not need gas stations.
556
557 Erica Cartmill: Hi everyone,when I was a child, I was completely obsessed with horses, animals and nature. In our home
558 in suburban Durham, I read books like Misty of Chincoteague and All Creature Great and Small about the deep relationship
145
DRAFT
559 between man and nature. I dreamed of exploring the woods and finding animal friends of my own. When I was very
560 young, my dream was to be grown up, in my mind that meant 8 and live on a farm.When I reached 8 and there was no
561 farm in sight, my dream changed to being 12 with a farm. By the time I was 12, 1 was actually living that dream. My
562 parents had bought a small parcel of land off Ben Johnson Road right down the road from the planned development, and
563 set about building a farm. I remember visiting that land for the first time driving down the rugged dirt road to reach a wild
564 meadow of grasses and brambles at age 9. 1 couldn't quite visualize my mother's description of horse pastures and
565 building placement but I knew it was already a magical place. As the farm took shape, so did my childhood. I spent
566 countless hours climbing trees, catching lizards, building forts and pretending to live off the land. I got to know our
567 neighbors and learned to collect eggs, grow tomatoes and stand my ground when geese charged during my frequent visits
568 to their farm. I learned to drive on our ride on mower. I learned how to make a fishhook, spot poison ivy and get red clay
569 out of jeans. It was a beautiful childhood, one full of nature, neighbors and adventure. As an adult, I've been fortunate to
570 pursue my love of animals professionally. I study animal behavior as a professor at UCLA. I love getting the spark of
571 enthusiasm about animals in my students, many of whom grew up in Los Angeles and have never been for a simple walk in
572 the woods. However, I desperately miss the friendly small energy and the magical wilderness of my childhood. Much of
573 Los Angeles resembles a Buc-ee's station, cars crawl the concrete world and busy people wait at stop lights with eyes
574 glued to their phones on their way to shop for quote unquote cool stuff. Few people make eye contact, no one says good
575 morning.The city is always crowded and yet it is always with people passing by, hurrying somewhere else. It's hard to
576 make a real home for yourself, it's hard to belong when so many are just passing through. I come back to visit our farm in
577 North Carolina several times each year. Every year I record the spring peepers croaking in a puddle right where Ben
578 Johnson Road meets 70. 1 carry those recordings with me every day in L.A. and listen when I want to be carried back
579 home. If this development goes through those frogs will be silenced forever. My hope is to move back to North Carolina
580 one day so that my children can have a childhood where they know their neighbors and where the dirt on their clothes is
581 red clay and not soot from smog. I'm not opposed to development or progress, I know that small towns can't stay small
582 forever and that people need economic development to thrive but a project like Buc-ee's does not have the best interest of
583 our community at heart. It's shortsighted at a time when transportation practices are changing rapidly. It will bring tens of
584 thousands of cars into the small community each day. None of these cars will bring friendly faces of new neighbors just like
585 Los Angeles the cars will be filled with busy people passing through on their way to somewhere else. Buc-ee's isn't
586 investing in this community, it's draining it. Development will pollute the water and air, increase traffic congestion to such a
587 degree that sustainable development projects will be deterred from investing in the area and will fundamentally change the
588 character of a beautiful corner of North Carolina.
589
590 Bobby Cobb: Good Evening, I'm a property owner and business owner in Efland. I'm happy to have land development
591 conversations transpire regarding Efland. We all knew it was coming. Northern Orange is the last growth frontier for this
592 county. Chapel Hill is going straight up, Hillsborough proper has limited room to grow but Efland and Cheeks is truly the
593 promised land. I do mean the word land literally. Efland is the final frontier in our county for land development growth. 1
594 support the Efland Crossing/Efland Station project. However,what concerns me is what the landscape will look like for
595 Phase 2. What type of retailer will come to Efland? What type of dining facilities will come to Efland? What types of
596 businesses will come to Efland? We need a bank in Efland. We need a natural foods grocery store in Efland. I believe
597 that in fact, Phase 2 will be what will sustain Efland over the long haul, not a 60 station 120 handle convenience center. In
598 50 years will we still even have cars that run off gasoline? That's why I challenge the Planning Board to think responsibly
599 and mindfully about the Buc-ee's business model that would initiated for Phase 2. Middle class housing is a huge need in
600 Efland, low-income housing is a huge need in Efland. We will always need good food resources to survive. We will always
601 need good doctor choices and resources. We will always want a nice sit down restaurant to take our families out to eat. 1
602 simply challenge the Planning Board to be mindful about what you recommend to the County Commissioners. Think about
603 what Efland will look like 20, 30, 50 years from now and think about what you're kids and grandkids would be proud of.
604 Let's make Efland a good choice and your suggestions and recommendations should really be thought out.
605
606 Del Ward: I have lived on Ben Johnson Road for most of my life. One of my favorite things about where I live is that there
607 is nature nearly everywhere I turn. Though I may hear the sound of semi-trucks blasting down the highway. I do have the
608 Eno River passing by me where I see many fish and turtles, coyotes and other wildlife live happily. On the other side of the
609 road from me is the beautiful Duke Forest with a rich and fruitful ecosystem. Another thing I quite like about where I live is
610 that there isn't an eyesore of a Texas owned gas station that has 120 gas handles built on a protected watershed. Efland
611 has absolutely no need for a development like this. As of 2018, Efland had a population of roughly 810 people so Stan tell
612 me why we need 120 gas handles. As of today, between exits 150 and 165 there are 20 separate gas stations with over
613 200 gas handles. There are also 104 diesel gas handles so why would we need to add 120 more to that equation in a town
614 that has only a little over 800 people living in it? Besides that, the fact that there is an abundance of gas stations in the
146
DRAFT
615 area, I've seen absolutely no evidence of any environmental research done. You're talking about building a 24-hour
616 convenience center on a protected watershed for the Eno River. A river which spans over 40 miles through two separate
617 counties. If there is water pollution which there most certainly will be, it will not only affect the local ecosystem but will have
618 long lasting and damaging effects on the ecosystems in and around the Eno River. I have seen no evidence of research on
619 how light pollution will affect the bird population here or any other local species for that matter. The only research that has
620 been provided is traffic research done by the developers themselves which states that 32 new trips will be added to the
621 traffic pattern per minute. We do not have the infrastructure for this. I have a neighbor on Ben Johnson Road that in the
622 past 15 years has had 10 cars fly off the road into his front yard. Building Buc-ee's will only make my road a more
623 dangerous road than it already is. Now Beth Trahos says that Efland is quote barely rural, I don't need a lawyer from
624 Raleigh to tell me about the area I live in. We most certainly do live in a rural area. She also says that in Phase 1 there will
625 be 175 quote good jobs. Well Beth if you look online you can see that the average Buc-ee's employee rating is lower that
626 Walmart,Amazon, and all the managerial positions will be outside hires. Efland and Hillsborough are gorgeous,fairly
627 untouched gems in this region and they should stay that way. Stan considers his project to be growth, I agree with him it is
628 a growth just like cancer is. My hometown isn't a pit stop Stan Beard. It's where I and tons of other good hard working
629 folks live. People's first impression of Efland or Hillsborough should not be a Texas owned gas station built on protected
630 land with a dumbass beaver for a mascot.
631
632 Jacob Foster: I grew up in the Shenandoah Valley in a rural community like Efland near a small town like Hillsborough.
633 Over the years, I watched as the character of my hometown from fields and forest to friendly neighbors was disfigured and
634 destroyed by ill-considered development. I have seen giant gas stations like this one carelessly planted in a formerly quiet
635 spot which quickly grows into a noisy ruin. I came to North Carolina to attend Duke University where I met my future wife.
636 For the past 20 years, I have been visiting her family farm in Efland. We shared one of our first kisses on a lonely stretch of
637 country road less than a mile from the proposed Buc-ee's site. That farm and this area have taken me back to the
638 landscape of my childhood we have built many wonderful memories there wandering the fields with our human, canine and
639 equine family. Our careers have taken us far away from North Carolina to the concrete desert of Los Angeles yet our
640 families remain and our regular visits to Efland have been a balm to the city sick soul.We have always cherished the hope
641 of settling in Orange County and giving our children the same experience we had growing up of nature, the quiet
642 countryside and small town living where you can spend summer days wandering with friends over fields and down gravel
643 roads. Buc-ee's threatens that future. It threatens your community. Peace, quiet and a clean environment are your most
644 precious assets whether from the perspective of lifelong residents or of those seeking a better life away from urban sprawl
645 like Carrie Fletcher and like me. Those assets will be destroyed. Planning and mitigation cannot restore peace when
646 thousands of cars and strangers pass through your community every day. They cannot block the diesel,the fumes,the
647 light pollution and the noise that Buc-ee's will bring to your quiet home. As an independent environmental assessment
648 would no doubt reveal,they cannot stop runoff and leakage from contaminating the local water, harming wildlife from the
649 humble spring peepers to the endangered residents of the Eno River. I am not an opponent of progress, change happens,
650 it must, but where is the Orange County renowned for its sensible progressive approach to local development? Where is
651 the spirit of care for the environment,the concern for sustainability? Look into your hearts my friends,what is most
652 precious about your community?What is your greatest asset? What will make Orange County a place that you and your
653 children and my future children are proud to call home? Is it the world's largest gas station? Or is it taking a stand for the
654 environment, the planet and for rural America. If you allow this plan to move forward, remember, sooner or later, the day
655 comes when you can't hide from the things that you've done anymore. I fear that when your car is parked amid a hundred
656 others at Buc-ee's, you'll look back on this day and wish you had chosen to a stand for your community. I hope you will
657 take that stand today.
658
659 Caroline Foster: I am a current resident of nearby Durham. My ties to the Efland area are familial. I have spent time with
660 relatives on their farmland and have taken various trips with community friends as well to explore the wildlife in the area and
661 it is substantially meaningful to me and also to my children. One of the things that we love most about the region that we
662 live currently, is that we are not far off from places like Efland and where you can just explore nature. You can come and
663 take a walk,just view wildlife, and you're not constantly bombarded by massive developments such as what is being
664 proposed with this Buc-ee's development. It's been extremely critical to me as a parent to raise my children in an area
665 where they have some access to wild land where they have access to experience nature and respect it and have the
666 opportunity to live in communities that not only recognize and respect the undeveloped land that they have amongst them
667 but actually think about how to, if that land needs to be developed as others have mentioned here before me, I am also not
668 an opponent to progress. However, I think that progress should, if developments need to be built, that the considerations of
669 what the individuals living nearby actually need are taken into account and that we are also looking on down the road and
670 thinking about what our children need and what our needs in the moment are as well. What is being proposed here is not
147
DRAFT
671 something that anybody in Efland needs. It's far more massive and far beyond the scope of what any resident of Efland
672 could use and it's clearly a development that is designed to bring in an enormous amount of traffic that will be extremely
673 detrimental both in terms of the environmental impacts as well as the impacted traffic. Back to the idea of really thinking
674 sustainably about what is a development that has the community's best interest at heart on down the road. I don't think a
675 massive fossil fuel structure is in line with that and furthermore,where it's being built,we are going to put a whole bunch of
676 petroleum tanks into the ground on a protected aquifer just doesn't make any sense.
677
678 Ben Lloyd: In the spring of 2019, 1 was contacted and visited by a representative of an organization called Buc-ee's high-
679 end convenience mart and gasoline station. He told me that he was in negotiation with the Efland family on the property
680 that is being considered and known as the Sim Efland property. He proposed and continued to tell me that what they would
681 put here would create 200 jobs and put 2 million dollars a year into the County tax bucket. My concerns were that number
682 one, I own a farm that has been in operation for 98 years. There has never been acre sold as of today. I have lived here
683 myself for 90 of those 98 years. Soon after his visit, I began thinking about what should happen to Efland and what we
684 needed. After the 98 years,there has never been a sale as thus said and I wrote the County Manager a letter telling her
685 that I'd had numerous opportunities to sell property but had always refused to do so. I told her that I would make a
686 commitment that until something came along that was worthwhile and to the benefit of Orange County, I never had any
687 intention of selling any. Then I started thinking with what had been explained to me about Buc-ee's would this be the
688 development that we would need. In relation to that and my concerns, I flew to Houston, Texas to visit a Buc-ee's. The
689 owner and several of his staff met me and gave me a complete tour of the Buc-ee's organization there and I was amazed
690 how immaculate of a facility that I was visiting. I was so impressed that when I returned home, I called this Buc-ee's
691 representative and told him that I would make my property available which was to be utilized as the westbound entrance for
692 the Buc-ee's organization. I have sit here tonight and listened,we have people talking doom and gloom and I question the
693 validity of their opinion on that. As a matter of fact, several of the people that I have listened to tonight, don't live here.
694 Some as far away as California. I spent three years in California in the military. I am highly concerned about the objections
695 that people have. I think Buc-ee's work with DOT and continue everything that will be to the benefit to Orange County. The
696 property will be, in my opinion, it will be a tremendous asset to Orange County. I support them being here.
697
698 Jimmy Holcomb: It's heartbreaking to come after Mr. Lloyd. I know how emotionally difficult this decision probably was for
699 him and his family to sell land that he has cherished and also for the Efland family. About 20 years ago, my husband and I
700 bought a 60 acre heritage farm about 9 minutes from the proposed Buc-ee's, northwest of the center of Efland. We came
701 here because of the natural environment,the rural environment, the dark night sky, all the reasons that one would move to
702 the country. The bright stars and the quiet. Some level of commercial development is to be expected everywhere, of
703 course, and we've been interested and sort of fascinated that Efland has grown so slowly compared to other places which
704 for us has been a good thing. We don't disagree with development on principle,we understand that it happens. We
705 expected it to happen in Efland much sooner that it has happened. We understand the revenue pressures in the County to
706 some extent but this project does seem to push the limits of common sense and attention to long-term community interests.
707 Without getting into those details, the project just appears to hitch our progressive modern county to a dinosaur technology
708 while the world is scrambling for Teslas and plug in super chargers. Today, on the Testa website, I can reserve an aI1-
709 electric semi-tractor trailer truck, if I could afford it. Gasoline and oil cannot possibly be what Orange County wants to be
710 known for. My husband and I view this super-scaled gas station as sad and empty and soulless but we do know that these
711 are subjective and emotional responses that County officials can't really put into a spreadsheet. If the County decides to
712 approve this kind of showcase to dead-end fossil fuels,we only urge you, the advisory commission and the full board to
713 give maximum attention to our soil,water and quality of lives. Very important to me and my husband are those dark night
714 skies and the stars so I'm just going to concentrate on that one aspect. For years our place has been known as the place
715 to put down a blanket and watch the meteor showers. Over the last 10 years,we've watched the stars in the southwest sky
716 disappear in the growing glow of Mebane as it rakes in tax revenue. Please make this project model not of enormous
717 leaking underground gas tanks but of sustainable development. I urge you to look up the international dark sky association
718 which has extremely complete data on light pollution and is willing to send consultants.
719
720 Catherine Matthew: I'm an Efland resident and I speak on behalf of the non-human residents in the proposed development
721 area of exit 160. 1 speak specifically tonight for reptiles and amphibians many species of which live on the 104 acres which
722 are currently destined to be destroyed if the land is rezoned and sold to Buc-ee's, a Texas travel center. I am an Eastern
723 Box Turtle, your state reptile; my back wound is modified before my shell on which I will stay forever as long as I am alive.
724 My life span is long, as long as 100 years, longer than most of you will live. I am slow to mature and don't usually lay eggs
725 until I am 20 years old. You've probably seen me or my relatives crossing roads in Orange County. That is one of the most
726 dangerous things a box turtle can do but it is sometime necessary to do so to find food or look for a mate. Many box turtles
148
DRAFT
727 are killed by automobiles and crossing an interstate is nearly impossible without some help from humans. Wildlife
728 underpasses work but there are none in Orange County. You may think that box turtles in Orange County are doing fine
729 but we are not. While there are adult turtles around and it is possible to see us crossing county roads, many of us have
730 been killed and our population is in decline. Where will I go if you pave over my home. I am a North Carolina species of
731 concern. I am a Marble Salamander, North Carolina's state salamander one of two state amphibians. I am a member of
732 the Mole Salamander family and our family is called mole because all of the mole salamanders spend most of our lives
733 underground. As fall begins and I move towards what will become a body of water when the fall rains fall, I find a mate and
734 then I lay as many as 100 eggs that are about the size of BBs. I wrap my body and my tail around the eggs as we lay
735 quietly under a log or rock and I stay with my eggs until the rains arrive. I do not live as long as the box turtle but then
736 neither do you. Unless you drive country road carefully and fall rains at night then you may never have seen me but I am
737 there. I am there and other mole salamanders like the spotted salamanders are there too. The spotted salamanders are
738 spring breeders and they spend one month above ground in temporary bodies of water, shallow pools without fish. In just
739 the last few months, scientist realized that we glow in the dark. My brilliant black and silver colors change to orange and
740 green with a blue light and a yellow filter you can see the miracle too. There are so many more things that humans don't
741 know yet about us and may not have a chance to uncover. Where will you go if you pave over our landscape. I speak for
742 the reptiles and amphibians.
743
744 David Blankfard: Does the applicant want to add any response to what the citizens have said?
745
746 Stan Beard: We appreciate the passion and we respect everyone's stance. We get it. I want to make some things clear. 1
747 will say that we've never been compared to BP nor the City of Los Angeles so those are a couple of first for us. I want to
748 reiterate what we are and what we are not. Folks saying they are not opposed to responsible growth. We offer to this 100-
749 acre tract that is alongside Interstate 40/85 an opportunity for the area to experience the Phase 2 which I need to clarify that
750 my answer the other night was that the completion of Phase 2 would take 5 to 8 years. We absolutely will have the uses,
751 the hotels,the sit down restaurants, the banks, the neighborhood retail that we have said we would bring. You can look at
752 other areas where we have developed and you will see those same people. We have done this before. I would implore the
753 folks to actually read the articles that are referred to on the Voices of Efland website. I would argue that that every single
754 one of those articles is actually a pretty good representation of who we are. There is some very misguided ideas out there.
755 I would also implore you to read the planning documents. There is a traffic study, there is a traffic letter from NCDOT,
756 Chuck Edwards,the man that Mr. Cates spoke to. He wrote the letter, please read that. The environmental report is in
757 there. We are not in a protected watershed we have absolutely every reason in the world to protect everything around us.
758 We do not want to be BP in that arena so we understand the community and we want to be part of it. We have a history of
759 being part of communities and so I just want to thank everybody for showing up.
760
761 David Blankfard: Does anybody have anything to add? I have one in that I would like to add that the hotel would have
762 interior hallways and that the guest rooms don't open to the outside.
763
764 Stan Beard: Agreed.
765
766 Kim Piracci: Have you thought about putting solar panels on the top of your building?
767
768 David Blankfard: It's in the write-up.
769
770 Beth Trahos: We are allowed to do that as a part of our document, also,water reuse is mentioned in the document as well.
771
772 Stan Beard: Actually, Buc-ee's is going to be building its first rainwater reclamation system for our aeration system here.
773 We encourage solar panels,we run into on our buildings because they are pretty highly structurally odd and we don't want
774 to put an extra burden on top of them but we encourage solar panel and solar arrays throughout the rest of the
775 development.
776
777 David Blankfard: Have you looked into whether the building is LEED or well certified?
778
779 Stan Beard: It is in our best interest to have the most efficient building possible. LEED really doesn't work for us in a sense,
780 we incorporate many LEED certified systems within our buildings but we will not be a LEED certified building.
781
149
DRAFT
782 Michael Harvey: I want to remind the Board, one of the conditions the applicant has asked for on page 188 is that
783 consideration of LEED certified practices for components of the project where feasible will be incorporated. We've also got
784 standards governing placement of solar, encouraging the placement of solar.
785
786 Adam Beeman: Typically,when big projects like this come in they tend to hire contractors from outside the state. Is there
787 any way we can get a commitment from you guys to hire local contractors?
788
789 Stan Beard:Typically,we have 2 or 3 fairly major general contractors who build our buildings.They've built them for years
790 and they know how to do them. But what they do is they come to every single locale and figure out who their local subs are
791 going to be. I've given data before, I just don't have it at my fingertips, local construction dollars are a big part of our project.
792 A lot of local sizable subcontractor will have opportunity to be part of this project.
793
794 Michael Harvey: I have some additional review of conditions and discussion on stormwater, signage, and traffic
795 management issues.
796
797 Michael Reviewed the Draft Conditions Contained in Attachment 9 from Pg. 166 to Pg. 188 including potential stormwater
798 conditions to address concerns over impacts to the Seven Mile Creek Preserve area south of the Interstate, signage height,
799 and access management for the project. Michael also read into the minutes an email from Steve Ramarge on the closure of
800 westbound Exit 160 and possible modifications to the proposed traffic access management plan for the Project that could
801 preserve the exit as currently configured.
802
803 David Blankfard: Can I get a motion to add the requirement discussed that the hotel have interior hallways.
804
805 MOTION by Melissa Poole to adopt the condition that any hotel is interior accessed. Seconded by Randy Marshall.
806
807 ROLLCALL VOTE:
808 Randy Marshall: Yes
809 Kim Piracci: Yes
810 Adam Beeman: Yes
811 Susan Hunter: Yes
812 Patricia Roberts: Yes
813 Alexandra Allman Yes
814 Melissa Poole: Yes
815 David Blankfard: Yes
816 Carrie Fletcher Yes
817 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
818
819 Adam Beeman: I would like the applicant to commit to a minimum of 30 spaces for a commuter park and ride so people
820 can park their cars there and hitch a ride with someone else to work and there is no worry about being stuck in a lot getting
821 towed away.
822
823 Beth Trahos: There is an area identified on the master plan to be utilized by the County in some in form or fashion to
824 support transit. If that was the route the County chose to take it could certainly be accommodated given the designation
825 and commitments made as a part of the master plan.
826
827 Adam Beeman: I don't know if their future plan is the bus stop or it's a train station. I know a lot of people travel through
828 there and it would be nice for people to drop their car and catch a ride. It would be nice to have that designation.
829
830 Stan Beard: We have reserved development area 6 for a public transit facility to be determined by all of us. When we hear
831 park and ride we get a little jumpy and so we would definitely work with you on what that looks like as far as security,
832 lighting and rules, etc. In some conversations park and rides weren't that great but that maybe an actual bus stop/drop off
833 would be more in line with what Orange County wanted. If you guys want to figure out a way to manage that development
834 area 6 we're all for it. We would be respectfully careful about what that was but yes we will work with you.
835 Michael Harvey: Would it be sufficient if the Planning Board took the position in its recommendation that the County
836 Commissioners consider as part of development area 6, a park and ride amenity as part of the regional transportation
837 efforts would that address your concern?
150
DRAFT
838
839 Adam Beeman: That's fine as long as there is somewhere we have the potential spot.
840
841 Craig Benedict: We are presently working on the Orange County Transportation Plan due to the change of not having light
842 rail so we are looking for other places to augment our bus system and we'll keep this in mind that we now have some
843 property where it could be considered.
844
845 Carrie Fletcher: I'd like to agree with that too. I'd like to have that option.
846
847 David Blankfard: Do we need to add anything to this proposal for that?
848
849 Craig Benedict: I think it's covered by having area 6 be designated, as suggested already,within the document.
850
851 MOTION by Randy Marshall to move the Statement of Consistency of a proposed Unified Development Ordinance Map
852 Amendment with the adopted Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Board finds the requirements of
853 Section 2.8 of the UDO have been deemed complete and Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5 and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section
854 153A-341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within the record denoting that
855 the amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is reasonable and in the public
856 interest because it expands economic development prospects within the County,while continuing to provide adjacent and
857 nearby land uses, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as well as adopted Small Area Plans for the area. Seconded by
858 Melissa Poole.
859
860 ROLLCALL VOTE:
861 Randy Marshall: Yes
862 Kim Piracci: Yes
863 Adam Beeman: Yes
864 Susan Hunter: Yes
865 Patricia Roberts: Yes
866 Alexandra Allman Yes
867 Melissa Poole: Yes
868 Carrie Fletcher Yes
869 David Blankfard: Yes
870 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
871
872 MOTION by Randy Marshall to move the adoption of an ordinance amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas shown in
873 Attachment 9 on page 166 and the conditions what the Planning Board has reviewed and agreed upon previously.
874 Seconded by Adam Beeman.
875
876 ROLLCALL VOTE:
877 Randy Marshall: Yes
878 Kim Piracci: Yes
879 Adam Beeman: Yes
880 Susan Hunter: Yes
881 Patricia Roberts: Yes
882 Alexandra Allman Yes
883 Melissa Poole: Yes
884 Carrie Fletcher Yes
885 David Blankfard: Yes
886 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
887
888 AGENDA ITEM 8: ADJOURNMENT
889 Meeting was adjourned by consensus 10:20 p.m.
890
891
892 David Blankfard, Chair
151
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 Township Owner of Current Zoning District Proposed Zoning District
Identification Record
Number
(PIN)
9854-16-1576 Cheeks SL Efland Office Research Master Plan Development
Heirs LLC Manufacturing (O/RM); Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ)
Upper Eno Protected Efland Station;
Watershed Protection Upper Eno Protected
Overlay District ; Watershed Protection Overlay
Efland Interstate Overlay District ;
District; and Efland Interstate Overlay
Major Transportation District; and
Corridor (MTC) Overlay Major Transportation Corridor
District (MTC) Overlay District.
9854-36-3711 Cheeks Chad Lloyd Office Research Master Plan Development
Land Manufacturing (O/RM); Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ)
Investment Upper Eno Protected Efland Station;
Company Watershed Protection Upper Eno Protected
LLC Overlay District ; Watershed Protection Overlay
Efland Interstate Overlay District ;
District; and Efland Interstate Overlay
Major Transportation District; and
Corridor (MTC) Overlay Major Transportation Corridor
District (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
152
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).
153
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).
f
f
f
-- f 11 .19.2020
David Blankfard, Chair Date
Attachment 7 154
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director ?.
Administration ... �� 131 W. Margaret Lane
(919) 245-2575 "W � Suite 201
(919) 644-3002 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181
www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278
"1! "%&bl 1
al:"
CERTIFICATION OF
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION
MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL ZONING (MPD-CZ) DISTRICT —
EFLAND STATION (FORMERLY BEAVER CROSSING)
I, Michael D. Harvey, Planner with Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY that in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 of the Orange County
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), I have or caused notice of a PUBLIC HEARING
for the project referenced herein as follows:
1. MAILED NOTICES: Notices giving specifics on the zoning atlas amendment
request, contact information, the dates/times/location of the BOCC public hearing
including instructions on how to access the virtual public hearing and be able to
offer comment(s) on the proposal were mailed:
a. First class mail to all property owners within 1,000 ft. ( as identified by
Orange County Tax records) of the subject properties; and
b. Certified mail to the owners of the 2 parcels.
on November 25, 2020, 19 days before the meeting.
2. SIGNS: Staff posted the subject parcels with signs indicating the date/time of the
public hearing on December 4, 2020, 11 days before the meeting;
Further, Planning Department staff caused a legal ad advertising the date, time,
location, and purpose of the BOCC public hearing to run in the News of Orange and the
Herald Sun on December 2 and 9, 2020.
WITNESS my hand, this 4t" day of December, 2020.
Michao Harvey
Current Planning Supervisor
155
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Current Planning 131 W. Margaret Lane
`919) 644-3002 FAX ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181
www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278
o
November 25, 2020
Notice of
Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)
Public Hearing
Review of Zoning Atlas Amendment for
Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZ)
Known as Efland Station (formerly Beaver Crossing)
To Whom It May Concern:
The purpose of this letter is to notify you of an upcoming Board of County
Commissioner (BOCC) public hearing pertaining to proposed amendments to the
Orange County Zoning Atlas, specifically the processing of a Master Plan Development
Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) District application.
The review/process of this application, as well as this notification, is occurring in
accordance with the provisions of Section(s) 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development
Ordinance Amendments and 2.9.2 Conditional Zoning District of the Orange County
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
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, east of Mt. Willing Road, within the Cheeks Township.
Application materials are available on the County website, specifically under the
Current Interest Projects of the Planning Department webpage access utilizing the
following link: https://www.orangecountync.gov/1722/Current-Interest-Projects.
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 (MTC) Overlay District ; Efland Interstate Overlay District.
156
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)
,. 3W .t�rr ,�, 4 -rsi , �t• � r .
PIN 9854-36-3711-
ON'
it �:� '7f�1, t r�+ • � r• �e l .� + J �
Wat • t e , a r �$ x .a
�
PIN 9854 16-1576
sk
1t
i / ti, t .1. "_wii"`,., /n1 I@A •tj.•�,�9 I _ � rt'
tl °QW
��_ �_�---_ 1.�3•.AD4ry ,.__ - 9�5�444000�3��,��� �� yJ ��-` . -
PROPOSAL:
According to the submittal the purpose of the Project, now known as Efland
Station, 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 construction of approximately 500,000
sq.ft. of building area supporting previous identified land uses (hereafter `the Project').
As proposed, the Project would involve development of the following specific land
uses:
• Phase 1 - Construction of a 60 pump (2 nozzles per pump) gas station
with an approximately 64,000 sq.ft. retail center;
• Phase 2 - 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;
157
o 12,000 sq.ft. of casual restaurant; and
o 20,000 SF of high-turnover sit-down restaurant space.
As part of this submittal, the applicant is proposing the imposition of development
and design standards (i.e. architectural, signage, setbacks, height limitations,
landscape/buffer standards, outdoor lighting, parking, etc.).
If the proposal is approved by the County, 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.
WHY YOU ARE RECEIVING THIS LETTER:
As previously indicated, you are receiving this letter as your property is located
within 1,000 ft. of the 2 parcels subject to a rezoning petition.
Per Section 2.8.7 of the LIDO, staff is required to send written notice, via first
class mail, to property owners within 1,000 ft. informing them of the date/time of,the
Planning Board meeting where the application is to be reviewed. This notice is required
to be mailed 15 days before the date of this meeting.
The BOCC will hold a public hearing on this Zoning Atlas Amendment on:
Tuesday December 15, 2020 at 7:00 p.m.
for the purpose of giving all interested parties an opportunity to speak on the
proposal. Consistent with COVID-19 protocols, and to ensure the health and
safety of all participants, the meeting will be virtual and pre-registration is
required if you wish to speak at the hearing.
The meeting will be live streamed at the following web address for those who wish
to only view the meeting: www.orangecountync.gov/967/Meeting-Videos.
To register to speak at the public hearing, please send an email to
ocpubliccomment@orangecountync.gov on or after December 11 but no later than 3:00
PM on the day of the hearing (i.e. December 15, 2020) and indicate you wish to speak
during the hearing. The agenda will be posted on December 11 at
http://orangecountyne.gov/1707/BOCC-Agendas.
When submitting the request to speak, include the following:
• The date of the meeting
• The number and title of the agenda item (from the agenda posting which
occurs on December 11) you wish to speak on
• Your name, address, email and phone number
• The phone number must be the number you plan to call in from if
participating by phone
After registering to speak, an email that contains instructions and a link to sign up
to access the hearing will be sent to the email address used to register.
158
If you do not have access to an internet-enabled computer and would like to phone
in to access the hearing, please call the office of the Clerk to the Board after December
11, 2020 at 919-245-2130 and a staff member will provide you with the call-in number.
Written comments to the Board of County Commissioners can be sent via e-mail
to ocbocc@orangecountync.gov.
Written comments can also be dropped off at the Planning Department offices at
131 W. Margaret Lane, 2"d floor, Hillsborough, NC during normal office hours or mailed
to the Planning Department at P.O. Box 8181, Hillsborough, NC 27278.
The full text of the public hearing items may be obtained no later than December
11, 2020 on the County's website at:
hftps://www.orangecountync.gov/1 707/BOCC-Agendas.
Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County
Planning Department via phone at (919) 245-2575 during normal office hours (8:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday). You may also e-mail questions to
planningdept@orangecountync.gov.
All of these link(s) will be posted to the County website at:
hftps://www.orangecountync.gov/1722/Current-Interest-Projects.
Sincerely,
�r'aig Benedict, AICP % f
Planning Director
Orange County
159
LAND I _r" -L- I I- --�--- 1-__ _- 1 _•r I I I I LAND USE BY DEVELOPMENT AREA sae
-
LZ
{
a I -----� 1 ;I _I •s•'ien« , „ \ ;, KK
0 5 ,I •:. �� 1 ;; _; �:._.. � ��\ \�/ orswxwue.ww .vuwmr ns w¢rta � i
— �L•.,•• I --___— __
_ I �
3g __
5 ~ __ r____ —�__ ---
—
q S� .I•1 Il i 1 1 I / sxaosEe x,a.« `� g
---------------
it
UNE
£ NIE0.47ATE \ — w
Q
i I J
a I
I
W
LL
w
\ rd
�§ ORAPNIC SCAIE IN FEET
NOTE SITS PLAN IS CONCEPIUALIN 0,�f,0o sao�° Knowwnarebelow.
L� Call before you dig. NUMBER.
NATURE AND IG SUBJECT 70 Ch4WGE
160
LAND USE BY DEVELOPMENT AREA
wOi59i io ew°XERi+x
� I l_ weu l 1 . °., xxovru-x°xx o°aruo-im srorsooau s
z
A--77 x.xwRWoxx.omxx
ic
SITE LEGEND d %W
d --�-- ------- ----
f
' �� — — --- — -
a i I I I r 17IQ I ' unia� \',` J_I_I_u I i I i i i i
---__ _
___________
s; �s`.,� 1�1.•�i�.I I .— � m ec ixnu�,moerom wrote� �i I � i----------``���\ � j'� _ I ��� ��/ st.x w..w omu
1• T
-g �'i; Plli� ;I �� x °Tm �� __� ` • � � / srmux.xxn uuaomwr r.mnr
NOTE: `may
mN ) m ili rimW
' V/ a / x�wxrMTMeo�x. .rxd�ax x�
1 l }
,S �zPn az Norm VesiHo `!� ` °mow, J Q
�—
d W
SS / muu.xwr.x.uxnuu°raraevworaar°eom„xe J
rn
a
W
>
I —'�z_ \ O
a6 I I o
�t5 ' �
Z
33 0 Z
ci
\ -----
�� s Uj
id I V W
Gl 'C SC IN FEET
NGIE:SITEPLANISCDNCEPNALIN C 1 KnowwhafsbelOw.
NATUREANDISSUWECT TO CHANGE Call before You dlg. SHE/E�TrNUM9ER o
161
ZAM
rl r
TURNER ST -•--'_
e ,
7.
L
..4P
1„� - jir . �/ �r�� ` ,r• .�.Z i�r 2 Tj•f-j-T .�.�•.rt� i l _.ram y� ..
E �'..�1+ 1.4Y1WLI�yyJ N�.yyy/y WJ ,.... /'. a�M^YTl__ 'r•' I� - . .•�i.b , Q4
� \ ��� , � � J+urvu:uiYUJuLJ+uui+:u+Yi+iifi�,yyyi,L'iiyyuy; �'•,. � �,_ y�.Y�y • �\
—— _
--••--^..Try--,—--.- ,MD WESS .. R�E EE£
l�D EAST .; - ' • rFOR�NB ExT Z PaEYENr
r - _
LEGEND So- ,
BUC—EELS SITE E 7 EXISTING LAYEAGE !
�
PROPOSED LANEAGE
OFFSITE
E ROADWAY -PROPOSED E.OF TRAVEL t+
IIMPROVEMEIY S PROPOSED CURB AND GOITER ` •- �'� y
PROPOSED PAVED SHWIDER r•�-
EFl�IND,NORTH CAROUNA r � .•
OCTOBER 06.2O20 EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
N
ROALWAY IMPROVEMENTS
. l PROPOSED CONCRETE
PROPOSED ISLAND
•PROPOSED LANDSCAPE
S ".L '.ais3 MEDIAN ..c
GRAPHIC SCALE ®ASPHALT PAVEMENT h
Jm REMOVAL �•••
•� a
�.,�� � TRAFF/CSIGNAL �� Klmley»)Horn
162
163
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS
ORANGE COUNTY CONDITIOAL ZONING DISTRICTS
NOR 144 CAR01.1 NA FACT SHEET
This fact sheet explains the submittal and review process for a rezoning to a Conditional
Zoning District. It also covers how a decision on a request is made and how you can
participate.
1. What is a Conditional Zoning District?
A Conditional Zoning District (CZD) is a tool to address impacts from certain
land uses. These land uses have particular impacts on the immediate area or
community which cannot be predetermined by general use district standards.
The property owner proposes development standards to address these
impacts. These standards could be things like minimum lot size, setbacks,
parking, landscaping, open space management, allowable building area,
preservation of natural areas, or similar matters. If approved, the use of the
property would be subject to conditions created during the process.
2. What are the benefits of the CZD process?
Conditional Zoning allows for more flexibility than other zoning tools. Rules in
a General Zoning district would be applicable to all uses without any special
considerations. Rules for a Special Use Permit require all the individualized
considerations to be written in the ordinances beforehand. By allowing for
special considerations to be determined at the time of application, Conditional
Zoning is thought to be a more prudent use of time, money, effort, and other
resources.
3. Is a CZD the same as a Special Use Permit(SUP)?
No. With a SUP the County has determined potential development impacts of
a given land use require special consideration of site-specific conditions
against a set of established standards. An SUP is said to be a `quasi-judicial'
decision because how facts are applied to these established standards. A
CZD is said to be a `legislative' decision because the standards are both
established and applied at the time of the decision.
4. Are CZDs and SUPs reviewed in a similar manner?
No. CZDs are reviewed through the `legislative' review process while an SUP
is reviewed under the `quasi-judicial' review process, further broken down as
follows:
• LEGISLATIVE: Decisions are made based on multiple factors
including the proposal's consistency with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan, recommendations made by the Planning
Board and staff, comments received from the public (both for and
against a project), as well as the elected officials' experiences,
164
opinions and judgment.
This is the most common review process employed by the County
and is used to review multiple development proposals (i.e. zoning
atlas amendments, amendments to the UDO, review/action on
subdivision proposals, etc.).
• QUASI-JUDICIAL: Typically used to review land use development
applications, commonly called a Special Use.
In this process, the board responsible for rendering a decision acts
much like a panel of judges, hearing factual evidence and sworn
testimony.
Decisions on whether a permit request must be issued or not are
based on the competent, substantial, and material evidence
presented by all sworn parties with standing.
5. How are CZD applications reviewed?
Review of a CZD application occurs in multiple steps as outlined in the UDO
summarized as follows:
• An application for a zoning atlas amendment is submitted;
• The proposal is reviewed by the County's Development Advisory
Committee (DAC), which is essentially a staff review across
multiple Departments (i.e. Building Inspections, Environmental
Health, Emergency Services, Erosion Control/Stormwater, Solid
Waste, etc.) and includes many technical advisors from external
agencies such as the NC Department of Transportation;
• The next step is the scheduling and holding of a Neighborhood
Information Meeting (NIM), which is an opportunity for the
developer to discuss their proposal with the local community and
for County staff to review/discuss the review process;
• The proposal is then reviewed by the Planning Board, which is an
advisory group of County residents.
The Board reviews the proposal, hears comments from the
staff/applicant/general public, and makes a recommendation to the
Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for or against any
proposal.
• The final step is with a public hearing before the BOCC. The public
hearing allows the public to voice their opinions to the
Commissioners. After the public hearing is closed, the BOCC then
makes their decision.
This flow chart from the UDO helps illustrate:
165
Zoning A"as and Application
UDO AmendrrmDnts Submittal
Zoning Ailas• ZoningLAIIGS: Tenet Amendments
Conditional I GenewDistricts f Zoning ts
Post Sign I Mail Notice for
Neighborhood Info. Meeting
(HIM) and Planning Board
Meeting
Post Sign f Mai Notice
Neighborfiood for Planning Board
Information Meeting Meeting
Development Advisory
Committee Meeting
Staff Rec ommendafion to
Planning Board
Planning Board Review
and liecommendation
Aflas Amendments: Text
Publish Legal Ad Amendments:
Post Sign Publish Legal Ad
Mail Notice
Ir
Staff and fd Recoasmendahon
to SOCC
Public Hearing
BOCC Decision
Note: This chart is meant as a graphical representation of the
UDO text:the text shag take priority in are/conflict or arnbk uity-
166
6. Are applicants required to submit site specific development plans for a
CZD?
Either a site specific development plan or a concept plan will be required
depending on the type of request.
Site specific development plans are meant to demonstrate how the project
would comply with various requirements such as setbacks, impervious
surface limits, parking lot design, landscaping, building area, and others.
These types of plans are required for the following CZDs:
• Agricultural Support Enterprises (ASE-CZ);
• Home Park (HP-CZ); and
• NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development
Area (REDA-CZ-1).
Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZ) applications
are not required to submit a site specific development plan. They are
required to submit a concept plan.
7. Why are MPD-CZ applications not required to submit a site specific
development plan?
Per Section 3.8 Conditional Districts — Master Plan Development (MPD-CZ)
of the UDO, the purpose of the MPD-CZ District is to provide for:
`..... unified large scale subdivisions, non-residential, and mixed-
use developments that promote economical and efficient land
use, improved level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious
variety, creative design, and a better environment through the
approval of a general concept Master Plan the permits defined
flexibility to accommodate land use adjustments in response to
evolving market trends.
To that end, MPD-CZ projects are intended to allow for flexibility in
dimensional/development standards with the overall goal of ensuring
compatibility with planning objectives, anticipated development patterns,
existing infrastructure planning, and surrounding properties.
The master planning process allows applicants to either demonstrate
compliance with applicable standards (i.e. setbacks, impervious surface
limits, parking lot design, landscaping, building area, etc.) or provide `design
alternatives' that meet the intent and spirit of existing regulations.
Approval of an MPD-CZ, essentially, creates a new zoning district
establishing mandatory development standards/criteria governing actual
development activities. Through this process, the County has the opportunity
to impose conditions on development activities to address potential impacts.
167
8. What else is required to be submitted as part of a CZD application?
CZD requests are required to submit the following information:
a. Completed application;
b. A detailed description of the proposed use of property;
c. A detailed traffic survey;
d. Environmental Document(s);
e. Landscape plan;
f. A summary of utility services, including processing of wastewater;
g. A schedule of construction of all elements of the proposal;
h. Other information identified during the pre-application conference
deemed essential to demonstrate the project's compliance with
applicable regulations.
9. Can the County impose conditions on a CZD?
Yes. The County has the ability to impose conditions, however, these
conditions must be mutually agreed upon by the County and applicant.
Further, conditions are limited to those addressing conformance of the
development to applicable regulations and/or the adopted Comprehensive
Plan/other relevant plans addressing:
a. The compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding
property;
b. Proposed support facilities (i.e. roadways and access points, parking,
pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems, screening and buffer
areas, etc.); and/or
C. Other matters the County may find appropriate or the petitioner may
propose, but limited to items within the County's regulatory authority.
10. How is development within an MPD-CZ district acted upon?
Development within an MPD-CZ is permitted only 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.
11. Will this site plan be reviewed/commented on by the Planning Board or
elected officials?
No. The site plan shall be reviewed and acted upon by staff administratively
consistent with the provisions of the UDO.
168
12. What are the benefits of the MPD-CZ process?
The chief, primary, benefit is staff are able to review/process development of
a parcel and/or multiple parcels under a uniform set of development criteria
where there are shared opportunities for infrastructure development (i.e.
parking areas, preservation of existing landscaping, outdoor lighting, signage,
access management, stormwater management, etc.).
Under general zoning standards, parcels are typically developed
independently with little to no opportunity for the County to compel
coordination of development activities. Each parcel would have to have its
own parking area, stormwater feature, landscape buffers, allowable building
area (i.e. floor area ratio), individual outdoor lighting fixtures, etc. From staffs
standpoint this translates to more development activity, more impervious
surface area, and increased opportunities for internal/external impacts.
13. Who may speak or offer comment during the review of a CZD?
Everyone.
Applicants and those individuals supporting, or opposed to, the application
are encouraged to attend meetings where a CZD is discussed and offer
comment(s).
The best time to speak directly to the applicant is at the NIM. The NIM is also
a good opportunity to ask questions of staff related to the process for the
review of the application.
The Planning Board is a good opportunity to learn more about the comments
and recommendations from the advisory board and staff.
The public can offer their opinions and comments in written form to the BOCC
at any time, but the public hearing is the best time to speak publicly in person.
14. When would I learn about an application being submitted?
There are various notification requirements associated with the review of a
CZD application at various points along the process.
There is a listing of current projects at the Planning page of the County
website. The complete application package is made available to the public on
the County website once it has been formally accepted for review by staff.
Before the NIM, there will be notice posted at the site and mailed to those
within 1,000 ft. of the property advertising the meeting. This is the same for
the Planning Board and BOCC meetings where the application will be
reviewed. BOCC meetings are also advertised in local newspapers:
Planning Board and BOCC meeting agendas are posted on-line so the
general public can review materials associated with the review of a CZD. You
can be put on a list to receive notices about all BOCC meetings through a
request to the BOCC Clerk's office.
169
Planning Board and BOCC are public meetings, which are open to public
attendance. Only the BOCC public hearing includes a right to participate and
that is limited (such as with the 3 minute time limit).
15. What is the most effective way of engaging with the process?
Planning staff are available to answer questions on a development proposal
and/or to explain process requirements.
Attend the NIM to learn about the applicant's proposal and have an
opportunity to ask questions and offer comments.
Attend the Planning Board meeting to learn about staff and Board
recommendation(s).
Write to the BOCC or speak at the public hearing. At the public hearing you
will be limited to 3 minutes, but there is no limit to emailed comments. If you
share the opinion of others, try to join together and co-sign a single message.
Try to be specific with particular proposals, recommendations or conditions.
16. Who do 1 contact with questions?
• Questions about the application, procedural questions, or Planning
Board meeting(s) should be directed to the Planning Department —
(919) 245-2675;
• To receive email notices of BOCC agendas/meetings, go to the
following webpage:
hftp://www.orangecountync.gov/1561/Electronic-Newslefters
And select the link following "Board of County Commissioners
(Sunshine)". Type in your email address and select Sign In. Next,
click on the envelope icon in front of Board of County Commissioners
(Sunshine) to receive email notifications.
• Questions on Planning Board agendas can also be addressed by the
staff of the Planning Department. Planning Board agenda packets, as
well as meeting minutes, are posted on the County website and can be
accessed here:
https://www.orangecountync.gov/1194/Orange_County-Planning-
Board-PB
17.What are the roles of staff, the Planning Board, and the elected officials in
the review of a CZD?
• STAFF:
➢ Determine if the application is complete with applicable
submittal requirements (Section(s) 2.8 and 2.9.2 of the UDO);
170
➢ Determine consistency with the adopted Comprehensive Plan;
➢ Review and make a determination if the proposal is consistent
with applicable development standards or if proposed 'design
alternatives' are consistent with the spirit/intent of the UDO;
➢ Recommend imposition of conditions to address potential
impacts;
➢ Recommend approval/denial of the project based on the
provisions of the UDO and the project's compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
• PLANNING BOARD:
➢ Review the development proposal and ask questions of the
applicant and staff;
➢ Review/discuss staffs analysis;
➢ Although not required, the PB often will Receive public comment
on the proposal;
➢ Make a recommendation on the approval or denial of the
request to the BOCC.
• BOCC:
➢ Schedule and hold a public hearing to receive the application;
➢ Hear from the applicant and staff;
➢ Receive public comment on the proposal;
➢ Review/discuss the staff and Planning Board's analysis and
recommend ation(s);
➢ Discuss imposition of conditions;
➢ Approve or deny the request.
18. How are decisions to approve or deny a CZD made?
The BOCC approves or denies a CZD request based on:
a. The proposals consistency with the adopted Comprehensive Plan;
b. Consistency/compliance with other applicable plans (i.e. small areas
plans, water/sewer infrastructure plans, transportation improvement
plans, etc.);
C. Suitability of proposed development with surrounding properties as
well as the recognized/anticipated development patterns in the area
where the project is located;
d. Compliance with applicable development standards as embodied
within the UDO and/or the appropriateness of proposed 'design
alternatives';
e. Public comments; and
171
f. Staff and Planning Board recommendation(s).
19. Can /discuss the project with staff, members of the Planning Board, and
the BOCC?
.Yes, you can have discussions with various parties outside of scheduled
meetings/hearings concerning a CZD application. This would not be the case
with an SUP or other quasi-judicial hearings, where the board members are
precluded from deliberations outside the hearing.
20. Is there a record of the proceedings?
Yes. Minutes from Planning Board and BOCC meetings where a CZD
application is reviewed/discussed/acted upon are maintained by the County.
The Planning Department maintains the application components and become
a part of the file on that case.
21. What is the effect of a CZD approval?
Per Section 2.9.2 (G) of the UDO, approval of a CZD is binding on the
property. Development and use of the subject parcel(s) is governed by the
submitted/revised application package, the actual ordinance adopted by the
BOCC approving the rezoning request, all conditions imposed as part of the
CZD review process, and the applicable provisions of the UDO.
22. Are decisions on CZD applications subject to further review?
Yes. Decisions are subject to review by the Superior Court. Per Section
2.26.5 of the UDO, an appeal to Superior Court must be filled within 60 days
from the date of adoption of the ordinance approving the zoning atlas
amendment.
172
NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD DEPARTMENT OF COPPLE PROPERTIES LLC
COMPANY TRANSPORTATION C/O HOWARD R COPPLE
2809 HIGHWOODS BLVD 331 W MAIN ST 213 MT WILLING RD
RALEIGH, NC 27604 SUITE 100 EFLAND, NC 27243
DURHAM, NC 27701
DANIEL G MCDONALD ETAL DEPARTMENT OF SL EFLAND HEIRS LLC
BETTY J MCDONALD TRANSPORTATION 4890 SW NATCHEZ ST
2555-403 ST JAMES DR SE PO Box 25201 TUALATIN, OR 97062
SOUTHPORT, NC 28461 RALEIGH, NC 27611
BRETT H KAHLER CARL THOMAS HICKS AMERICA SARASWATA SANGHA
1116 SOUTH ST JANET R HICKS 1040 JAYAGURU LN
DURHAM, NC 27707 PO BOX 126 EFLAND, NC 27243
EFLAND, NC 272430126
CLINT G BOGGS DEPARTMENT OF ROGER L KIRCHNER
270 BOGER RD TRANSPORTATION 313 CENTER ST
MOCKERVILLE, NC 27028 PO BOX 15580 EFLAND, NC 27243
DURHAM, NC 27704
CARLTON A LAWS ENVIRONMENTAL HEATING M M FOWLER INC
LYNNE J LAWS SOLUTIONS LLC 4220 NEAL RD
1300 FAUCETTE MILL RD 270 BOGER RD DURHAM, NC 27705
HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 MOCKERVILLE, NC 27028
MARSHALL A WELCH RONNIE OMAR ALDANADUARTE TIERRE L COOPER
TARA L WELCH 320 CENTER ST 312 CENTER ST
301 CENTER ST EFLAND, NC 27243 EFLAND, NC 27243
EFLAND, NC 27243
CARLTON A LAWS TRUSTEE KELLY L GALLAGHER CARL C MAY
LYNNE J LAWS TRUSTEE 300 CENTER ST PO BOX 70
1300 FAUCETTE MILL RD EFLAND, NC 27243 EFLAND, NC 27243
HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278
STEVEN M RAMARGE LISA ANDREWS JEFFREY FORREST HAMLIN
MARSHA L RAMARGE LACY E ANDREWS 5801 SNEED RD
PO BOX 155 305 MT WILLING RD ROUGEMONT, NC 275729131
EFLAND, NC 272430155 EFLAND, NC 27243
VALERIE A CURRY FORREST RESOURCESLLC JOHN BANNON
5644 THOM RD C/O JOSEPH T FORREST JENNIFER SALEMSON
Mebane, NC 27302 14 A WATER ST 1822 BUSHY COOK RD
MEDFORD, MA 2155 EFLAND, NC 27243
STEPHEN FLINT HAMLIN DAVID CAMERON FORREST JOHN TIMOTHY OROURKE
5801 SNEED RD 215 CENTER ST STEPHANIE SNYDER OROURKE
ROUGEMONT, NC 275729131 EFLAND, NC 27243 PO BOX 1144
HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278
173
LATONIA YVETTE CARTER TALBERTS FOOD MART 3 INC JULIE A LAWS
202 CENTER ST 1480 CRAWFORD DAIRY RD 206 CENTER ST
EFLAND, NC 27243 CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516 EFLAND, NC 27243
RITA FREEMAN MANGALAM LLC MCECKERT LLC
4409 ELLO DR 225 MT WILLING RD 1811 RAMS WAY
Hillsborough, NC 27278 EFLAND, NC 27243 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278
HOWARD R COPPLE EFLAND VOLUNTEER CHARLES DANAKIMREY
JANICE COPPLE FIRE CO INC 140 S LAKEWOOD TRL
213 MT WILLING RD P O BOX 39 ROXBORO, NC 27574
EFLAND, NC 27243 EFLAND, NC 27243
EFLAND LEASING EFLAND LEASING EFLAND LEASING
COMPANY LLC A COMPANY LLC B COMPANY LLC C
PO BOX 246 PO BOX 246 PO BOX 246
EFLAND, NC 27243 EFLAND, NC 27243 EFLAND, NC 27243
ANDREW B LLOYD JR ETAL DOROTHY M EFLAND HRS BLTK LLC
MARIE L DAVIS PO BOX 525 6720 PENTECOST RD
2701 US 70W EFLAND, NC 27243 CEDAR GROVE, NC 27231
EFLAND, NC 27243
ANDREW B LLOYD JR EFLAND VILLAGE HOLDINGS JOHN LINDSAY EFLAND III
2701 US 70W P O BOX 60 P O BOX 296
EFLAND, NC 27243 EFLAND, NC 27243 EFLAND, NC 272430296
RAYMOND JAMES TRUST NA FREDERICK J BENNETT SFR3 LLC
TRUSTEE 3406 SOUTHERN DR 500 WESTOVER DR#14104
PO BOX 23559 EFLAND, NC 27243 SANFORD, NC 27330
ST PETERSBURG, FL 33742
HUGH M LOFTIN CURTIS RONALD CECIL NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD
P O BOX 156 DORIS S CECIL COMPANY
EFLAND, NC 272430156 PO BOX 112 2809 HIGHWOODS BLVD
EFLAND, NC 272430112 RALEIGH, NC 27604
KATIE DUFFY JEFFERY J WIEBE MARY JANE SYKES GLASGOW
2407 CHESTNUT RIDGE CHURCH 4712A DAIRYLAND RD 4615 LEBANON RD
RD HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 EFLAND, NC 272430116
EFLAND, NC 27243
PAUL V DARLING SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE ELDON JON HIGGINS
KATHLEEN A DARLING BAHAIS OF ORANGE COUNTY NC BONNIE L BUSH
3310 SOUTHERN DR INC 3309 FOREST AVE EAST
EFLAND, NC 27243 2202 SCHLEY RD EFLAND, NC 27243
Hurdle Mills, NC 27541
174
DOROTHY M EFLAND HRS EDWARD SANSEVERINO DORIS SQUIRES CECIL
PO BOX 525 LINDA SANSEVERINO CURTIS RONNY CECIL
EFLAND, NC 27243 3303 FORREST AVE PO BOX 112
EFLAND, NC 27243 EFLAND, NC 272430112
JOLINDA O SWIGGETT DORIS S CECIL LARRY F WARREN
3227 FOREST AV JULIE CHARLENE CECIL PO BOX 818
EFLAND, NC 27243 P O BOX 112 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278
EFLAND, NC 27243
DAVID C WAGNER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JOHNNY C CATES
LISA C WAGNER C/O US MARSHALLS SERVICE PEGGY CATES
1916 MOOREFIELDS RD 324 W MARKET ST 3102 W TEN RD
Hillsborough, NC 27278 GREENSBORO, NC 27401 EFLAND, NC 272439705
JAMES H NICHOLSON ODELL CECIL MINNIS JR WILLIAM EDWARDC RABTREE
RENEE H NICHOLSON BRENDA G MINNIS ANN N CRABTREE
3211 FORREST AVE 3210 SOUTHERN DR PO BOX 61
EFLAND, NC 27243 EFLAND, NC 272439714 EFLAND, NC 272430061
HOWARD BENTLY CECIL JR ANDY LLOYD LAND INVESTMENT TIMOTHY KYLE LLOYD
EVELYN M CECIL COMPANY LLC 3225 US 70 W
3223 FORREST AVE C/O BEN LLOYD Efland, NC 27243
EFLAND, NC 27243 2701 HWY 70
EFLAND, NC 27243
AIS FORESTRY & FARMING LLC WILLIAM M HICKS III EFLAND RURITAN CLUB
319 CHAPANOKE RD COREY L HICKS PO BOX 250
STE 102 2315 CLARK FARM ROAD EFLAND, NC 27243
RALEIGH, NC 27603 EFLAND, NC 27243
NOEL G PAK HARVEY GRAHAMS MOBILE HOME WINDHAM MOBILE HOME PARK
HELEN P HARVEY PARK LLC INC
3211 US 70 W 3201 US 70 W PO BOX 462
EFLAND, NC 272439609 EFLAND, NC 272439609 EFLAND, NC 27243
JAMES L JORGENSON SIMONE SHEPARD NATHAN HALL
TAMMY A JORGENSON 3008 GYM RD LISA HALL
3014 GYM RD EFLAND, NC 27243 3058 GYM RD
EFLAND, NC 272439729 EFLAND, NC 27243
WALLACE KENT MURRAY JO ANN MURRAY LUCKY 4 PROPERTIES LLC
PEGGY MURRAY 2918 GYM RD 3131 US 70 W
3004 GYM RD EFLAND, NC 27243 Efland, NC 27243
EFLAND, NC 27243
CHRISTOPHER T SMITH EFLAND METHODIST CHURCH ANDREW B LLOYD JR
HEATHER N SMITH 3418 US 70 W 2701 US 70 W
3102 GYM RD EFLAND, NC 27243 EFLAND, NC 27243
EFLAND, NC 27243
175
BRICIA KRISTELY C DIAZ ETAL W & J FAMILY FARM LLC WALLACE KENT MURRAY
DULCE MARIA LOPEZ DIAZ 5004 NC 86 N 2912 GYM RD
2406 WHITE PINE DR HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 Efland, NC 27243
DURHAM, NC 27705
176
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
The Orange County Board of Commissioners will hold a public hearing on Tuesday,
December 15, 2020 at 7:00 PM for the purpose of giving all interested residents an
opportunity to speak for or against the items below. Due to current public health
concerns, the hearing will be held on-line and pre-registration is required.
The meeting will be live streamed at the following web address for those who wish to only
view the meeting: www.orangecountync.gov/967/Meeting-Videos
To register to speak at the public hearing, please send an email to
ocpubliccomment@orangecountync.gov no later than 3:00 PM on the day of the hearing
and indicate you wish to speak during the hearing.
When submitting the request to speak, include the following:
• The date of the meeting
• The number and title of the agenda item (from the list below) you wish to
speak on
• Your name, address, email and phone number
• The phone number must be the number you plan to call in from if
participating by phone
After registering to speak, an email that contains instructions and a link to sign up to
access the hearing will be sent to the email address used to register.
If you do not have access to an internet-enabled computer and would like to phone in to
access the hearing, please call the office of the Clerk to the Board after December 11,
2020 at 919-245-2130 and a staff member will provide you with the call-in number.
Public Hearing Items:
1. Zoning Atlas Amendment (Master Plan Development Application — Efland
Station): In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified
Development Ordinance Amendments of the Unified Development Ordinance, an
applicant has applied to rezone 2 parcels, totaling approximately 104 acres, in
Cheeks Township:
FROM: Office/Research and Manufacturing (O/RM); Upper Eno Protected
Watershed Protection Overlay District; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC)
Overlay District; and Efland Interstate Overlay District.
TO: Master Planned Development — Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) for Efland
Station; Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District; Major
Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District; and Efland Interstate Overlay
District.
1
177
The parcels are further identified utilizing Orange County Parcel Identification
Numbers (PIN) 9854-16-1576 (approximately 92 acres) and 9854-36-3711
(approximately 12 acres) and are located north of Interstate 85/40, east of Mt.
Willing Road, and west of the Interstate 85/US Highway 70 Connector.
The Orange County Planning Board reviewed the application at its November 4,
2020 regular meeting and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
application. Agenda materials for this meeting can be viewed at:
http://orangecountync.gov/AgendaCenter/Planning-Board-26
Information on the project is also available at:
https://www.orangecountync.gov/1722/Current-Interest-Projects
Substantial changes in items presented at the public hearing may be made following the
receipt of comments made at the public hearing. In accordance with Session Law
2020-3 (Senate Bill 704), Section 4.31(a), which pertains 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 and the Board of County
Commissioners may not make a decision on public hearing items until after the 24-hour
period for written comments has concluded.
The full text of the public hearing items may be obtained no later than December 11,
2020 on the County's website: https://www.orangecountync.gov/1707/BOCC-Agendas
Information will also be available from the Orange County Planning Department (contact
information below) no later than December 4, 2020.
Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning
Department via phone at (919) 245-2575 during normal office hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m., Monday through Friday). You may also e-mail questions to
planningdept@orangecountync.gov. Written comments to the Board of County
Commissioners can be sent via e-mail to ocbocc@orangecountync.gov. Written
comments can also be dropped off at the Planning Department offices at 131 W.
Margaret Lane, 2nd floor, Hillsborough, NC during normal office hours or mailed to the
Planning Department at P.O. Box 8181, Hillsborough, NC 27278.
PUBLISH: The Herald Sun News of Orange
December 2, 2020 December 2, 2020
December 9, 2020 December 9, 2020
2
178
Attachment 8
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 Township Owner of Current Zoning District Proposed Zoning District
Identification Record
Number
(PIN)
9854-16-1576 Cheeks SL Efland Office Research Master Plan Development
Heirs LLC Manufacturing (O/RM); Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ)
Upper Eno Protected Efland Station;
Watershed Protection Upper Eno Protected
Overlay District ; Watershed Protection Overlay
Efland Interstate Overlay District ;
District; and Efland Interstate Overlay
Major Transportation District; and
Corridor (MTC) Overlay Major Transportation Corridor
District (MTC) Overlay District.
9854-36-3711 Cheeks Chad Lloyd Office Research Master Plan Development
Land Manufacturing (O/RM); Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ)
Investment Upper Eno Protected Efland Station;
Company Watershed Protection Upper Eno Protected
LLC Overlay District ; Watershed Protection Overlay
Efland Interstate Overlay District ;
District; and Efland Interstate Overlay
Major Transportation District; and
Corridor (MTC) Overlay Major Transportation Corridor
District (MTC) Overlay District.
The Board of County Commissioners 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
179
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).
180
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 Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts this Statement of Consistency and
findings expressed herein.
Rene Price, Chair Date
181
Attachment 9
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:
182
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, including traffic impact analyses, 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 application 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, OAWS, 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;
183
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).
184
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(s) 1 and 5: 40 ft.
ii. Development Area(s) 2 and 3: No structure shall exceed 5 stories
or 60 ft. in height;
iii. Development Area 4: No structure shall exceed 6 stories or 72 ft.
in height. This shall be limited to the proposed Short-Term Rental
Non-host occupied land use.
iv. Development Area 6: 40 ft.
There shall be an allowance of an additional 10 ft. of building height to
accommodate telecommunication equipment, utility infrastructure
including elevator housing, and alternative energy devices.
185
Measurement shall be taken from finished grade at the center point of the
front building fagade.
mmasure to
nw*wAy point
between ridge
measure to and eaves measure+o
hlghni poini fir` '-deck tine
of coping
Fla!road Hid roof Ga'7tea#roof fined Mal Men9�rd bulldu9 hewghr
rgod
mebasured from AnIsmd
grade at wnterpointof
iranl building igude
NOTE: drawing for illustrative purposes only. Determination of height shall be consistent
with applicable County land use regulations, the various conditions herein, and shall be
determined prior to site plan approval.
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 Vehicular Use Areas: Signage:
Building/Structures:
Interstate 85/40 100 ft. including any gas 40 ft. consistent with the 10 ft. 3
right-of-way station canopy or fuel proposed MTC buffer
pump. break denoted on the
approved Master
Concept Plan 2
US Highway 40 ft. 4 40 ft. 3 10 ft. 5
70/Interstate
Connector
Road right-of-
way
1 The applicant is requesting language be modified to indicate water tower height shall be based on utility service
needs rather than an arbitrary height limit.
z Staff is comfortable with the proposed vehicular use area setback 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.
3 Staff will be recommending a minimum 25 ft.setback for signage erected adjacent to an Interstate right-of-way.
4 Staff is recommending 50 ft.
5 Staff is recommending a minimum 20 ft.setback for signage erected adjacent to the road right-of-way.
186
Mt. Willing 40 ft. 6 40 ft. 5 10 ft.
Road right-of- 100 ft. from
way residential land
uses.7
External 40 ft. 8 40 ft. 9
Property Lines
Development 10 ft.10 10 ft.11 5 ft. from private
Area 1 - Internal right-of-way
setbacks 10 ft. from public
right-of-way 12
Other 20 ft. 20 ft. 5 ft. from private
Development right-of-way 13
Areas - Internal
setbacks
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:14
a. Internal streets shall be privately maintained;
e Staff is recommending 50 ft.
'Staff is seeking confirmation from the applicant this includes 100 ft.from residentially zoned property west of Mt.
Willing Road.
8 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.
s Staff is recommending 50 ft.
10 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.
11 IBID.
12 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.
13 Staff is recommending a 10 ft.setback.
14 As detailed in the December 15, 2020 staff abstract,staff has recommendations)on the imposition of additional
conditions for access drives off of the Interstate on/off ramp as well as westbound Exit 160.
187
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;
Cl. 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;15
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 exits for pedestrian, construction vehicle, and
non-construction vehicular traffic shall be developed to avoid conflict
during construction activities for internal roadways;
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. Outside of Development Area 6, there shall be a maximum of 2 bus
stops serving the Project. Location of these stops shall be
determined with each site plan submittal;
ii. Each transit stop shall be a covered and enclosed on 3 sides to
shield users from the elements,
ss 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.
188
iii. Kiosks shall be developed to provide transit information, including
schedule and route information, and shall be illuminated to five (5)
average maintained foot-candles.
I. Traffic directional signage shall be required for all internal and external
roadway as directed by Orange County and the North Carolina
Department of Transportation including but not limited to:
i. Stop signs,
ii. Yield signs,
iii. Bus parking and unloading informational signs
iv. Lane ends,
v. Merge signs,
vi. Caution Pedestrian Traffic — Yield Signs,
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. The applicant bears no responsibility
for the development of Area 6.
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.
189
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.
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.
190
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.
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 LIDO, 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
191
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;
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. Sloped 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.
192
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;
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:
193
i. All required landscaping shall be installed and maintained by the
developer or their successor in perpetuity;
ii. Existing vegetation shall be preserved, where possible, 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;
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 (denoted Planting(s) — per 100 linear ft.
on Master Concept
Plat
10' or 20' Type A • 1 Deciduous Canopy Tree
Mixed Option . Deciduous Understory Tree
• 2 Evergreen Understory Trees
• 13 Shrubs
40' Type C . 7 Deciduous Understory
Overhead Utility Trees
Option • 5 Evergreen Understory
Trees
• 30 Shrubs
40' Type C . 3 Deciduous Canopy Trees
Mixed Option • 1 Evergreen Canopy Tree
• 2 Deciduous Understory Trees
• 5 Evergreen Understory Trees
• 40 Shrubs
40' Type B . 2 Deciduous Canopy Trees
Deciduous Option • 2 Deciduous Understory Trees
• 12 Shrubs
Enhanced • 6 Deciduous Canopy Trees
40' Type D • 1 Evergreen Canopy Tree
• 4 Deciduous Understory Trees
Mixed Option . 9 Evergreen Understory Trees
• 70 Shrubs
• 6 ft. tall fence erected at the
194
edge of landscaping
100' Type F 10 Deciduous Canopy Trees
Deciduous Option 13 Deciduous Understory Trees
80 Shrubs
200' Type F 10 Deciduous Canopy Trees
Deciduous Option 13 Deciduous Understory Trees
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 1'/2 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. 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;
195
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;
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; 16
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. 17
ix. Rainwater harvesting shall be encouraged to serve as irrigation for
landscaping including the use of all regional stormwater ponds
developed within the Project.
16 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.
17 IBID.
196
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:
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
197
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.
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:
18 Staff has heard concerns from BOCC members the sign height is too high. Staff is asking for direction on
appropriate height and size for the Project.
198
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:
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 fagade
surfaces.
b. Single-tenant Building:
i. One wall sign per building fagade;
ii. Allowable sign area shall not exceed 1
square foot of sign area per 1 foot of
building length of each fagade up to a
maximum size limit of 64 square feet;
iii. No sign may cover two different fagade
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
199
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;
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.19
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 Ibs per acre per year and 0.33 Ibs 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.
I. Flood regulations: The Project shall comply with the provisions of Section
6.21 of the UDO. 20
19 As detailed in the December 15, 2020 staff abstract,staff has recommendation(s)on the imposition of additional
conditions associated with stormwater management.
2°At this time there are no identified floodplains on the Property.
200
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 60 gas
dispensers with a maximum of 120 fueling stations.21122
2. Retail and Eating and Drinking Establishment uses subject
to the following conditions:
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.
21 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.
22 The applicant will be providing a schematic for inclusion within the conditions detailing what a fueling station
will look like.
201
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. With the exception of Development Area 1 (Travel Center), Area 4 (Short-
term Rental Non-Host Occupied), and Area 6 land uses/building square
footage allotments can be transferred between development areas 2, 3,
and 5.
c. Prohibited Uses:
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;23
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;
2s This condition means the only Motor Vehicle Service land use(i.e.gas station)developed within the Project shall
be in Development Area 1.
202
3. Seafood Preparation, Packaging and Distribution;
4. Starch, Vegetable Fats and Oils Manufacturing;
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.
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;
203
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
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 ) 2021.
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 , 2021 as relates in
any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the
minutes of the said Board.
204
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of
12021.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners