Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-16-2008 - 6cORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: September 16, 2008 Action AgenAda Item No. - SUBJECT: Buckhorn Village PD/SUP (Rezoning/Special Use Permit) Review DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): PLEASE BRING FROM JUNE 3, 2008 BOCC MEETING: (Updated with Section F) • 3" White or Black Notebook with Blue Cover "Attachment 5 Outline of Rezoning..." 1" White or Black Notebook "Booklet of Attachments" ATTACHED HEREWITH: A. List of Various Documents Outlining All Information Contained within the Record (UNDER SEPARATE COVER) 7. Rezoning Ordinance Requirements and Proposed Design Solutions, Recommendation Table (Same as September 2 except with New Column Noting Draft Administration Recommendation) 2. Statement of Consistency 3. (a) Resolution of Rezoning Approval (b) Conditions of Approval (COA) ~lnterim Note: Shading System Agreement is Pending] (c) Special Use Permit (SUP) Findings of Fact (d) Letter from Developer Indicating Agreement with Recommended Conditions of Approval Pending] INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Benedict, 245-2592 Michael D. Harvey, 245-2607 4. Statement of Inconsistency 5. Resolution of Rezoning Denial 6. Memorandum from Craig Benedict on Planned Development Review Process PURPOSE: To review the application(s) for a rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit for the Buckhorn Village Planned Development (hereafter `BVPD') submitted by Buckhorn Road Associates LLC on December 22, 2007. 2 BACKGROUND: On February 25, 2008 and April 1, 2008 the BOCC and the Planning Board held a Joint Public Hearing to review BVPD Planned Development (hereafter `PD') Rezoning Application and Class A Special Use Permit (hereafter `SUP') proposing the development of an approximately 1.14 million square foot retail development with a minor residential component on 138 acres of properly located within the I-85/Buckhorn Road Economic Development District (hereafter `EDD'). The development is proposed to meet detailed LEED standards as noted within the record. This property is located near the southeast corner of the I-85 Buckhorn Road intersection. On September 2 the Board of County Commissioners received the record/evidence and recommendations for the project from the Zoning Officer and Planning Board and closed the public hearing. Within the I-85/Buckhorn Road EDD certain uses are permitted by right and other uses .are permitted with the processing of a PD rezoning application, which also includes a companion SUP. As an example, a retail enclosed mall is permitted by right within the EDD district but multi-building retail establishments (which is the case with the Buckhorn Village application) require a PD/SUP to illustrate the "preliminary development concept plan" [Zoning Ordinance 7.5.1.(c)] or master plan for the arrangement of uses, traffic and pedestrian systems, utilities, open space, and unified control of common elements. Please refer to Attachment Six for a more detailed breakdown. The application is reviewed in accordance with the standards and requirements outlined within the County Zoning Ordinance: ® Article Seven (7) Planned Developments • Article Eight (8) Special Use Permits • Section 6.29 Development Standards for Economic Development (ED) Districts (i.e. the Economic Development District Design Manual), and • Article Twenty (20) Zoning Amendments Attachment One is organized to correlate the requirements of the above referenced Zoning ordinance requirements and the compliance of the application components with the various standards. Since the application includes both a legislative rezoning component, as well as a quasi judicial SUP component, all of the information submitted (application and attachments), public hearing(s) comments, sworn testimony (SUP), comments (rezoning), responses, and minutes are organized within a large 3" white binder with blue cover distributed for the June 3 Board of County Commissioners meeting. This document has also been amended to include Planning Board, staff, consultant, and applicant activity subsequent to that meeting. As further background regarding the sequence of review, the following activities are summarized. May 21, 2008 Planning Board Special Meeting; Motion of the Board: `The Planning Board recommends that the Board of Commissioners postpone action on application until revised plans and additional information are submitted by the applicant in accordance with these recommendations, and further recommends that the planning staff and Planning Board be given adequate time and opportunity to complete necessary analysis and develop additional recommendations.' • June 3, 2008 Board of County Commissioners Regular Meeting: (Paraphrased) `Allow more time for review by the Planning Board and Economic Development Commission and continue Public Hearing for written record to September 2, 2008' • June 4, 2008 Planning Board Regular Meeting: Discussed with Planning Board what addition information and analysis was being requested to address their motion of May 21, 2008. The post June 3 addition to the 3" White Comments and Evidence Booklet is Section F which addresses 14 or more specific reports requested by the Planning Board. The reports are indexed F1, F2, etc. These reports and previous reports from Sections A, (2125108 public hearing notes and responses) B, (411/08 Public Hearing notes and responses) C, D are cross-referenced to specific questions and/or requirements of the zoning ordinance. These reports were submitted and/or discussed by the Planning Board on July 9 & 23 and August 6 &13. REVIEW PROCESS: A PD/SUP project is processed in a combined 2-part process. With these types of projects the BOCC will be required to: (Timeframe): Review and deliberate on September 16, 2008. Take action on October 7, 2008: 1. Rezoning request to rezone the identified properties: Frorn: 1-85/Buckhorn Road Economic Development (ED) District and/or Rural Residential One (R-1) To: Buckhorn Village Planned Development Economic Development District (BVPD-ED). Action on approving or denying the rezoning application is considered to be a Legislative decision made in accordance with the provisions of Articles Seven (7) and Twenty (20) of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. If the application to rezone the properties is approved, the BOCC will then take action on the PD/SUP application proposing the development of the property as a master planned mixed-use commercial site. Action on approving or denying the PD/SUP application is considered to be a Quasi- judicial decision made in accordance with the provisions of Article Eight (8) with reference back to Article Seven (7) of the Zoning Ordinance. This includes conditions of approval noted in Attachment Three B (3B) and findings of fact for the SUP component noted in Attachment Three C (3C). In reviewing the necessary process for the BOCC to review and take action on this project with the Attorney's office, staff has been informed of the following: 4 1. The Board must adopt a Statement of Consistency, as required under NCGS 153A-341, indicating whether or not the project is deemed to be consistent with adopted plans (i.e. Comprehensive Plan, Small Area Plans, etc) prior to taking any other action. Staff and the Attorney's office developed these statements for your use. The statement indicating that the project is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan is contained within Attachment Two. The statement indicating that the project is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in contained in Attachment Four. 2. Once this statement is adopted, the BOCC can continue to deliberate on the project and adopt the requisite Resolution of Rezoning Approval, provided in Attachment Three A (3A); and the SUP Findings of Fact, provided in Attachment Three C (3C) or adopt the Resolution of Rezoning Denial, provided in Attachment Four (4), as appropriate based on the decision concerning the Statement of Consistency. ZONING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION(S): The Zoning Officer's comments and recommendations are detailed within Attachment One (1) of this abstract and detailed within the official record created. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Board recommends that the Board accept their findings and recommendations concerning this project as detailed within Attachment One (1) of this abstract and as detailed within the ofFcial record. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The review of this project is handled by existing County planning staff with participation by other departments and agencies through the development of advisory group. In addition, the Sanford Holshouser Business Development Group conducted an Economic Impact Analysis on the Buckhorn Village project. See 3" White Booklet, Section E.3 amended, pages 225-260. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION(S): The Administration recommends that the BOCG: Ask questions of staff concerning any and all .relevant elements of this application, 2.a. Review the recommended conditions of approval and 2.b. Review the developer's comments and/or agreement concerning same, 3. Schedule action on the rezoning and SUP applications for October 7, 2008 consistent with the Board's review of numbers 1, 2a, and 2b detailed above. VARIOUS DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO BUCKHORN VILLAGE PD REZONING AND SUP ATTACHMENT #A This Attachment identifies all of the documents, reports, and resolutions that the BOCC has received concerning the review of the Buckhorn Village Planned Development project. Please note that early versions of ordinance requirements, conditions of approval and SUP findings were developed throughout the process from February 2008 until now. The most recent versions are applicable. 1. Buckhorn Village Original Application (1 '/2 "White Notebook titled "Buckhorn Village Economic Development Planned Development" received mid Feb. 2008) a. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) by Arcadis (appendix D of original application) 2. Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Draft by Arcadis dated July 2008 (plastic comb binding -received September 2, 2008 BOCC meeting) 3. 1" White or Black Notebook "Booklet of Attachments for Buckhorn Village PD/SUP - June 3, 2008 Agenda Item 5.b." Please note that Attachment 5 in the 1" White Notebook was the 3" notebook entitled "Outline of Rezoning Comments and SUP Evidence Including Specifically Noted Material". 4. 3" White or Black Notebook with Blue Cover "Attachment 5 Outline of Rezoning Comments and SUP Evidence Including Specifically Noted Material" (received June 3, 2008) The first part of this notebook includes the Table of Contents with specific page numbers (received on September 2, 2008). Sections A, B, C, D, and E were. received June 3, 2008 which includes: Section A -February 25, 2008 Quarterly Public Hearing and Responses Section B -April 1, 2008 Continued Quarterly Public Hearing and Responses Section C -Written Comments from Various Sources Section D -Staff Comments Section E -Additional Comments/Material Section F -Response to Requests for Information from Planning Board Members at various Planning Board Meetings, specifically June 4, 2008 (received by BOCC September 2, 2008) This is an important section that provides 14 staff reports addressing Planning Board concerns from May 2008. PLEASE NOTE: Entered into evidence by reference: • This abstract as well as the attachments from September 16, 2008 • Orange County Economic Development Districts Design Manual • Orange County Zoning Ordinance ATTACHIVVII;NT ONE (1) -REZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS RECOMl~~NDATION TABLE REZONING: The processing of a rezoning request is in accordance with the provisions of Article Twenty (20) Amendments of the Zoning Ordinance (hereafter `Ordinance'). As part of the review of this request, the Zoning Officer is required to cause an analysis to be made of the application, and based upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration of the request for review by the Planning Board (hereafter `Board') and Board of County Commissioners (hereafter `BOCC'). Additionally both the Ordinance and North Carolina General Statutes, specifically 153A-341, requires that the review of any and all Zoning Atlas and/or Text amendments include written comments and recommendations on the consistency of the proposed amendment with an adopted Comprehensive Plan and any other relevant plans (i.e. Small Area Plan, a corridor plan, a transportation plan, etc.) that have been adopted by the governing board. Prior to adopting or rejecting any rezoning request, the BOCC is required to adopt a statement describing whether its action is consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan and explaining why the board considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest. The following chart details: 1. The Zoning Ordinance requirement concerning a rezoning request, 2. Staff's recommendation concerning the appropriateness of the application and its consistency with the various provisions of the Ordinance, 3. The Planning Board's recommendation, and 4. The Administrations' recommendations/comments concerning the approval of this project. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE SHADED AREAS INDICATES CONCURRENCE OF REFERENCED PARTIES (i.e. STAFF, PLANNING BOARD, ETC.) ORDINANCE EQUIltEMENT: iNANCF~ RW,t)(1 6 ZONING OFFICER PLANNING BOARD ADMINISTRATION REC011~IlVIENDATION: RECOMII~NDATION: RECOMIlVIENDATION: MENT: Section 20.2 ,~1mcndment Initiation: Subject to the ~llnltatlOns of the fi~rcgoing Slatemenl oC Intent. an amendment to this ordinance ma~~ be initialed bv: (a) The Board of Count}~ C;onunissi~~ners, (h) The Planning l3oaril, Vic) .Application, b~~ anv person ~>r agency. Section 20.2: Amendment Initiation Sta}~~ recammendcd approval as detailed by the evidence and testimony ol~ered by the IoninL {~1~iicer as noted ivithinihe fir11 application, f_hc 3 ``, and I '` notebooks provided to f]le I3o~u~d. At their R7av Z1. ?{l{)8 Special meeting, the. L3o~ud voted unanirnoush~ to accept ~stafPs recbmincnd<liion and finding Adrninisir<ition recommcrtds that the I30CC make ~n~ affirmative t3nding on ibis item. ORDINANCE ZONING OFFICER PLANNING BOARD ADNIIl~TISTRATION REQUIltEMENT: RECOMNN~NDATION: RECOM1VVl)rNDATION: RECONIIVIENDATION: - - _ - ..~ ()RDINA;IVCE R>EaQIJ1RFIIVIENTi 5ccti~-n 20.3.lApptication Snhniii4ed #o Zoning;Officer: All ap~~licaiions fr~r arncndments to this ordinance shall he in ~rz-itinb, si~~ cd and filed, t4vo copies with the Zoning O(laccr and one copy «~ith the C'otntiy T~~t;tnagcr i~or presentation to the:Board~ofCounty Co_mmissianers. (ForPlanned I~evclopmeni amendments sec Article 7; [br Special l?se Permits sec Article S). "Cite toning Officer shall, before accepting an}~ arnendrnent application, ensure ittat it contains all required information, as specified in this ordinance. Applications ~<fiich arc not complete- or o(hcrivisc do not comply ti~iththe provisionsof this ~trdinance; shall not he accepted. by the Zoning Ofiiccr, but shall be returned try the applicant, with a notationby the' Zoning Officer of the dcf icicncics in the a~plication- Section 20.3.1: Stair recommended approval` ~°lt their R'Iay 21, 2Q08 Administration recommends. .Application sul-mitfcd as detailed b~~ tIrc evidence Special meeting, the Board that the BOCC make an tar ~€-r:iiQrg; (~61fuc~ r: and testimom~ oi~lercd h~= the voted unanimously to a~a~-aaeattive h7nding ,on this'. Zoning Officer as noted! accept staff's item. within the full application, the rcconm~cndation and 3 `. and 1 nolchooks tindin~~ provided to flte I~o~u~d. ORI11NAi~CI? RF;QUIRT.bIEi'V'I. Serteon 20.3.2 f'onients of,4ppGcatiion: ,~lpplirttions for amendments to t_heLoning .Allan and/or Zoning Ordinance teat, without limiting the right to file additional material. shall contain at least the Inllowin<~: ___ -- (a) Pbr amendments to Stsi~' rce~~mmended approval At their I~lati 27, 2008 Administration ' recommends' the Zoning Atlas. a as detailed by the c~idence Specie( mcctin`;, .the Board that the BOCC snake an ('ulhr dimensioned and testimony ol~icrcd h}~ the v~tcd unanimolslS to :effirmatiive finding bn this Wrap at a scale of not Zcznin~ Office-r as rioted' accept ~;taff's item. ies5 than one within the full application, the' recommendation and hundred (I OOj feet. to ~ and l '` notchnaks~ findin~~ the inch shoe°ing the provided t~- the l3nard. land which ~~ould be covered by the proposed Zoning .Atlas a.mcndment, and a le~ai description. of the l~u~d 0 O] RED (b) I: o~ th c. On col tc am wr~ de< pry (c) "I'h the Ell 1( (1r. wh cot pry dill (d) "I'h ch; in Co to tc~ nc~ el "hh the At rec ou fIu aih t-~~. t'1< tDINANCE ZONING OFFICER PLANNING BOARD ADMINISTRATION UIltEMENT: RECOMMENDATION: RECOMIVIENDATION: RECOMMENDATION: amendments to State recommended approval llt 1lreir Mav 2L ?008 Administration ' recommends Toning as detailed by the evidence Special rnccting, the Board that the BOCC make a finance, test, a and testimony oPficrcd by the voted unanimously to finding .that this item` is not.'. ~~ of thi; esisting /c~nin`~ t=)flicer as noted accept staff's applicable to this project. proposed for within the. lull application. the- rcconunendation quid ~ndmcnt and a 3 `, and 1 `~ notcbnoks fmding teen statement. provided to the P3oard. cribing the posed changes ~:rllcgcd error in 5[aff reeolumended approval At their .May 2l, 2008 Administration,. recommends'. /Doing Atlas ns detaiicd by the cvidcnce, Special mecting,_the Board that the BQCC make a tor. 7.oniut~ and testimony o1lcred by the Voted unanimously 'to bodingthat this item is not finance test Toning t )fiicer as noted' accept siaif's apPliea~ble to this project ich would be within the fu11 application, the, recotrmlcndation and rectcd by the _~ and J '` notebooks ~ findim~ posed provided to the Bi)ard. ~ndmcnt changed or Staff recommended approval At their-IV1ay ,21, 2008 Administration.reeommcnds uginz conditions as detailed l:,v the evidence Special Illeeting, he Board that the B(JCC make a the area br in the and testimony oi7crcd by the voted unanimously to finding that this item is note snty making the I,oninp t)Pficer as noted accept staff's appliealbletothisprojeet lln~i atlas aI]d~Or w'tthm the lull appllCatlon_ tht? reel)ulmendatlOrl alld I_ BInCIldlllC"nt 3 `~, and 1 ~ notebooks findnlg ~essarv_ provided to the t3oard. manner in which. 5tal~f reconuncnded approti'al At their .May 21, 2008 Administration recommends proposed Coning as detailed by the evidence Special meeting, the Board that the BOCC make an as amendment. and testimony offered h~ the voted unanimously 'to affirmative Ending on this asst 1vi]I `cam- Lonin~~~ ~)t{iccr as noted accept stall's item. the intent and within the :Poll application, the reconluleudation and pose of the. 3 and l notebooks finclin~ opted provided to the Board. mprehensivc n, or part thereof ORDINANC REQUIl2EME f) ~~'1 trrf7ic. titlld~ ati regL ~lrtiele `I'hirtc g? ;`lll a41cr circumsttrncc .factors, wul n that the appli~ of[ers,lustii~ i '~ request. 'E NT: ZONING OFFICER RECONIlVII;NDATION: PLANNING BOARD RECOMIVIENDATION: ___ ADMINISTRATION RECOA~IlVIENDATION: impact StatT r~cornrnendcd appre~~ al ~ ~'~t t.hcir IVla~ 21, 2008 Administration recatnlnends ircd by as detailed b}~ Cfrc, evidence Special mcetin~, the Board that ttic BOCC make an' n (1 ~) and lcstimonv oflc red by t]re toted uuaniinously to af~rte~ative finding an this I,oninp l)ifccr as noted acccpi Staff's item. ~s-ithin the lull application, the. recommendation and 3 =` and 1 `- notcbook~~` findin<< provided to tire. Board. Stair reronuncndcd approval 11t fheir May 21, 2008 Administration recommends as dct~~ilcd hi the c.°idcncc Special mc~ting;the Board that the BOCC make an ~asons and testinurny ofle.red by the noted unanimously to aff°irnaativc finding on the giant 7onin~ UfTicer as noted acccpi staff's item. n~~ the within the Rill application, the' recomrncndation and ", , and 1 notebooks findin~i provided to the 13i~ard. In completing a review of the rezoning portion of this application, and as this is a Planned Development rezoning request, staff is required to make a recommendation on the appropriateness of the request based on criteria outlined within Section Article Seven (7) Planned Development, specifically Section 7.5.4 Zoning Officer's Recommendations, reading as follows: (a) As to the suitability of the proposals for the general type of PD category, the physical characteristics of the Zand, and relation of the proposed development to surrounding areas and existing and probable future development; (b) As to relation to major roads and mass transit facilities, utilities and other facilities and services; (c) As to the adequacy of evidence on unified control and the suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, deed restrictions, sureties, dedications, contributions, guarantees, or other instruments, or the need for such instruments, or for amendments in those proposed; (d) As to the suitability of plans proposed or the desirability of amendments; (e) As to the adherence to PD or general regulations or as to desirable specific modifications in PD or general regulations as applied to the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are necessary or justified in the particular case by demonstration that the public purposes of PD or other regulations would be met to at least an equivalent degree by such modifications. Subsections (d) and (e) address elements of the proposal that are connected with the review of the Special Use Permit portion of the application. As a result they will be outlined with that portion of this recommendation. ORDINANCE ZONING OFFICER PLANNING BOARD ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENT: RECOMiVVITiNDATION: RECONIlI~NDATION: RECOMMENDATION: ra t)RIIINAN('1?. RL,tD[lllll;, r'~s to the suitabilit~~ of the relation of ttie proposed dev MTN'C: Sectirrn ?.~.~ (a) proposals for the. pcneral lypc elopment to surrounding ~u~eas a ol~ PDcategory, thephysical nti e~i5tin!T ~i»d prohable future characteristics of the land, and development; (i). ns to the suilabilit~~ Sta ~t~ recommended approval lit their ~ati~ ~1 andAul,'ust Administrationrecommends of nc~ pmposaJs 1i>r as detailed by t6c c~~idcnce l3, 2008 meetings; tf~e that the BOCCmake an the ~cncrai t~~pc of and testimony ofiercd bti~ the B(r~rd unanimously to affirmative finding on this PD category Toning [ -fl'iccr as noted support staff's finding with ii~~nr. «ithin tltc full application, the. regard to, (i) ~ :~ and i ~~ note}~o~>~:~; provided is~ the Board. (ii) ~1s ts:~ the physical ~tafF rcconnnendcd apprc~yal 1\t their May 21 and 1~ugust Eldministration recommends characteristics of~thc as dciailc.d b~~ the cvirl~-nco 13, _2008 meetings, the that the BOCC make an land and tcstiulony;offered'by the" Board unanimously to affrm~tive finding on this Lonin~, Officer as noted support staff's finding with item. ~r~ithin the fill application, the regard to (ii) ~, 3 -- and I " notebooks; provided to the Iiaard. r~ (iii) I:clation of the proposed devcloPrncnt to surnn~ndin~~ arc;~s and c~is(ing and probable fnturc development Staff recommended approval as detailed by the evidence ~n~d tcsliutonv o1i~.rcd b5 Ilie lonin~~ C)1licer as noted within ~ihi: full application_ the and 1 nolchuc_,ks provided iu the Board. At their May 21_and August Administration rccnnimcnds 13, 2008 meetings the _ that tlrc I30CC rr~~ilce an Board voted Five (5) to : afdirmative linding on this Three (3) to recommend = it.cm basal on the following: denial based on tha ~~~ The v~rrious reports by following findings: Sta1f~ contained in The project is not consistent with other nearby existing development (existing residential areas) and goals and recommendations of the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan and The project does not involve the creation of a development with the range of uses (i.e. manufacturing and industrial) as anticipated- by the EDD Design Manual for the specified area, but involves primarily retail ~ trades, hotels and services altachmenis: D-1 Plannin<,_ in Cheeks To~~ nsliip: I?tlandf fVlcbanc _' Vicinit}'; SfaCf (pay=cs 136- 143} [?-13 l~alan~{-Mebane Snr<ill ; Area Plan Information (Staff'. Kcsponscs to c-mail inyrury sent by Pl,~rrnin~a, Baard men~tber A~lichelle Kempitrski on May `). 30l)~) ~Pa.~eti ~8I` 3h4) 1'-3 Buckhbrn Villa!~c Pnrjcct CoI1515tCnC1 ~ \i'1L1r Surrounding Devcloprncnt (pa~,es i l l -~ l Z j l'-7 13uckhorn 1'illa~~e Penltittt:d lJscs Comparison (pa~~es }37->~4} F-R Anal~:;is of Section ?.3 0l' the l)ran~~c County 7.onin<~ Ordinance Conccrnin<~ Intensity Changes (pa~cs Sti_S{;U) }'-10 l~lcmo from. IV'lichcllc Kcrnpinski lteg~n cline E3uckhorn Villa~~e Planned Development. Consistc>rcy with Board of County Curnmissioner;; L'l~rnrung Principles surd f?17and h~lebanc Small. Aria Plane iz ORDINANCE REQUIltCMENT: _... -- ()Ki?T',v:~NCF REt?><?TkE ZONING OFFICER RECOMN~NDATION: ENT: Section 7 ~.4{t,) YLAlV1VllVli I3VAIZU RECOMII~NDATION: AlllVlil~l l~J 11iLi 11V1r RECOMIVVI~CNDATION: ;'1s to rclaticin to major nxrdsand nrrss transit. i<reilities_ utilities and oilier frrcilities and services; ~i) Relation to major roads and mass tr<ursit facilities _ __ iii) Relation to utilitic~ and other facilities and scn~iccs Stain reconuncndcd -.:.approval as detailed b~ the cvidertr.e. and tes[i~nony ol7errd fey the 7,oning OI7 icer as noted wi[hirr the full application. the 3 ", and I notebook; provided to the Board. Stall reeomrncnded approval..) as detailed by the evidence and testin~rom~ offered by the boning Ofliccr as Hated within the .full application, the-'' 3 `' and 1 notebooks proeidcci io ihc. Board. At their May 21 and August 13, 2008 meetings the Board voted Five (5) to Three (3) to recommend denial based on the following fmdings: The transportation analysis fails to adequately address issues related to weekend travel patterns, issues related to County residents' travel to the project property, and insufficiently addresses issues that would arise in the event that NC 'DOT fails to fund necessary improvements in I-40 and Buckhorn Road At their May 21 and August 13, 2008 meetings the Board voted Seven (7) to Two (2) to recommend denial based on the following findings: There is insufficient information on how the demands of the project would affect future availability of water and sewer in the Ejland area and other nearby locales Administratir~n rccornrncnds chat the [3000 make <u~ affinnafivc findiri~~~ on this item based on the following. (I) "1'hc various repi~ris b staff contained in a.ttachmcnts: F- I 1'rmsportation Improvement ~1nal~sis ("TlA1 Update (pa~Tc~ 17?-49-1) I)-1 Plam~ing in Cheela Township: T?iland-TVtebanc;: Vicinity (pages 135-1.131 Administration rccomrncnds lhat the 13000` make an :2i#irmativc findin~~ ran this item based on the i~~llo~ti~ing: (1) `Ihc various reports by staff contained in att<~chmenis: T'-4 I3uckhorn l~:conomic. Development llisirict Utility Service-l1'ater/Sewer, 147,raer Planning and. Efland ,1rea ( i~~cs ti? 3-5~5) P~ .- I-10 Cite of ~titcbane Or~nrgc County Service A`~reemcnt f or I3 uckhom t: Ull Area (Pages 35y-3711} D-1 Plannin~.~ in Cheeks To~i~nship: Lfl~urd-,'~tcbauc Virinii~ (Pa<<cs 13R-143j 1'-10 It4emo from R~liehclle. Kcmpinski Kegarding 13uckhom Village Pianacil llevclopmcni Consistency ~4~ith Hoard of County, Ccrnurrissioncrs Planning Principles and F'.Iland-; Mebane Small Area Plan; Staff Respcurses (Pa!~,es ~ 1- X74) ~3 ORDINANCE ZONING OFFiCEK rLA1ViVllVC,~ 1ivAK1) Al)1V111V1a11(AllVl~ REQUIREMENT: RECOMI~~NDATION: RECOA~IlVIENDATION: RECOMIV~NDATION: ... ~.. .~ ()lrIITNANCE'RFQIJI77E~iFNT: Section 7.5.4 (c) ns f~~ the adequacy of evidence on unified c:antrnl ~nld the suitahilit.}' of any proposed a~rccment _ contracts, deed; restrictions. surciies; dedicatiims, contributions, ~uar~u~tecs, or other instruments. ar the need 1:or such instruments. or for amendn~cnts in those proposed __ ___ _ , _ _ _ _-r-_ Sta}Y~ recommended appro~<i] At their i~tav 21, 2OQ8 Section 7.5.4 (c) as detailed by the evidence Special mcetin~.. t_he {3oard and testimony offered bti~ t1~e voted unauimousl~~ fo /,oning Officer as noted accept staff`s ti~~ithin the lull application_ the m-ci~mmendation and ". and } ~ `- notcbook5 fin~lin17 provided to the. Board. . ORl)1NANCIJ R~(~UTRI:i'1!t;tNT: Section 7.5.4. (d) r1s to the sui}abilit~ of plans propc~scd or t}~c desirahil~it}' of amendments Administratio~i recommends that. fhe 13000 make an affirmative tindin~ on fhi5_ itcrn. l~~" Section 7.~.~ (d) Noted above Sta17~ recrxnmended apprrwal as detailed 1}r the evidence and testunom~ c~li~rrd by the lonin`,* ORicer as noted lyidTin the mull application_ the 3 and l `` notcbrloks provided to the 13r~~,rd. At their May 21 and August 13, 2008 meetings the Board voted Seven (7) to Two (2) to recommend denial based on the following findings: The project calls for the creation of retail and hotel jobs, but not the higher- income employment jobs anticipated by County plans, and The applicant and the County's consultant have submitted economic analysis that assumes sign cant sales tax and real property tax revenues would be generated by the proposed development, but this analysis is signijicantly flawed insofar as it fails adequately to assess costs of public services, and relies on inadequately justified assumptions about property tax values extrapolated from other locales Administration rcennlmcnds that tiTe ROCC make an afl3rmati~c ltndin~~ on this iteTn based ran the fbllo~~-ing: (1) `hhe various rcpor~s b~~- staff contained in attachments: I~,-1 ~l'ransportation Improvement 1nalysis ('1'L'1) Update (pa~~es ~~77-491) F-1 l~uckhorn 1-:conomic Dcvclopmcnt District Uiility_ Ser~~icc 1~'atcr~5c4~~er, Master- Planninu and Fifland rlrca 1;-10 C.it}~ oi~ ~9ebanc - Or;uT~~c; ~~DUnt}' ~CrVICC Af?CL'l'nll,)lt fbr 13uckhorn LDI~ Urea (pa~~cs 359-;7U) P.-lb Plannin~~ F3oard May 7 Buckhorn Villa~~c ~1~enda= Packa`~r (pa~~cs 7 ~t9-~ 16) 1:-~a.t'1).%Sl_~t' lnalvsis, ILcc-onuncndation and tacsi~m Solrltions: Stall (pa~~cs 2t~5- 336) t~-8 ~lnalvsis of Section 7.3 of~ tflc (3rln~~c County /onini< Ordinance Concernin~~ Intensity Cfrtn~~ev (pages ;ti~_ti6it) F-12 Kcsponsc iu 1Zcqucst from` }'lannin~ t3oard Chair Concernine Sian Sttuldards 1?-13 Letter from Applicant Cunccrnin!~ }'roposcd Revisirrn to Dcsi~rl Solutirm Two (pa~,~cs b0~-608} t~-14 Report 14 Concernin~~~' Rational Basis }or Select ~~~:` L'~istin~_ t; Dl) Pcrtin-mailcc' Dcsi~~,n Standards (pa{acs (i09-'- (i'0) ~~') Sl'C 1',CQIIOTIIII" l~cvelopmcnt Commission c+ldtlrscmcni letter of 13uckhorn Villa~~c and consistency widr the L?DC` St.rlfer~ic Plan. I=,-8 t~coooniic 1)evelopmcnl' Commission 13uckhorn" Vi11a<~c Gndorscmcnt Letter` (pages-.351-355) !5 ORDINANCE ZONING OFFICER REQUIREMENT: RECOMMENDATION: EDINAIVCE REQUIREINIFNT Section 7.5.4'-(c) PLA-~VNING BOARD ( ADMINISTRATION RECOM1ViENDATION: RECOA'IlVIENDATION: As t(~ the adherence to PD or rencral rc~~ulations Ur as t~ dcsirible specific modilicatlons in Y1) or general rc~~ulations as applied to the particular case. bascii on determination that such moditications are necessary nr justiiicd in the ptu-ticultu~ case by demonstration that the public purposes of PD or other sf NQ'I'E: 'Che applirtnt has proposed .fourteen (I~) Design Solutions scelhing to modify exisliug heneral regulations as they titi~ould apply solely to this project. Mach proposed Design Solution is outlined below ~i-ith the:; appropriate finding from all parties `~~~ DFSI(_~N SOLL1`I'ION ONP: Ati outlined on page f ittcen (1 ~) of~ the; application rcadin~~ as tollo~~ s: `The uphlicun( -~~ guests ii x~clir~~r %ra~~l ~S~.cliorz ?.~? nt'thc tsl)U Z)r~s~~n ~~funuul "1'hc applicant is re~ucsting the ability to allow for rnuhi-fanlily residential development within Districts 11 and 111 ol~ the project. Currcatly, nndii-lilmih~ residential land uses toe not. listed ~~-ithin the L'conomic L)c~~clupment Prinlarv (i;D-P) zoning district, ~~hich the subject property is currently Stair rcci~nurlendcd approval. as detailed b~~ the e ideuce Fn~d t~stim~~n~~ ofiirrc~hy the:: /,oning 0177cer as noted ~~°ithin the full application, the 3 "_ and. 1 '- notebooks' provided to the Board. - _ _ - __ _ _ The Planning Board Administrltion rca~mmends originally recommended ~ ihat the 13000' make an denial of this Design ~ afiirpnatirc i~ndl7~f, on t~Iis Solution at their May 21, Dcsi~~n Solution 2008 meeting by a Five (5) to Four (4) vote. .At ti~~rr i~u~ust 1 +, BOOR ~mceting, Board rnernberti! asked for a re-analysis ol~ ahis ilcnl due to rcriscd 'infnrmatiou concculint d~r.~ 'ability for these units to be~ supported by local- inGtretruc-tore (i.c. «~alel~'sc~~~er) and based on; clarilicatilui of sitili's' ori~~inal comments and rCL'OTIItnCnda17~1nS concerningihis item 7~hc Board voted T~ive (~) to: I~hrce (3) to recommcnd:~ appro~Tal o(' the Dcsi~~n! S.olutioz~ l~ ORDINANCE ZONING OFFICER REQUIItEMENT: RECONIlVIENDATION: DL:SI(~N SnLCJ'('IO~I Stah~ recornmcndcd approval 'r~~p: as detailed h~~ the evidence.. I'hc applicant had. and tcsfimon_y oflcrcd by the originally requested chat Ic~ni~i~~ (~f7iccr as noted the e~istin~~ comp~~site within the full application,ihe ratio methodsestablished 3 and 1 '` notchooic~ tivilhin the i:DD Design provided to the Board. I4]annal ho replaced ~~ith a `floor area ratio' and `tna~:imum building, hcit~ht' Nmitation to control land use intensity, spcciticall}r a rn~rxirnum moor area ratio of~ point 1ltirty (._~Oj and a maximum building height of six (6) stories. On aul}' 31. 2008 stafi~ received n Icifir Gom the developer indicating that 1he_~` «°ould like to ravisc the requested 1lesig^ Solution and request /hat they be allowed to adhere to a Site Volun~c }?atic~ of One (l} for the entire prpjcct ~r detailed witJ~in Section 2. Land I_~sc Jntcnsity of the }?,D}) Desifr^ Manual PLAJ\fNI.NG BOARD RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board originally voted to recommend denial of this Design Solution as it was originally proposed. ~urinp. their ;~t~gf~~t _l j, !200$ rncetin~~.. the Nlannin~, }3oard voted to re-evaluate:, the request based on the: applica~rt's proposed; .revision. l~he Board voted lut~~u~in~ously to recommend, appr©val of the revised'. Deign Solution as f~~llotivs: "1"!le Pzu~khrn~~t t'illa~~~~_ jPlarzned I)er~lopnr~°nt slur/]: adhej~a In rr cuanulalii~e ,Site! ~Traliurre .~ut1o t~/ One (I) fir= jth~ etrrire project. The` df~i~elo~~er is t~ec~ttit~ed ~o~ 'dtnn~ns~ra(c~ on all; srrliniittcd silo plai~~s~ the; ct~mukrlii~e tol~tl of huiklii~s~~; 'ri~ul la~zd.«xl~~e vohrnlE~' t~atin~s un~f cirtriirre lro~ti~ ouch inclii~idl~~r1 dercluPrtu?l~l 'pt•ojcc7 is cof~tj~h'In~r titi'ith, 'the uhcrall 'S'ite T~c~lr~nur~, I ~I~utiu ~tctnacirda o~ C}rte tl1 ADNia~1ISTKA 11U1V RECOMII~NDATION: 1ldministration ream~uncnds -~ that the }3C)C'C make an :-ffirn~ativc~ finding on the ' revised Design Solutiun~' requiring the developer to' adhere to a Site Volume Kano' o}~ One (1) for tl~c entire project and that. each site plan-~ subu~iticd proposing the. development of air approved. land use shall provide the neccssarti' data indicating... compliance with. this- standard. /~ ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: ZONING OFFICER RECOMIVLCNDATION: PLANNING BOARD RECOMIVIENDATION: ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: D1~blGN 501aJ'CION t,1-, StaFt reconmlendcd r ro~`at ~ ~, ~( their Ala 21, 2008 tration .recommends Adminis T1<iRH:E: as detailed b~ the evidence Special rneetiug,ithe Board that the~'~ BOCC make an~ and tes[inron~~ oCl'erud-,by the. voted Sit (b) to Three (3) to affirmative finding on the' r~s outlined on pa~c Inning (~t~icer as nosed-' recornrncnd approval of Design Solution allo~~ing fore '~, twcnt}~ (?Oj of the "ithin the mull application, the the proposed Design the modification of the application reading as 3 `~ <u~d 1 notchooks` Solution based on staff's maximum' slope factor when Pollrn~rs: prodded tothcBoard. finding and on the it eau be demonstrated that 1 ire opplicarrt following conditions: the request is necessary to regrse,,~ts° a rt~air•t°r f •om ' address issues associated with S'rrclrcl~t ?.:~ Staff furd~er reccrrnnreudcrl 1_That the'vGraiving of the avoiding uirnecessary grading T'jn~iron~~rc~ntul hactor~~ that a amdition be placed on grading ;requirement be orlaud disturbance. (~rrtdin~ rarrrll~°rosiort thee:- SUP indicating: that iLte; reviewed on a case by- C'orilrol Pla~ttirt~r p~_"p°sc`l uroditication only case basis in accordance ~trc~a ,S'Ir~pes r~~~ the ~ be allo«ed when the with staffs Isl>I~ li~.~ir;~r ,?4frt~ruul, applicant can demonstrate on recnmrncndation, and a site-specil is development.. ' l hat DENR best 2 I'he applicant. is plan the need. and benefits to . managenleut praaticesbe re~~ucsting the abilit~~ to on-site natural resources, , of applied to the grading .utilize a maxinnnn slope; ~ti-diving the requirement due establishment of ~~ re factor of 2:1 rather than to the fiollo~~°ing. - grass slopes '~ the listed nuryinnun sly>pc ... ol~~:l. 1.Steeper back slopes ~ti~ill raincc o~eral) site grading 11'illrin the request 4rc and disturbance, and applicant indicates that 1 ass site `.~raiiin~~ <ind ~ the c~istin~~ rrrcl~ of the . chst~rrbanc.e ~i~ill prctieil~c propert~~ would reiluire more land area in~rl present `unn~.cessar_y girding and natural condition.' increate the total iix>tprint of dishirbancc' if the. m~1?f1ITtUn1 :l Sloi)C Tdtro Sias adhered to. i 17re applicaut is rL"grICSting the ablhty to use a slope ratio of 2: l or flatter in alt effort to avi7id umieccssarv disturbance on the property and make use of the natural shape of the land ~ti°ith minimal grading. ' L /~ ORDINANCE REQUIItEMENT: 1)Fai(ti SOL1!"TION 1+'OUR: ~1s nuthned ou pa~.!e i~ti~enty (?0) 01~ the application rcadin~.~ as follo~~ s: `"L~u~ ~zp~~licu~tl requc~cls u ~ruirer ~ru~n ,tic>ction 2.4 11m~i~~~~n~t1t t11uT I~~ac7ors (,`ruclitr~r crrtd I?rn.cion L'nirtrol L)rivervrrv ~I~td ~1c.[;c's,c 1_h-i~~c~ ,S`lopc~s of 11re T1)1) De.~ i ~rt1 ~2arr t~ul ' I'hc applicant. is requesting the ahiht_y to utilize t~C' Di_)'T~ standards oC two percent (~"~%) ar '~;~' per root minimum and a t~i~el~rc percent. (~„30) m~>,~innim acccs~~drit'c slope tivhere necessary. The applicant ar~~ucs that with the c.~istin~~ slope standards of t« o percent (2` o) minimum and [it~c pC1'CCnt (~`%n) maymlmll tilt aCCL'SSidr11`e~4Yr~'S 1 cornmon_ there will be need for additional (7c~ibility t;i~ren the number of connections proposed ti~i[h this 1 dCy'elopnlCni. ZONING OFFICER PLA~NN]avG BOARD RECOMIV.~NDATION: RECOMII~NDATION: ADMINISTRATION RECONIlVIENDATION: Stall recommended approval, At their 11-lay Z1, 200$ Administration recommends as detailed h} the c~ idence Special n~ecting, the Board that the BOCC make am and icstim~mti~ oClcred by the voted Eigfif(8} toOne`(1} affirmative finding 'on flte lc~nin~.; (~fiiccr as noted: to recommend approval of Design Solulion allowing for.. ~~ithin the Cull application, lhe'~~ the proposed Design the modification '_ for. 3 and 1 ~` notebooks Solution based on staff's accessldrive way slopes in prodded to the Board- finding and on the cases where it can be following conditions: demonstrated on a site ` specific 'development plan. Staff further recornmcnded 1.That thewaivirig of the that-the'additianal slope. is that a condition be placed on ' requirement be reviewed necessary to comply with NC the SUP indiaiting that the on a case-by-case basis DOT requirements. proposed mirditicaiion i,nly in accordance with be allowed ~' ~~~hen the:'. ;t'aff y recommendation, applicant c;an demorastratc on, a site-specific development pl~u~ the need, and hc;nefits, of a[lowin~~ 1br t.hc twelve' percent (1;2°fo~ slope. Further;; staff recommended that this modifcation be allowed only in instances where compliance «~ith 1~1G DOT requirements «as necessary. ~ _ - ~_ - ~~ ORDINANCI REQUIl2EMEP FIV L: As ouilutcd on t«~en1~~-seven (27) application rcadii follows: ` 7 h~ crppl icafrl rc t7 li'Qll'('I' ~POl/1 ~~ 3.T .irchztc~~turcrl I3uildirtg S`~~ihcrr I]ei~~~ht r~~ the Dc~,~~i,~n ,l.fatrzeal u rrgTCU•c~d ern rl (~ ~Irirc~IraP s~~thack' "hhc _ applicant rcques(ing the modily the c seibacl: and b hci~hl lirnil~~tion io~ternal propert} for the 13uckhorn project to allow for 1. A front, side ru~>1- yard selli~ frcustandin buildin~~s strnctures of t~ feet versus t five (25? feet, 2 A setback for shops and hu of one (1 j li front and setbacks and (0) side setback, 3. ~~ ~.cro (D setback for hr ad~accnt to vc use areas, areati_ and sigi fT: ZONING OFFICER RECO~~IlVIENDATION: PLANNING BOARD RECOM1ViENDATION: __ AD1V)CIlVISTI2ATION RECOMLI~NDATION: PION Stale recornrncnded approval= At their May 21, 200 Administration recommends as detailed h} the cvidatce Special meeting, 'the Board .that the SOCC make an. pa~c and tcstimom~ ol~fcred Iry the' voted. Severe (7) toTwo(2) nflfirmative finding on the of~ the I_,oninr i~fficcr as --noted to recommend approval'of DesignSolution allowing for g as ~tiithinthr full application,the_' the proposed Design the modification of'setback ", and 1 ~` notebooks Solution based on staffs requirements ~ only- in ytrc:.cts provided to the Board. finding and 'on the situations where the 'rctiun following conditions: developer can demonstrate )~ sign Statl~ liirther recorrunended 1.The modification shall on a site-speciCc ,s ,~7z,/ only be' allowed when development plan that the /~;1)]~ that a condition he placed on ' the applicant can proposed buildings- swill be ~`i t{z~~ the SI7P indicating that the .demonstrate on a site- -able tobe accessed by local ~ ~~r,t proposed modification ~Inly speciCie development emergency responders be al lon ed ~ti hen the ~ ' plan that the ,proposed including free, EMS and is applicant. can- detnonstraic on buildings will be able to police to address a public },i}ij`: a site-specifc de~~elopment" be accessed 'by local safety issues iistin~* plan that the proposed buildin~~s ~~ill be ~ihle to be emergency responders Iildinr including fire,~MS and . for accessed by Local c~nergency~ ' '' ~ ' police to address a lines ire EMS, l responders (i.e. ublic safe .issue _in p ~' i}~~~~~~; Pobcc, clc) to address a keeping ; with staff public salctt' issue. rcconimcndatioris aIld '} hetie plans 1vl~l ~la~~C to ick Poe den~onstratc compliance with: any and alI applicable State and l3uildin~ andlor FireCodes ~n (l [1) and meet all applicable' ~~~cnty- County and City of'Mebane> rc~~ulator~~ standards' fore- Tn-11110 clllergency Vehicle aTld ildin~s E~cdestrivl access. col f'or rear a zero yard line Ildlnf!S ~7I Cll l ar ;tora~e is. L - __ ~a ORDINANCE REQUIltEMENT: ZONING OFFICER RECOMIVZENDATION: PLANNIlVG BOARD RECOMM7ENDATION: ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Stafi• recommc.ndcd appro~•al' At their May 21, 2008 Administration recommends DFSiGN SOLU'l'IOio1 as detailed h}~ nc~ e~~idence Special meeting, the Board that the BOCC make air SIX: and tcs~imonv oficrud _by the (1) voted: IJight,(8) to One affirmatYVe finding on the As outlined on page thiily Icuiing f~fiicer as nosed _ to recommend ap~rnval of Design Solution alloi~ing for (30) of lhe. application ~~ithin the 1•ull application,ihe' the proposed ~ Design the modification in only in reading as I~~llows: 3 ", and ] notehaaks' Solution based on staff's cases where it can be hro~ ided to the: Board. finding . demonstrated on a site- '7he u~~plicrtnt reituests ~ specific `development plan a ~1~cri~~zr• frnnr Section The _ Board also that the: ~1 llrclritt~~lrrr•uC Dcsi~rz Stat~i~ fi~rihcr rcc~~mmcnded recommended 1lzat staffs - ('nrrns;~rt~~d llrtul,~ that a condition be placed on condition be placed an SUP ~:: Thelight reflecting from 1~i~rhth Kc~/I~°c~tirc° the ~tTP indicating that tire; ~ to address potential public materials and roofing ... Srrrlucea; urrd ~ ~ proposed `modification only safety concerns. . will note create a publie Illurrrirratcri Rowing r~/• `bc altc~~~~cd i17 ;ituatians`. safety, traffic hazard, or ilrc 81)I> Design ~~~hcre ii is dcnum~trated fhat: ~ annoyancefo others, and a fort ual ' I.1 he light rcilccting from 2. All roof materials shall "Ihe applicant ~s roa(ing matcrial5 and will have SI2lforroofpitches ' rcyuc5ting the ahilit}' to - not crcatc a public 'safety,; less,than 2: I2 of 7$ and ha~c fleaibilit_y in using traffic hazard, or an SRI of 29 for roofs ,highly ref7ccli~'c roof annoyance to others;- with. a itch reater than p g materials ~4hcn tlicy arc y 2:12 (Reference to designed to achic~~c the 2_nll roof materials slball LEED Standards) G~ario~.~s cncr~~}~ ubjecti~~cs ha~~c S1Z f for roof pitches ootlincd tt~ithin the less than :?:12'of 78and an~~ application. SRI of ?~~ farroofs «ith a 1 pltCh fLfCatl'I' tha71 Z:IZ (Reference to LEED. 5t~.udard5) zi ORDINANCE DI+;S>iGiV SOLUTIOI~I sl~;~'l~',N: As outlined on page thirty (:~0} through thirtti°-one (;11 of ihc. application reading as lolling s: '"I'{tc a~rpli~°afrl rc~ytee,~°t,~~ LZ tit'(;lIh('Y fi'~~311 S~I'Ch071 >.1 ,9rcfiitl~ctural De,si~,Tn C'orrl~r~ralc~cl Lftacll; ~IILrfl~}~ lZ['~je'C~IVt' ,SUl'~CIC('S'; Cl)ICj lllruninutecl R~~r~~n~ of t{Ie 1; l~l) f )csi~rn ;llarlru1l l~he I~;DD Desiuu I~~I~tnual mquirc5 that solar panels must. be (lush ~<<ith the slope of the roof. "l~he applicant indicates that. there may be situations where s~~lar panel:; cannot be flush ~i~ith the roam and that tlcsibility is needed to atloi<< for fhcir use. ZONING OFFICER PLANN1QVG BOARD RECOlVIlVIENDATION: RECOMiVJ~NDATION: Stali~ reconlmcndcd approvah~ as detailed h}~ the evidence and tctitinrinrv oL(errd ~by the' Toning Ofticer as Hated ~~°ithin the Gull application, the 3 '-, aaxi 1 notehaok prop°ided t<~ the board. StaiT~ iur(hcr rccorr~meuded that a condition-be placed on'- the St ~ P indieating that the' proposed rnodiiication only... be. allowed. in situations' ~~~hcrc it is deiuonstratedthat: I.~hhc: light rcllccting fiom solar cner~w collection. features wiiT'not create a' public salctt~hazardand ?.,~1n~~ buildings utilizing', solar panels 'shall have its lun~~cr building axis is at )cast one and a half (1'/z) times the shorter axis and the longer ~r~is is 'wifliin fifteen degrees (15°) of the geugraphic east/~.ti~est axis (1.FF;>7 Standard) ~1t fhcir i~la~ 21, 2008 Special meeting, 'the Board yertcd unanimously ' to recommend approv.rl of the proposed Design Snltitinn based of staff's finding . The ! Board else recommended that staff's condition be placed on SUP to address:.;potential public safety concerns. ADMINISTRATION RECOMIVICNDATION: Administration recommends that the- BOCC make ' an affirmative finding on t}ie Design Solution allowing for the modification in only in cases 'where it can be demonstrated on a site- specific development plan that the: l . The light reflecting from solar energy 'collection features tivill not create a public safety hazard, and 2. any buildings utilizing solar panels shall have its longer building axis is at least one and a 'half (1'/) times the shorter.. axis and the longer axis is within fifteen degrees (15°) of the geographic east/west ` axis {LEED Standard) ~2 ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: DI{;til(;N tiOLU7'If)IY EIG}IT: As outlined on pages thirty-tivo (~Z) through thirty-three {33) of the application reading as follows: 'l7te ~Ipplicarrt rc~~ju~~sls a rvaiver• ~rorrr ,Section i.? T_un~~ccclpe I1eai~rr - I,arrdscapzn,~r Pur•ki~rs~r ;lrects of t{lip L!)I) Desr~m ~:fclrrrsal ~1'hc 1;DD Design Manual requires that ~~ l~mdscapc island be provided for every ten (10) p:u~kiirg spaces. `fhe applicant is proposing the following: --- .5°lurde irecr,ti~ urc• to b~° ~~r•oi~iclccl ut cr ratio irf~ one ( j rTrree inch (3 ") <;aliper tree per ten (1 O1 inr~ir~r~lual parkirr,~r s~~~lces ~~rori~led thc,t nim~tl~ pcrcerrt (4tP,'~ 1 ~~~~ the spuees ure within ~iJty (5Ul fee! of the i:enter o~ a shade tree ' i~he applicant ~u-gues Thai This provision Neill require t_he planting; of the saute number ~~f tress that tis~ould be required under the Dcsi~u 1\larnurl, but would allow for larger trees to be planted. allow for a more eompact parking lot with less impervious suriac:e area. ZONING OFFICER RECOMNICNDATION: Sia1l~ recommended appro<<al' as detailed b}~ the evidence and testimony oflercd try the' 'Coning Ut~icer as noted,. within ilrc full application, they 3 and t `` notebooks provided to the 13oarcl. Staff furlhcr reconunertded that a condition be placed on:~ the SLIP inilicatin;, that the proposed modification ~rnly' be al(ovycd in situations whe.rc it i~ dc.n~umsirated that: 1. Fifty percent (>0`',%) t~f the parking lot. surface' area shell he in shade willrin live (i) ~°ears of initial canopy tree planting. 2. Parking surface paving nuricrials shall hay ~ a Sl:l of at least. 29 (LEND Standard), and (lpcn 'grid parking lot paving or other pcn•ious paving sytitcros are strongly cncorirr`~ed bccau~c of their high reflectance values and their compatibili~ti~ ~~~ith heal island effect reduction. --- PLANI~TING BOARD .RECOMMENDATION: At their 1`~lay 21, 2008 Special meeting, the Board voted Severn {7) to' Two {Z) to recommend approval `of the proposed Design Solution -based on staff's rindin~~ . The Board also reconunendcd that staffs condition be placed on S(Tl' to address .potential public safety concerns. ADMIQVISTRATION RECOM1ViENDATION: Administration recommends that the BOCC make an affirmative finding on t}~e. Design Solution allowing for the modification in inly in cases where it can be demonstrated on a site= specific development .plan that: 1. Fifty percent (50%) of the parking lot 'surface area shall be in shade widrin fitire (5) years of initial ,canopy tree planting, 2. Parking surface paving materials shall have a SRl of at least 29 (LFED Standard), and 3. Open grid parking lot paving or other pervious paving .:systems are strongly' encouraged because of their high reflectance values and their compatibility with heat island effect reduction' .,, ~' 3 ORDINANCE ZONING OFFICER PLANN][NG BOARD ADMINISTRATION REQUIl2EMENT: RECOMIVVII;NDATION: RECOMMENDATION: RECOIVIIVVIENDATION: St`~Il rec°mTr~cli~}~~ `ippro~a[ ~ At their fay 2'l, 2008 Administrationrecommends DESIGN SOLLI'I'lOi~1 as detailed h} the c~°idence Special rnccking, flee Board that the SOCC make an NINE: y ol~lerai by the and tcsiimou voted Seven (7) toTwo (2) affirmative finding on this ;1s outlined un pa~c _ 7onin~ i)tlicer as noted-~ to recommend approval of DesignSolution thirty-four (~4) of tl~c within t]~e Dull application, the tha proposed Design application rcadin~~ as 3 `~, and T notcY~oc~ks' Solution based on staff's follo~i~s: pro~~ided to the Board. finding.':: `I'{rc uj~pli~_xn~t rer~uests CI 1VCI1 VL')' ~YClll J .~~f'~ IIOII _3. ~ 1~Qi1C~SC'lIfJP ~_~c'Sl~'f1 fi7[11C~lf1~~ CTII(~ ~iT~71iRi~S O~ ~hC ~1)l~ ~)C'~S14;7IJ ~lrt~~,~<<~t° ~17~c t~,I~D T)esign 111anuaJ requires that the entire base or foundation of a proposed structure is to he l<uulscapcd. T he applicant is proposin~~ the foffObi~ln~t: 1JIl11C~lIi~r Q11L~ !'i'U71I1LfS T cu<<Iscrr~c~l ~lreu,r crlun;~~ thirty j~ercent (3U~'~;) o/'a hr~ildi~r~rs perint~~ter i~? ~ f7211~C~171~,' C'lIL'e.S JY~~IE'fl li'h1~L' TllLlllit(I112112 )IBC~S',SUi"1' .tilf~C'it'(71~i Q1i11' O!lIC~p01' [hSJ71ClV C1Y8(l.5' ~f ~}IC applicant 3C~~UCS lh~lt th7s lilod]fleatt(lil ~~lll a}}o~'1' lOr the nSC'. of S1d~,w8f~S and pedCStlliln plazas to pronu~te the accctisibilit~~ of~ the project. ~~ ORDINANCE REQUIItEMENT: UNISIGN SOL>Ll7'If)N TI?;N ,~s outlined o^ page- thirty-five (i~i) ol~ the application reading as follows: 'I'Ire crpJ?licxrn! r~:~ju~+s7.~~ a rrrtiver~ fi•nrtt ~S'ectfi~n l;xildirz<~r arr~i Gr~ournLc off' the E~~D Uc°,~~i~r~ ,?~fL11JXIQ1 Chc fI~I) Design 1\~lannal indicates that no icnce or «~all shall be allowed ~4~ithin ten (1O) feel ol~~my li-ont properlti line or strcciright~ of=wa~~_ `hhe applicant. is proposing to raluce this rcquirernent ,md allow for the placcnrcnt ol~ landscape and architectural walls «~ithin one (l) foot ol~ internal properh~ lines and Street right-of=luaus prop idcd that adequate site triangles and utilit}~ acri.sscs arc preserved. ZONING OFFICER PLANhTING BOARD ADMIlVISTRATION RECOMIV~~NDATION: I RECONIlVIENDATION: RECOMIV~NDATION: recommends. Administration St<j f recommended approval At their itilay 21, 200$ , that the BOCC make an as detailed by the evidence Special muting, the Board ~tlirn-afive finding ;on the and testimony oi7ercd by the voted Six (~ to Three (3) to Solutionallowingfor; Design /_onin~~ [~tiiccr as notad recommend.- approval of . the modification only in within the: mull application, they' the proposed Design situations where the' 3 '- and I ~` notebooks Solution based on staff's developer can. demonstrate' provided to the Board. ' findinn . on a site-specific The Board also development plan that the Staff fin-ther recommended, recoirnuenud that design feature-.will not create that a condition be placed on conditions be placed on the a;pubHc safety risk and that the ~€JP indicating that the SUP' indicating that this `the encroachment is needed proposed modification only'.. Design Solution can only to foster ~ acceptable be allowed in situations: . be ' utilized when the architectural features' and/or ~ti here it is dernons~trated on a applicant can demonstrate landscaping. site-specific development on a site-specific plan that.: the design feature development plan~that there will not create a 'public shall`.' not be any public safety risk ~:uul ifiai the safety risk created, and eneroachmcnt is needed to additianal encroachment: is foster acceptable needed, to foster the arohitec Ural fcairrres or development of acceptable landscaping. architectural features and/or landscaping. __ _ ___ __ -- z.~ ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: DEST(zN ~;OT:UTiC1N h~Li+~V l?N: As i~utlincd on pa~~e thirty- six {36) of the applicaliu^ reading as frrllo~vs: `The applicuttt rerrtte.~7s a waiver front Sec~tiun ~.~ ,5`i~~ns and 1 i;,;=ftlitz~~ :S'i,~~ns~ ticrneral Criteria r~~~ tlt~: EI_~?I? 1)c.ci~~n ~1larutal' The I:17L~ 1)LSIr'n N rnual ]unit, the nsc of signs within this district he~ond tivhat is nccde.d to support the project. I~he applicant. reyucsts the following: l.Onc (7) project idcntiiication ~tir~~,n that is liftti (~0) ie~~t in het<~ht and sip hundred {,600) square :feet in are Z.A (\(l~airarum of eight (S) "hcnantlDirccton~ Si~~ns that arc fifteen (7 ~) Feet in hei~~ht and }rave tlircc hundred (300) square feet of sign area each, 3.11or each 'Majorlh~linar fcnant' three (3) si~~ns {~~~all, window, etc) for each building, 4.Onc (1) prnjcctiu±~ si~>>r irr cacti `Tl9inor 'I~cnant", S.T)irectional signs at a ma~irnum height of itivclve (l''_} feet with a rna~imunr sire of one hundred (100) square feel for each Sign. ZONING OFFICER RECOMII~NDATION: Siaff recommended approval as detailed by the evidence and testinwn_y oi7cred by the' Toning Ofticcr as noted' ~~ ithin the full application, the 3 '-, and I notebooks provided to the Board. Spccilicallti, staid rea-xnmc~ndcd the tc~llrnvin:;: Primary project ID; tine (1) YD identrtrr_ ition sign.. that is fifty (50) ~l~ct in height not morethan 24' wide placed no lrit~hcr ih~ui 40' and not more thw~ 30D S1' per side for ~ t«o sides, N:ntry L'ortal: ,1 i19a~innnn of~ ci,~ht (8) 1`enant(Directory Signs that arc itlccn (h51 feet in height and'. have one. hundred SF per side. tti~~o Hundred (2Ul)} square feet of total sign area each (each- side hcin~, counted a5 Sh) I1~Tajor/1~7inor TcnanL• t~~or each `hlajor/MurorTcnant' three (3) suns (~~~all, .etc) for' each building of, as shown in the master sign plan based on 1 SF per linear foot of building tcontage placed ti~°ithin a- desi~zned si<~n facade area. 311D i SP rnayirririrn 'T'enant sbo~•c 4tixIkF4~ays: One (1) projectin~~ si!,n ((, SF) for each `~titajarLRiinor'I~cn~arr" Directional Signs: 1~)ircctional signs at a' ma.~imum height of-~ twelves (l'?) feet ~i ith a maximum size of one. hundred. (100)' square feet for each si~~n. PLANNING BOARD RECOAtIlViENDATION: At their August 13, 2008 Speci~rl meeting, .the Board voicd` Six`(b) to Three {3)to reauumend;apprwal of the proposal Design Solution based on stairs (indin« lviih thefolfo«in,~ c~ccption: With respect to the Primary Project ID sign, .the Board voted to recommend denial i of this single provision. E Entry Portal: A Maximum of -.eight {b) Tcnant/Directory Signs that arefifteen'(1S) feet in height and hay e ono hundred ST',per side t~~~o hundred {200) square. lect of total Gib area each'. (each side dieing counted as S 1 ~ ). Majorlhliuor Tenant: For each `~~lajorlh~linor 'T'enant' three (3) signs (w<>il, etc)for each huildin~r u1., as shown in the ma~tcr si~~n planbased on ISI= per linear- foot of building frontage placed ~~ithiri a dcsi~~ned sign'; facade area. 300 SF maxima m Tenant`ubo~c walk~~ays: One (ll projecting sign (C~ SF) firr each `Major/Minor Tenant', Directional Signs: Directional ~i~~ns at a maximum hci~ht of t~~elve (12) feet with a maximum size 01 unc hundred {1.00) squ~irc feet for each ~i~~n: ADMINISTRATION _RECOMNICNDATION: Ado-irri~tration recommends' that the 13000 make an affirrnaiive finding on the T?e~sign Solution 1'rimarypro;jcct TD: One tl} PD identification sign` that i5 fifty {50) feet in height not more than 24' wide placed no higher thane: 40' and not morc,,than 300`SF per'side for' iwo sides. Entry Portal: A' Maximum of eight (8) Tenantll)irectory Signs that are fifteen {1"5) feet in height and have one hundred SF per side:. two Hundred (200) square feet of total sirtn area each (each side b~:in~~ counted as S['), I itiTajorlDTinor 'Tenant: ror each`Major/Minor Tenant' three {3); signs (wall, etc) for- each building of, as shown in the master sign: plan based on l SI per linear foot of building ~frontagc placcil tivithin ~a designed sign facade ~ti•ca. 300 SF in<i~innnn Tenantabove walkways: tine (1) projecting sign {5 SF) for each>`Major/Minor Tenant's Directional Signs: Directit~nal si~~ns at a maxirnrrm hci~ht of izvelve {12) cet «ith a nratcimum size of one'lmndred {100) square feet fir each sign. z~ ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: TWb.LVT !1s outlined on page fi~rt}"-t~~ ~~ (421 of ihc. appHcafion rcadin~~ as ibllows: ` the crr~/?licartt f ~. yrrests a x°aii~cr from ~5'rc~7ioE1 i. ~ ('ircrr/utirnr i7rtrl Parkirr~r - Parki~tg ~4tanclur~cls of nc~ IsDD l~esi~r~r ~t9anuaf' ZONING OFFICER PLANNIlVG BOARD ADMINISTRATION RECOZ\L~IlVIENDATION: RECOMII~NDATION: RECOMMENDATION: Siai~~ recomrncnded approval At their May 21, 2408 Administration recommends as detailed h} the evidence Special meeting, ,the Board that the- BOCC make an and tcstim«ny oflercd by the- voted Six'{6) to Three (3) to .affirmative finding on thin lonin~~ tlt7iccr as noted recommend approval 'of Design_Solution ~~ ithin the }~ull application, the the prc~~osed Design 3 `° turd 1 " notebooks' fit~ltztinn. i~nwidal to the }3oard_ A1I other parking ~- reyizircments ~rrc to remain.: unallcrcd. 'I'hc applicant is ~ requesting that rcyuired parking for rettiil uses be modified i~roni one (1) space tier cvenr ttivo hundred (200j square feet i to one (1) space i~~r every ihrec hundred (300) square 1ect. ~ 7'HI R'I'I',h: N 1'1s ontlineil on page iixty-five (~l5) of the applzcation reading as foJloves: `'l'fie applicxrrrl rrqucsts a tiraiher from .ti`ccliojr i.' c,f tfu Is'DD Dcs~~~n ~1a~azeal r~c c~rtiri~t~~ Iha! breaks irr the ~gfl'C ht~ffers he lincitecl to unc l'l) aful rro more hurt ttit~enll~ Jn~e per~ccutt (?J %i) rr/~Ifitt !(~Iul huffC'T. 1'hc applicant is raiuesting that more' `huller breaks' from 25%' 10 60° ~~ be allowed along. the inierstatc to al-i«rd the-- development additional ._:. . vzstbrliiw 5tafi~ rerommcndcd approval At their May 21, 2008 DRAFT as detailed b~ the evidence Special meeting, the Board and testimony offered by the ~ voted Six (6) to Three (3) to [To Be Determined at Inning Oi~icer as noted,'. recommend denial of the Meeting Between within the full application, the: proposed Design Solution. Administration and 3 '- and 1 _ `' notebooks provided to ilzeBoard. Developer] Discussion Points: • [Submit buffer plan and tree survey] • [25% low planting <10'] • [20% cleared with new trees] • [15% wetland low vegetation in water quality area] • [40% thinning <3" pine] ~~ ORDINANCE REQUIltEMENT: ZONING OFFICER RECOIVIlVIENDATION: PLAl~INING BOARD RECOMiVIENDATION: ADMINISTRATION RECONIlVIENDATION: I)FSI(.N SOL:U'l`ION Siall~ recomrncnded approval At their May 21, 2008 Administration recommends T6UR"I'H::CN pis detailed h~ the evidence Special meeting, the Board , that the }3000` make ~~,~ ~s outlined on page and testinu~n~~ oiPcred b~~ the' voted Seven (7) to Two (2) ' affirmi~~tivc fin~3in~r on this ' foi-t~~-sip {46} of the. Ioninr (~Piicex as nosed to recommend denial of the ,, Ucsi~~n Solution and allo~~~ tier application reading as ~S ithin Elie Pull application, the proposed Design Solution the. modi[ic~tion as Follows: t~~llow: 3 `' ~u~d 1 `` nutc6odks' ~ provided to the }3i~ard. 1. `Chat the buf('cr around "I{ie apnli~~ar~t j~~~gui'sLs the (~lcar~icw su~t*Jc-'~ u tii~an~cr f'om ~Sc~clir~rt 1. ~l'hai fhc bu[Ier arouad famih° residc.niial 3.2 of 111e I:DD Ih~s~i,~r~r the Clearvic«~ single-" subdivision anti' tllailuul r~+~ uiritr~r _f/t~' f.unih~ residcutiai adjoining resi~iuntial'. {~f)j Ir1 ujie Inrtulrec~' subdivision and Area. on the ^orth side or_~- (1 UO} fart huOi~rs alnrh adjoining residential ~~'est ~l`en Road 5hall~ crdjuce~~t resldentirrl area on fhc nurth`side or rcn~ sin as required- ~~f•opef7ies c~rr~nir 1~'est Ten Road" shall _ undt,r SeCllon 3.? oCthc 13uckjulrn P,uu~l' renr~in as required I;DD Design Manual. '~ under 5c,ction 3.2 of the 7~he applicant is C:1)1) Design R9anual, Z. Chat the but~cr along, proposing to reduce this - t}le CHSLG171 pOrtlOn Of ~' buJ~er to t~tient}-fitic (2~1 2. I'ha1 the buffer along jeci shall be the pro feet in width. the eastern portion of _ educed to twenty-(iv~c the Project shall bey {~5) feet m tv~idth, reducrd ~to t~~~en~_~r-~~~e (2.5) feet in ~r~idth_, 3. ~~l7~at the M~I'C buPfcr be as determined b~~ 3. 1'ha] the. i~~l'I'C bultcr Design Solution;`E13.~ remain unaltered except :~.y m~idified under the 4. That ihe~ buf7er along:,. appro~-cd I)esi;~n the western potion of Solution '>i'hirtecn, the propcrtti° shall he reduced to ttvcnt~-live I ~~. l'hat the buf~{cr along' (~~) legit cticept ~~hcrc the tvcstern potion of the projcci abuts 5i~ tti),- the propertti~ shall be properties currcntl~~ reduced io twenty-five utilised to support (?5) feet c~ccpt where single-fi~mily '~ the project abutssix (6)' T'eS1dt nCeS. hl llllti Cast] pCOpCrtll'S CUI'relltly; the buffer shall be titi.a~ utilised to support (50) feet in «~idth single.-family ~ res.idcnces. ~.In ibis case: ~. That the southern' ihe'bi~LCcr_shallbe fii~' boundary have a' (50 j feet in-width ~ building setback. of l 00' and 7S of green spac.c. ATTACIIMENT TWO (2) STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY: STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMIVIISSIONERS PURSUANT TO NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTE 153A-341 REGARDING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS FOR BUCKHORN ROAD ASSOCAITES LLC (PD-Ol-08) Orange County has received and reviewed the application of Buckhorn Road Associates, LLC, (the "Applicant") to amend the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and Atlas to rezone four (4) parcels of real property containing approximately one hundred and thirty (130) acres from Economic Development District (I-85/Buckhorn Road EDD) and/or Rural Residential One (R=1) to Buckhorn Village Planned Development -Economic Development District (BVPD-ED). The parcels are identified more particularly in the relevant application for amendment submitted by the Applicant. The Orange County Board of Commussioners has determined that the action is consistent with Orange County's adopted comprehensive plan, and the Board of Commissioners proposed action on the amendment is reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: 1) The proposed Amendment will allow for the development of a parcel of property within the County consistent with existing overall policies and development strategies embodied within the: a. Orange County Economic Development Strategic Plan for Crrowth; b. The Economic Development element of the Comprehensive Plan; and c. The Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan. 2) That property(s) subject to the Zoning Atlas amendment are properly situated and located to be served by existing major roads and mass transit facilities. 3) That property(s) subject to the Zoning Atlas amendment are located in an area where the necessary utility infrastructure is available to support the proposed development. Adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners this day of 2008. ~~ Barry Jacobs, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners ATTACHIVVHIINT THREE A (3A) -RESOLUTION OF REZONING APPROVAL: RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMIVHSSIONERS TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE FOR A ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PETITION OF BUCI~IHORN ROAD ASSOCAITES LLC (PD-Ol-08) Date: Applicant/Owner: Buckhorn Road Associates LLC The Board of County Commissioners for Orange County (hereafter "BOCC" or "Board") herby approves an Application For Amendment (the "Application") to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance") and the Orange County Zoning Atlas (the "Atlas"), submitted by Buckhorn Road Associates LLC, (the "Applicant") to amend the Ordinance and Atlas by rezoning those certain parcels of property described more fully below: FROM: Economic Development District (I-85Buckhron Road EDD) and/or Rural Residential One (R-1) TO: Buckhorn Village Planned Development -Economic Development District (BVPD-ED). The parcels affected by the Application are located at the intersection of Buckhom Road (SR 1114) and West Ten Road (SR 1144) being further identified as in the Orange County Land Records Office as follows: 1. A one hundred ten (110) acre tract of land identified as 508 Buckhom Road (TMBL 3.28..20 /PIN 9834-561587), 2. A seventeen (17) .acre tract of land also identified as 508 Buckhorn Road (TMBL 3.28..20C /PIN 9834-47-5147), 3. A one (1) acre parcel of property that is located west of the two (2) previously identified properties, listed as 527 Buckhorn Road (TMBL 3.28..13 /PIN 9834-36-4223), and 4. A two (2) acre parcel of property along West Ten Road, adjacent to the previously identified one hundred ten (110) acre tract of land (TMBL 3.28..57C /PIN 9834-54- 1735) These parcels shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Property" or "property". The property is further identified by the following legal description: Tracks 1 and 2 (128.05 Acres total) PIN 9834-56-1587 / 9834-47-5147 ~~ BEGII~INIl~1G at a point at the intersection of the centerline of West Ten Road SR 1144) and the centerline of Buckhorn Road (SR 1114), said point having NC ~~ Crrid Coordinates N. 844646.257 feet, E. 1933702.566 feet (NAD 83/07), and n~nning thence with the centerline of Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) along 4 courses as follows: N.10°24'43"W. 132.35 feet to a point, N.02°43'30"W. 105.50 feet to a point, N.00°36'24"E. 326.95 feet to a point and N.00°53'28"E. 384.62 feet to a point; thence with the lines of now or formerly Naola Fearrington, Maggie Murphy, Joe Fearrington, Phyllis Foust and Jasper Foust along 8 courses as follows: N.89°01'28"E. 346.54 feet to an existing iron pin, N07°25'56"W. 65.11 feet to an existing iron pin, N07°40'27"W. 65.04 feet to an existing iron pin, N07°37'42"W. 80.48 feet to an existing iron pin, N07°32'31"W. 185.11 feet to an existing iron pin, N07°40'25"W. 214.32 feet to an existing iron pin., N07°47' 11"W. 179.59 feet to an existing iron pin, and N80°50'40"W. 116.23 feet to point in the centerline of Buckhorn Road (SR 1114); thence with the centerline of Buckhorn Road ( SR 1114) along 4 courses as follows: N12°52'50"E. 63.86 feet to point, N10°43'08"E. 183.67 feet to point, N04°14'02"W. 227.56 feet to point and N10°55'43"W. 300.03 feet to point; thence with Venture Capital Group along 2 courses as follows: N84°14'06"E. 28.44 feet to point and a curve to the left having a radius of 997.69 feet, an arc length of 717.82 feet (chord bearing and distance N50°45' 16"E 702.44 feet) to a point in the south right of way line of Interstate Highway I-85; thence with the south right of way line of Interstate Highway I-85 along 8 courses as follows: a curve to the right having a radius of 1352.38 feet, an arc length of 386.20 feet chord bearing and distance N87°13'25"E 384.89 feet) to a point, S81°54'34"E. 194.37 feet to point, S79°13' 14"E. 177.50 feet to point, S79°13' 14"E. 72.57 feet to point, S80°35'43"E. 949.99 feet to point, N77°38'08"E. 53.94 feet to a point, S81°00'51"E. 133.85 feet to an existing iron pin and, S80°46'20"E. 22.51 feet to an existing iron pin; thence with the west line of now or formerly Don Collins S08°42'04"E. 1209.06 feet an existing iron pin; thence with the lines of "Clearview Subdivision (Plat Book 71 page 146) lots 24,23 and E-23 along 2 courses as follows: S87°13'11"W. 1038.93 feet to an existing iron pin and S08°42'25"E. 214.12 feet to an existing iron pin; thence with the north line of now or formerly D H Doby S84°33'36"W. 210.04 feet to an existing iron pin; thence with the north and west lines of now or formerly N Thomason along 2 courses as follows:S84°40'11"W. 209.89 feet to an existing iron pin and S08°58'20"E. 691.72 feet to an existing iron pin: thence with the west line of now or formerly F Kirkpatrick S08°43'33"E. 300.66 feet to an existing iron pin; thence with the north and west lines of now or formerly N Thomasson along 3 courses as follows: S87°46'31"W. 253.89 feet to an existing iron pin , S04°57'07"E. 301.62 feet to an existing iron pin, and S04°57'07"E. 25.31 feet to a point in the centerline of West Ten Road (SR 1144); thence with the centerline of West Ten Road (SR 1144) along 6 courses as follows: 5.88°37'49"W. 260.79 feet to a point, 5.89°38' 18"W. 485.65 feet to a point, N.87°44'05"W. 130.27 feet to a point N.82°29'51"W. 228.74 feet to a point, N78°12'51"W. 95.94 feet to a point and N.77°09'29"W. 114.27 feet to a point at the intersection of the centerline of West Ten Road (SR 1144) and the centerline of Buckhorn Road SR 1114), the POINT OF BEGINNING and being the major portion of property of Orange County Investors as described in Deed Book 475 Page 583 and Deed ~~ Book 4126 page 223 containing approximately 128.OS acres as shown on survey entitled "Re-zoning Description Plat, 128.OS Acres Total, Property Surveyed For Orange County Investors" dated January 04, 2008, preliminary plat by William H. McCarthy, Jr. PLS, Summit Consulting Project 07-390E to which plat reference is hereby made for a more particular description of same. Bearings used in this description are based on NC Crrid NAD 83/07. Tract 3-R 0.49 Acres PIN 9834-36-4225 BEGI]vNIl~G at a point having NC Grid Coordinates N. 846,393.224 feet, E. 1,933,838.722 feet (NAD 83/07) in the east right of way line of Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) in the south line of Orange County Investors (see Tract 1 as shown on plat entitled "Property Surveyed For Orange County Investors" Plat Book 39 page 109 and Deed Book 47S page S83 Orange County Registry) and said point being the northwest corner of that portion of Tract 1, as shown on plat entitled "Final Plat Division of Bertha Foust Estate" Plat Book 7S page 44 Orange County Registry, lying on the east side of Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) and nznning thence with the south and west lines of Orange County Investors (see Tract 1 as shown on plat entitled "Property Surveyed For Orange County Investors" Plat Book 39 page 109 and Deed Book 47S page S83 Orange County Registry). along 2 courses as follows: 5.82°26'36"E. 86.56 feet to an existing iron pin and 5.07°47'11"E. 179.59 feet to an existing iron pin at the northeast corner of Phyllis Foust (see Plat Book S page 22, part of tract 6 and Deed Book 932 page 60 Orange County Registry); thence along and with Foust's north line N.8S°26'33"W. 151.90 feet to a point in the east right of way line of Buckhorn Road (SR 1114): thence along and with the east right of way line of Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) N.13°06'44"E. 181.99 feet to a point, the place and POINT OF BEGfNNIl~tG, and being all of that portion of Tract 1, as shown on plat entitled "Final Plat Division of Bertha Foust Estate" Plat Book 7S page 44 Orange County Registry, lying on the east side of Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) containing 0.49 acres more or less, designated as Tract 3-R on plat entitled "Re-zoning Description Plat, 2.49 Acres Total, Property Surveyed For Buckhorn Road Associates, LLC" dated February 11, 2008, preliminary plat by William H. McCarthy, Jr. PLS, Summit Consulting Project 07-390E to which plat reference is hereby made for a more particular description of same. Bearings used in this description are based on NC Grid NAD 83/07. Tract 4-R 2.00 Acres PIN 9834-54-1735 BEGINNING at a point having NC Grid Coordinates N. 844,S86.SS6 feet, E. 1,935,288.799 feet (NAD 83/07) in the center of West Ten Road (SR 1144) at the southwest corner of Nellie Hatch Thomasson and husband Carl E. Thomasson (see Tract 3 Deed Book 2049 page 227 Orange County Registry), said point being shown as the southeast corner of Tract 1 Plat Book 39 page 109 Orange County Registry, and mm~ing thence with the centerline of West Ten Road (SR 1144) along 2 courses as follows: 5.86°17'47"W. 101.04 feet to a point and /`~ 2 5.88°27'06"W. 176.82 feet to a point in the center of a Public Service Company of North Carolina Gas Easement; thence with the center of said easement along 3 courses as follows: N.04°57'07"W. 0.29 feet to a point, N.04°57'07"W. 25.31 feet to an existing iron pin, and N.04°57'07"W. 301.62 feet to an existing iron pin; thence 5.87°46'31"E. 253.89 feet to an existing iron pin in the west line of Faye Ann Simmons Kirkpatrick (see Deed Book 3676 page 255 Orange County Registry) ;thence along and with the west lines of Faye Ann Simmons Kirkpatrick (see Deed Book 3676 page 255 Orange County Registry) and Nellie Hatch Thomasson and husband Carl E. Thomasson (see Tract 3 Deed Book 2049 page 227 Orange County Registry) 5.09°07'25"E. 328.71 feet to a point in the center of West Ten Road (SR 1144), the place and POINT OF BEGI]VNING, and being all Tract 4-R containing 2.00 Acres more or less as shown on plat entitled "Re-zoning Description Plat, 2.49 Acres Total, Property Surveyed For Buckhorn Road Associates, LLC" dated February 11, 2008, preliminary .plat by William H. McCarthy, Jr. PLS, Summit Consulting Project 07-390E to which plat reference is hereby made for a more particular description of same. Bearings used in this description are based on NC Grid NAD 83/07. In accordance with the Ordinance, the Board hereby makes the following findings as to the appropriateness of the Application: 1. That the Application is complete in accordance with the submittal requirements detailed within Article Twenty (20) of the Ordinance, specifically Section 20.3.2; 2. That pursuant to Section 20.3.2 (e) of the Ordinance, the Board finds that the Application will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof including, but not limited to, the following: a. The goals, policies, and objectives as detailed within the adopted Orange County Comprehensive Plan including, but not limited to: i. Section 2.6 -Transportation, ii. Section 3.3 -Description of Transition Area, iii. Section 3.4 - Locational Criteria, iv. Section 3.5 -Land Use Goals, v. Section 3.8 -Cheeks Township Plan, vi. The Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and vii. Section 4 -Implementation and Evaluation. b. The purpose, intent, and goals of the Growth Management System adopted by the BOCC in 2003; c. The Orange County Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) between the City of Mebane and Orange County; and d. Orange County Economic Development Strategic Plan for Growth; and e. The adopted Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan. ..~3 2. That pursuant to Article Seven (7) of the Ordinance, the Board finds that the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Ordinance requirements and that, in accordance with Section 7.5.4, the Board makes the following findings: (a) As to the suitability of the proposals for the general type of PD category, the physical characteristics of the land, and relation of the proposed development to surrounding areas and existing and probable future development; The Board finds that: i. That the Property is suitable for development as a Planned Development, ii. That the physical characteristics of the Property do allow for the development of such a project as proposed by the Applicant, iii. That the uses proposed within the Application are similar to existing and probable future development in the surrounding area, and (b) As to relation to major roads and mass transit facilities, utilities and other facilities and services; The Board fords that: i. That Property is properly situated and located to be served by existing major roads and mass transit facilities, ii. That Property is located in an area where the necessary utility infrastructure is available to support the proposed development as described within the Application. (c) As to the adequacy of evidence on unified control and the suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, deed restrictions, sureties, dedications, contributions, guarantees, . or. other instruments, or the need for such instruments, or for amendments in those proposed; The Board finds that the Application does contain sufficient documentation indicating that the development will be under unified control guaranteeing the development of the property consistent with the proposed Application. (d) As to the suitability of plans proposed or the desirability of amendments; The Board finds that the Application is suitable for approval. (e) As to the adherence to PD or general regulations or as to desirable specific modifications in PD or general regulations as applied to the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are necessary or just~ed in the particular case by demonstration that the public purposes of PD or other ~~f The Board finds that: i. The Application does adhere to the applicable PD and/or general regulations, and ii. The Application does contain desirable amendments, specifically the fourteen (14) proposed Design Solutions, that apply to this particular development as proposed by the Applicant. 3. That the members of the public who spoke at the several public hearings on the Application indicated broad-based support for the types 'of uses of the Property proposed within the Application. 4. That a showing was made by members of the public who spoke at the several public hearings on the Application that many of the surrounding landowners were likely to use one or more of the types of services expected to be located on the Property. 5. That the types of .uses of the Property proposed by the Application are desirable to serve the residents of Northern Orange County, and it is anticipated that the location of such uses on the Property will enable County residents to remain in Orange County instead of travelling to adjacent counties. 6. That the substantial increase in the commercial tax base within the County that is expected based upon the information submitted to the Board in its consideration of the Application will benefit the citizens of Orange County. 7. That the jobs that are anticipated to be created as a result of the proposed uses on the Property are desirable and will provide the important work opportunities for those Orange County Citizens residing in the surrounding community. 8. That the County's Comprehensive Plan ,and related documents have envisioned commercial use of the property for many years due to its location adjacent to a major transportation corridor. 9. That there is property adjacent to property at issue that is commercial in nature. ,.~.~ This Ordinance shall become effective upon approval. The foregoing resolution having been submitted to a vote received the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Excused: Donna Baker, Clerk to BOCC Barry Jacobs, Chair Orange County Commissioners ~~ ATTACIIlVLIINT THREE B (3B) RECOMaVIENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The following is a list of the various conditions that have been recommended for approval associated with the Buckhorn Village Planned Development (hereafter `BVPD') project. These conditions have been rearranged from previous formats to allow for an easier comprehension and flow of the various conditions. Below each condition is a table/matrix outlining the original number of the condition as detailed within the June 3, 2008 BOCC abstract (refer to Attachment 3A in the small notebook), any and all applicable staff/advisory board comment as well as comments from the applicant. In, those instances where the applicant has a concern, or is unwilling to accept the condition, detailed note have been provided to outlining the developer's concerns for your review and edification. CONDITION ONE -LOCATION OF PROJECT (Formerly listed under Section 1-2 Project Size and Location of Staff recommended conditions -June 3, 2008 BOCC abstract -Attachment 3A) 1. The BVPD project, as approved, shall be limited in terms of its development to the various properties identified within the approved master plan, specifically: a. A one hundred ten (110) acre tract of land identified as 508 Buckhorn Road. (TMBL 3.28..20 / PIl~T 9834-561587), b.A seventeen (17) acre tract of land also identified as 508 Buckhorn Road (TMBL 3.28..20C / PIN 9834-47-5147), c.A one (1) acre parcel of property that is located west of the two (2) previously identified properties, listed as 527 Buckhorn Road (TMBL 3.28..13 /PINT 9834-36-4223), and d.A two (2) acre parcel of property along West Ten Road, adjacent to the previously identified one hundred ten (110) acre tract of land (TMBL 3.28..57C /PIN 9834-54-1735) This condition shall not be construed as prohibiting the recombination of these various properties into a single lot. In such an event, all applicable conditions shall be attached to the new lot(s). CONDITION: PROPOSED BY: DEVELOPER RESPONSE: ADMIlVISTRATION COI•IlVI]ENT: Condition One (1) Originally proposed by The Developer has no opposition to Approve the condition as staff within final the condition as recommended by written. recommendation as staff or the Planning Board contained within the June 3, 2008 BOCC Abstract (Attachment 3A) Recommended for approval by the Planning Board on August 13, 2008 ~~ CONDITION TWO - REGUALTIONS GOVERNIlVG DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT (Formerly listed under Section 1-1 Introduction of Staff recommended conditions -June 3, 2008 BOCC abstract -Attachment 3A) 2. Any and all development within the Buckhorn Village Planned Development -Economic Development District (hereafter `BVPD-ED') shall be required to demonstrate compliance with: a. The Orange County Zoning Ordinance (hereafter `Ordinance') including Section 6.29.3 Economic Development Districts Design Manual, b.The Approved BVPD-ED Master Plan including any and all renderings, construction drawings, and architectural drawings contained within the BVPD-ED application, c. The various standards and conditions contained herein, and d.Any and all applicable Orange County, State or Federal regulations. The approved master plan and Special Use Permit (hereafter 'SUP') contains development criteria and design standards that are singularly applicable to development on the subject property. In cases where there is a lack of standard or specific reference to special design criteria within the SUP, the appropriate County standard as outlined within the Ordinance shall take precedence. CONDITION: PROPOSED BY: DEVELOPER RESPONSE: ADMINISTRATION COMIVVIIr~NT': Condition Two (2) Originally proposed by The Developer has no opposition to Approve the condition as staff within final the condition as recommended by written. recommendation as staff or the Planning Board contained within the June 3, 2008 BOCC Abstract (Attachment 3A) The Planning Board and the Applicant made recommendations on several changes to the existing wording. The Board recommended on August 13, 2008 CONDITION TWO B (2B) - REGUALTIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT (Recommended by Staff and the Attorney's office on September 8, 2008) There shall be no subdivision of any property, within any established individual development district as outlined on the approved Master Plan, until all construction activity, utility installation, roadway work, and other similar infrastructure work is completed in its entirety for that particular development district. CONDITION: PROPOSED BY: DEVELOPER RESPONSE: ADMINISTRATION COMII~NT: Condition Two B (2B) Planning staff and the 'The Developer has no opposition to Approve the condition as Attorne 's office the condition written. 38 CONDITION THREE -COMPLIANCE WTI.'H SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS (A new condition recommended by the Planning Board at their August 13, 2008 special meeting) 3. The applicant, regardless of the permitting jurisdiction for the project, shall comply with all SUP requirements, as detailed herein. CONDITION: PROPOSED BY: DEVELOPER RESPONSE: AD1VIIlVISTRATION COM1VlENT: Condition Three The Planning Board The applicant has informed staff that Delete condition developed and they are concerned that, in the event recommended approval that this area is annexed into the City City of Mebane and Orange ' of the condition at their of Mebane, there will be potential County are operating in August 13, 2008 meeting conflicts with the City of Mebane's accordance with existing regulations and the SUP regulations agreements. creating an untenable situation for them from an enforcement standpoint. The applicant believes that once they are annexed into the City of Mebane then it becomes the City's responsibility to decide what and how to deal with the SUP requirements. The applicant requests that this provision be eliminated due to the problems associated with multi- jurisdictional enforcement issues. CONDIITON THREE A (3A) -OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT: (Recommended by Staff and the Attorney's office on September 8, 2008) 1. The property shall be owned by Buckhorn Road Associates LLC (hereafter `BRA') and/or their successors who:: shall. bear the responsibility for ensuring compliance for all development within BVPD-ED, as deemed herein, is consistent with any and all standards, development limitations, permitting requirements, and other similar regulations as detailed herein, 2. BRA shall incorporate the various restrictions and/or permitting requirements associated with the development of the BVPD-ED project into the leases and/or individual sale documents for either .tenant lease areas or sale of outparcels, or land leases binding tenants/owners to the various development standards for the BVPD-ED project as detailed herein. Sales of outparcels, or the creation of individual development lots within any of the established district boundaries, shall be limited in accordance with the various conditions detailed herein, 3. BRA shall post bonds and/or Letter(s) of Credit in amounts deemed sufficient for construction projects to cover the costs associated with: a. External roadway improvements. Bonds and/or Letter(s) of Credit shall be reviewed and approved by NC DOT and Orange County in accordance with any and all applicable NC DOT/Orange County policies and standards. ~q External roadway improvements shall be bonded in their entirety (i.e. total cost for all improvements deemed necessary to support the project and full build-out) prior to the approval of any site plan, or the issuance of any permits authorizing earth disturbing activities, by the County or any other governmental entity. External roadway improvements shall be completed in accordance with the standards ident~ed herein and any and all applicable NC DOT standards. b. External sidewalk development. BRA shall post the necessary bonds and/or Letter(s) of Credit for external sidewalk work associated with this project. Any external sidewalk work proposed for location within NC DOT rights-of--way shall require an encroachment agreement between BRA and NC DOT to allow for the construction to commence. For all sidewalks located within the right-of--way, BRA shall assume all maintenance responsibility until such time that the sidewalks are accepted by a governmental entity for maintenance. c. External and Internal Utility Infrastructure (Water/Sewer). Bonds and/or Letter(s) of Credit shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Mebane and Orange County in accordance with any and all applicable City of Mebane/Orange County policies and standards. External and Internal Utility Infrastructure relating to the installation of water/sewer lines shall be completed in accordance with the City of Mebane's utility extension policies/standards. 4. BRA shall develop and cause the review by the County Attorney's office and the City of Mebane, all internal cross-easement agreements establishing vehicular and pedestrian access throughout the property on proposed internal roadways, sidewalks, trails, etc. These easements shall not be recorded until approved by all identified parties and prior to the approval of any site plan, or the issuance of any permits authorizing earth disturbing activities, by the County or any other governmental entity. 5. BRA shall develop and cause the review by the County Attorney's office and the City of Mebane ownership agreements outlining BRA's responsibility for the perpetual upkeep and, maintenance of all common areas, roadways, sidewallcs, trails, landscape areas, internal landscaped medians, buffers, open space areas, utilities, and other similar apparatuses associated with the development of the BVPD-ED project prior to the approval of any site plan, or the issuance of any permits authorizing earth disturbing activities, by the County or any other governmental entity. CONDITION: PROPOSED SY: DEVELOPER RESPONSE: ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Condition Three A Planning staff and the The Developer has no opposition to Approve the condition as (3A Attorne 's office the condition written. CONDIITON THREE B (3B) -PERMITTING AND LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY: (Recommended by Staff and the Attorney's office on September 8, 2008) The permitting for any and all development within BVPD-ED shall be in accordance with: 1. The relevant County regulations as outlined herein, 2. The various standards and design requirements as outlined herein, and The various standards and review requirements outlined within Article Seven (7) Planned Developments of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. zoo No land disturbing activity shall be allowed until BRA complies with the various submittal and reporting requirements detailed within Article Seven (7) of the Zoning Ordinance. CONDITION: PROPOSED BY: DEVELOPER RESPONSE: ADMINISTRATION COIVIlVIENT: Condition Three B (3B) Planning staff and the The Developer has no opposition to Approve the condition as Attorne 's office the condition written. CONDITION FOUR -PERMITTED LAND USES (Formerly listed under Section 1-1 Introduction of Staff recommended conditions -June 3, 2008 BOCC abstract -Attachment 3A) 4. The various approved land uses acceptable for development within the BVPD-ED, per Section 6.29.3 Economic Development Districts Design Manual -Part Two Performance Standards -Section 2.2 Permitted Uses and the Approved Master Plan, are as follows: a. Residential Dwelling, Multi-family limited to aparhnents or condominiums over additional land uses, b. Agricpltural, Forestry and Fishing: Veterinarian services excluding boarding facilities c. Manufacturing, Assembly, and Processing: 1. Bakery, 2. Miscellaneous food preparation (i.e. coffee roasting, confectionary products, etc), 3. Watches and clock, 4. Jewehy and silverware, 5. Musical Instruments, d. Transportation, Communications, and Utilities: 1. RaiUBus passenger shelter, 2. Surface and structure parking as principal use when associated with a local or regional transportation goal (i.e. mass transit or park-and-ride lots) 3. Public utility stations and sub-stations, switching stations, and telephone exchanges, 4. Water and sanitary sewer pumping stations e. Retail Trade: 1. Restaurants (carry-out and general) when located within a stand alone building, court or plaza, or an single building with multiple tenants, 2. Retail Trade, sales and rental of durable and convenience goods, merchandise, ad equipment when located within a stand alone building, court or plaza, or an single building with multiple tenants. f. Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate: 1 Banks, savings and loans, and credit unions, 2 Security and commodity brokers and investment offices, 3 Insurance carriers and agents, ~i 4 Real estate agents and brokers, 5 ATM cash machines either stand along or as part of a financial institution as approved herein, g. Services: 1. Automotive Service (i.e. gas station) 2. Conference and/or meeting facilities, 3. Daycare facilities, 4. Hotels and Motels, 5. Schools dance, art, music, 6. Beauty and barber shops, 7. Indoor theaters, 8. Indoor entertainment (i.e. arcade, sport activity,. etc), 9. Health and Fitness Clubs, 10. Health services including doctors and dentist offices without medical or dental laboratories, 11. Laundry, dry cleaning, and shoe repair services, 12. Libraries, 13. Art/photographic studios, 14. Publishing and printing, 15. Recreational facilities, 16. Other offices and personal services including: i. Attorney, ii. Watch and jewelry repair, iii. Computer programming and data processing, iv. Employment and Travel agencies, v. Accounting, vi. Engineering, vii. Architectural, viii. Surveying without outdoor storage of equipment h. Government: 1. Protective services including: ii. Police, iii. Fire, iv. Rescue squad, v. Volunteer fire departments ~z, 2. Government facilities and office buildings i. Other Uses: 1. Parks, 2. Outdoor theaters/amphitheater, 3. Greenways, Community/roof top gardens TTsr not nthr rwisP listed within this dncnment chill he deemed prohibited. CONDITION: PROPOSED BY: DEVELOPER RESPONSE: ADMINISTRATION COIVIlVII;NT: Condition Four This Condition involves The developer has no issues with the Comment pending Design Solution One - condition as written but would like to allowing residential take the opportunity to address a development within the concern over the development of project as recommended drive-thru's for banks, drug stores, for approval by staff and and restaurants. the Planning Board. The developer is concerned that Originally proposed by potential financial services and drug staff within final store clients will choose not to recommendation as develop within the project due to the contained within the June prohibition of `drive-thru's'. 3, 2008 BOCC Abstract (Attachment 3A) At a minimum the developer requests that the County allow drive-thru's for The Planning Board made banks and drug stores. These a recommendation to facilities are invaluable to elderly approve the condition on clients, or clients with children, who August 13, 200 need to take advantage of a service in cases where it may not be practical to park and go inside the business. ~~ CONDIfiION(S) FIVE, SIX, AND SEVEN -DEVELOPMENT LIlVIITATIONS (Formerly listed under Section 2-2-1 through 2-2-3 of Staff recommended conditions -June 3, 2008 BOCC abstract -Attachment 3A) 5. Development within District One (1) shall be limited to the following: a. A maximum of two (2) free-standing buildings supporting separate, independent, Retail Trade operations, as outlined herein, totaling no more than one hundred sizty thousand (160,000) square feet floor of building footprint. b. A maximum of two (2) free-standing buildings supporting multiple land uses including those uses previously identified within the following categories: 1. Agricultural, Forestry and Fishing 2. Manufacturing, Assembly, and Processing 3. Retail Trade, and 4. Services excluding Motels and Hotels, These two (2) multi-tenant buildings shall be limited to a total of twenty-five thousand (25,000) square feet of building footprint. c. Development of any and all Land Uses within District I shall be limited to a total of one hundred eighty five thousand (185,000) square feet of building footprint including any and all accessory structures deemed by the County as necessary to support the proposed operation not to include those uses listed within the: 1. Transportation, Communications, and Utilities and 2. Other Uses categories that are deemed necessary to support, or provide ancillary amenities to, the development of the District. 6. Development within District II shall be limited to the following: a. A maximum of Thirteen (13) free-standing buildings, or buildings connected through a court yard or plaza, supporting multiple land uses on single or multiple floors, including those uses previously identified within the following categories: 1. Residential Dwelling, Multi-family limited to apartment or condominium units located over other permitted uses in multi-tenant buildings, 2. Manufacturing, Assembly, and Processing, 3. Retail Trade, 4. Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate and 5. Services excluding Hotels and Motels. Total cumulative building footprint for these structures shall be limited to three hundred thousand (300,000) square feet. Residential Dwelling, Multi-family uses shall be limited to a total of two hundred (200) units within District lI with a minimum requirement of fifty (50) units to be developed within District II. ~~ b. A maximum of Six (~ free-standing buildings supporting multiple land uses, on single floors, including those uses previously identified within the following categories: 1. Manufacturing, Assembly, and Processing, 2. Retail Trade, 3. Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, and 4. Services excluding Hotels and Motels, Total cumulative building footprint for these structures shall be limited to one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet. c. A maximum of Four (4) free-standing buildings supporting separate, independent, land uses including those uses previously.identified within the following categories: 1. Manufacturing, Assembly, an Processing, 2. Retail Trade, 3. Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate and 4. Services excluding Hotels and Motels. Total cumulative building footprint for these uses shall be limited to seventy-five thousand (75,000) square feet. d. A maximum of Three (3) free-standing, separate buildings supporting Services, Hotels and Motels land uses including any and all ancillary accessory uses including: restaurants and meeting facilities. Total cumulative building footprint for these uses shall be limited to sixty thousand (60,000) square feet. e. A maximum of One (1) free-standing building supporting a Service, Automotive Convenience Store land use (i.e. gas station with convenience store) including an accessory Restaurant use without drive-thru facilities limited to a total of seven thousand (7,000) square feet of building footprint. f. Development of any and all land uses within District II is limited to a cumulative total of five hundred .twenty-two thousand (522,000) square feet of gross building footprint including any and all ~ accessory structures deemed by the County as necessary to support the proposed operation not to include those uses listed within the: 1. Transportation, Communications, and Utilities and 2. Other Uses categories that are deemed necessary to support, or provide ancillary amenities to, the development of the District. 7. Development within District III shall be limited to the following: a. A maximum of Twelve (12) free-standing buildings supporting multiple land uses including those uses previously identified within the following categories: 1. Manufacturing, Assembly, an Processing, 2. Retail Trade, ~-5' 3. Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, and 4. Services excluding Hotels and Motels, Total cumulative building footprint shall be limited to one hundred fifty thousand (150,000) square feet. b. A maximum of Eleven (11) free-standing buildings supporting single, independent, land uses including those uses previously identified within the following categories: 1. Manufacturing, Assembly, an Processing, 2. Retail Trade, 3. Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, and 4. Services excluding Hotels and Motels, Total cumulative building footprint shall be limited to three hundred fifty thousand (350,000) square feet. c. A maximum of Four (4) freestanding buildings supporting Residential Dwelling, Multi-family land uses limited to a cumulative total, for the entire project, of two hundred (200) units. d. A maximum of One (1) free-standing building supporting a Service, Automotive Convenience Store land use (i.e. gas station with convenience store) including an accessory Restaurant use . without drive-thru facilities limited to a total of siz thousand (6,000) square feet of floor area. e. Development of any and all Land Uses within District III shall be limited to a total of sig hundred and siz thousand (606,000) square feet of gross building footprint including any and all accessory structures deemed by the County as necessary to support the proposed operation not to include those uses listed within the: 1. Transportation, Communications, and Utilities, 2. Government Uses, and 3. Other Uses categories that are deemed necessary to support, or provide ancillary amenities to, the development of the District. CONDITION: PROPOSED BY: DEVELOPER~RESPONSE: .ADMINISTRATION COA~IlViENT: Condition Five, Six, Proposed by staff within The applicant requests that all Comment pending and Seven original recommendation references to the number of buildings presented to the Planning be removed. Board and BOCC on April 2, 2008 and June The applicant has informed staff that 3, 2008. as the project is now held to the Site Volume Ratio of One (1), and the Recommended for building square footage limitations approval by the Planning per the Transportation Improvement Board on Assessment as included under August 13, 2008 Condition Eight (8) of this document, there is no need for a specific reference to `building' limits. ~~ The applicant would request the condition read as follows. Anew version of the condition for District I is provided as an example: Development of any and all approved Land Uses within District I shall be limited to a total of one hundred eighty five thousand (185,000) square feet of building footprint including any and all accessory structures deemed by the County as necessary to support the proposed non-residential operations limited to the following use categories: 1. Agricultural, Forestry and Fishing 2. Manufacturing, Assembly, and Processing 3. Retail Trade, and 4. Services excluding Motels and Hotels, as detailed herein but shall not include those uses listed within the: 1. Transportation, Communications, and Utilities and ' 2. Other Uses categories that are deemed necessary to support, or provide ancillary amenities to, the development of the District. The applicant requests that the condition be modified, as requested, for all of the District standards. cases where it may not be practical to park and go inside the business. ~~ CONDITION EIGHT -CONVERSION OF RETAIL SPACE (Formerly listed under Section 2-Z-5 of Staff recommended conditions -June 3, 2008 BOCC abstract -Attachment 3A) 8. Per the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) this development will generate a total of approximately 45,938 daily vehicle trips, with 60,691 weekend trips. Development within the BVPD shall be limited to the following square footages/seats to ensure proper traffic flow for the project as defined within the TIA.: 1. RetaiUTown Center (District II) 2. Retail -Large (District 1) 3. Hotels (District II and III) 4. Theaters (indoors/outdoors) 5. Retail -Large (District III) 6. Residential (District II and III) 353,000 square feet 185,000 square feet 200 rooms 500 seats 437,000 square feet 200 units The total developed site will contain a maximum 1.144 million square feet of building footprint. Within the entire development there will be a maximum of three (3) hotels, two (2) service/convenience stations and two (2) theater/entertainment centers. The developer shall be allowed to convert retail space, as detailed above, into additional residential units, theater seats, or hotel rooms so long as adherence to this table is demonstrated through the submission of a site specific development plan prosing the conversion and so long as the estimated traffic generation does not exceed the limited identified herein. The conversions are as follows: USE Retail Equivalent 30,000 s ft Conversion Factor Residential 200 units .0067 units / s . ft. retail Theater 385 seats .0128 units / s . ft retail Hotel 160 rooms .0053 units / s / ft retail Any changes over these limits shall be construed as a `Major Modification' of the SUP and shall be processed in accordance with the applicable standards of the Ordinance. CONDITION: PROPOSED BY: DEVELOPER RESPONSE: ADMINISTRATION COM1~~N'T: Condition Eight Proposed by staff within The Developer has no opposition to Approve the condition as original recommendation the condition as recommended by written. presented to the Planning staff or the Planning Board Board and BOCC on April 2, 2008 and June 3, 2008. Recommended for approval by the Planning Board on August 13, 2008 ~$ CONDITION NINE -LAND USE INTENSITY (Formerly listed under Section 2-3 of Staff recommended conditions -June 3, 2008 BOCC abstract -Attachment 3A) 9. The BVPD project shall adhere to the Land Use Intensity standards outlined within the Economic Development Design Manual, specifically adhering to a Site Volume Ratio (SVR) of One (1). While individual development districts may not individually adhere to the SVR requirement, the overall project shall demonstrate compliance. Each site plan, proposing the development or re- development of this property, shall contain detailed information outlining the methods that are being employed to bring the site into compliance with this standard CONDITION: PROPOSED BY: DEVELOPER RESPONSE: ADMINISTRATION CONII~ZENT: Condition Nine This item refers to Design 'The Developer has no opposition to Approve the condition as Solution Two as revised the condition as recommended by written. by applicant on August 1, staff or the Planning Board so long as 2008. it is implicit that the project, as a whole, is held to the Site Volume The applicant had Ratio standard of One (1) and not originally proposed a each individual District. Design Solution that adhered to a floor ratio system. The Planning Board rejected this option as not promoting a development standard that was equal to, or better than, the existing requirements. The applicant revised the request, in writing, seeking to adhere to a SVR of One (1) for the entire project in an effort to be more consistent with the existing Design Manual. Staff recommended approval of the revised request. The Board recommended approval of the revised Design Solution, and associated condition, by on August 13, 2008 ~~ CONDITION TEN -SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT (Formerly listed under Section 2-3-1 (~ of Staff recommended conditions -June 3, 2008 BOCC abstract -Attachment 3A) 10. In addition to any and all applicable local or State requirements, the following specific standards shall govern solid waste management issues for this project: a. The developer shall enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the County and the City of Mebane outlining the proper disposal methodology for solid waste management. This agreement will outline the necessary interim and long-term solid waste needs of the development and identify the various agencies that will be responsible for monitoring and enforcing acceptable waste management practices, b. The developer shall demonstrate compliance with the Orange County Regulated Recyclable Materials Ordinance (RRMO) regardless of permitting jurisdiction (Chapter 34 Article III of the Orange County Code of Ordinances), c. The applicant shall develop a Solid Waste Management Plan for each portion of the project for review and approval by Orange County Solid Waste, regardless of permitting jurisdiction, for the life of the project. Specifically, this plan shall address how land clearing, demolition, and construction wastes will be disposed of and that recyclables and waste generation rates be considered in planning for waste collection services regardless of waste or recycling provider, d. Prior to the commencement of earth disturbing activities on the properly, the developer shall hold a deconstruction assessment meeting with Orange County staff concerning the removal of existing buildings from the properly. e. All site plans shall contain a note indicating the following:: "Prior to any demolition or construction activity on the site the applicant will hold a deconstruction assessment conference with the County's Solid Waste staff concerning buildings to be removed from this site." f. The applicant shall provide both internal and external space for collection of solid waste and recyclable materials. Materials collected shall be at least equivalent to the services provided by Orange County Solid Waste. g. 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. h. The developer shall be required to place the following additional notes on any approved site plan: i. `Any gate design will include gate retainers.' ii. `The user will be responsible for opening gates to the dumpster area on collection days of any material(s) to be collected from this location.' iii. `If any vehicles are parked in the refuse or recyclables collection vehicle access area, the containers will not receive service until the next scheduled collection day.' iv. `Orange County will not be responsible for any pavement damage that may result from service vehicles.' v. `By Orange County Ordinance, clean wood waste, scrap metal and corrugated cardboard, all present in construction waste, must be recycled. ` vi. `By Orange County Ordinance, all haulers of construction waste must be properly licensed.' And ~d vii. `Prior to any demolition or construction activity on the site the applicant will hold apre- demolition/pre-construction conference with the County's Solid Waste staff. 'This may be the same meeting held with other development officials' i. In cases where waste collection areas are located across properly lines or district lines for shared areas, the developer shall prepare and record a joint access agreement (and a shared dumpster agreement) to assure that (both parties may use) the proposed trash/recycling area and that it can be serviced across property lines. j. 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. k. The developer shall ensure that all phases of the development shall comply with House Bill 1518 (ABC Recycling) (NCGS 18B) for all portions of the development, which contain or may contain establishments requiring an ABC License. 1. A note shall be .required on all site plans reading as follows: `The burning or burial of construction debris, trees, limbs, stumps, is prohibited.' m. All solid waste containers, dumpsters, recycling bins, etc. shall be located within an enclosure, buffered in accordance with the standards contained herein, and meeting the following criteria: i. Loading areas shall be designed and situated to negatively affect adjacent properties, ii. Solid waste enclosures shall be so located as to not impact internal traffic flow, iii. Loading zones shall not be located within areas designated as housing for solid waste facilities. CONDITION: PROPOSED BY: DEVELOPER RESPONSE: ADMINISTRATION COM1VViT'N'T: Condition Ten Proposed by staff within The Developer has no opposition to Approve the condition as original recommendation the condition as recommended by written. presented to the Planning staff or the Planning Board Board and BOCC on April 2, 2008 and June 3, 2008. Recommended for approval by the Planning Board on August 13, 2008 5( CONDITION ELEVEN -EROSION CONTROL/GRADING (Formerly listed under Section 2-3-1 ('n of Staff recommended conditions -June 3, 2008 BOCC abstract -Attachment 3A) 11. In addition to any and all applicable local or State requirements, the following specific standards shall govern erosion control and grading issues for this project: a. The developer shall cause a formal Erosion Control Plan (ECP) to be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the County Erosion Control Department prior to the commencement of any earth disturbing activities, b. State of the art skimmer basins designed to meet or exceed the requirements in the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual (July 2006) must be utilized to control sedimentation during construction. i. Floating skimmers, such as Faircloth skimmers or equivalent, must be utilized in each basin. ii. Skimmers must dewater from the surface within 24 to 72 hours, and the orifice size of the skimmer must be correctly sized to obtain the appropriate discharge rate. iii. Supporting engineering calculations will be submitted with the erosion control plan. c. Compliance with erosion control requirements will be performance based. The developer will install and maintain devices to adequately maintain. sediment on-site. Additional controls will be required if ofF site sedimentation occurs, even if the site is in compliance with the approved plan, d. The developer shall collaborate with County staff during the erosion control plan design process. To encourage this, a minimum of one (1)pre-application meeting with erosion control staff will be conducted prior to submittal of the ECP, and apre-construction conference will be conducted prior to land disturbance activities, e. The developer shall adhere to the maximum slope grading standards of 3:1 per Orange County regulations. Tn cases where a different slope is required to adhere to other local and State requirement, most notably NC DOT driveway access requirements, or a flatter slope is deemed more viable to avoid the wholesale grading of the property or removal of significant vegetation, the developer has the ability to observe a maximum slope ratio of 2:1 so long as: i. The developer can demonstrate on a formally submitted site plan as well as within the grading plan that the reduction will be compliant with the County grading and erosion control standards and will not create unnecessary interior, or off-site, impacts ii. That adherence to the established 3:1 slope standard will require excessive grading of the property, iii. That adherence to the established 3:1 slope standards will result in higher velocity stormwater runoff, f. The developer shall ensure that any grading activity will be conducted in such a manner that existing vegetation, identified as being located within protected buffer areas, will be preserved and maintained on the property g. The developer shall utilize the natural shape of the land with minimal grading to locate features in a way that minimize impacts on and off the site. h. The developer shall adhere to NC DOT maxinnum slope standards for driveways and access drives of a two percent (2%) minimum to a twelve percent (12%) maximum slope where it can be .~z demonstrated on a site plan and on the grading plan that slopes exceeding the current Orange County limit of five percent (5%) are necessary to facilitate safe, pedestrian friendly circulation within the development and individual districts. i. The developer shall ensure that all erosion control devices and designs shall adhere to the Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance dated October 23, 2007. CONDITION: PROPOSED BY: DEVELOPER RESPONSE: AD1VIIlVISTRATION COUNT: Condition Eleven This condition The Developer has no opposition to Approve the condition as incorporates the elements the condition as recommended by written. of Design Solution(s) staff or the Planning Board Three (3) and Four (4) as recommended for approval by Staff and the Planning Board. Proposed by staff within original recommendation presented to the Planning Board and BOCC on Apral 2, 2008 and June 3, 2008. Recommended for ' approval by the Planning Board on August 13, 2008 ~~ CONDITION TWELVE - STORIVIWATER (Formerly listed under Section 2-3-1 (8) of Staff recommended conditions -June 3, 2008 BOCC abstract -Attachment 3A) i2. In addition to any and all applicable local or State requirements, the following specific standards shall govern stormwater issues for this project: a. The project shall comply with the requirements for the EPA -Construction General Permit (CGP) and the Phase I and II of the national Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, b. Riparian areas (stream buffers) shall be maintained in compliance with the Orange County 5tormwater Ordinance for Lands within the Meuse River Basin (Meuse Rules) adopted March 9, 2001, and as amended October 23, 2007 and in accordance with all applicable Orange County regulations, c. Impacts to the Meuse stream buffers on site shall comply with the uses listed in the Meuse Rules and the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Examples of listed uses include utilities, roadways, etc. If Meuse stream buffer mitigation is required as a result this development, preference should be given to on-site mitigation such as stream buffer enhancement and/or restoration. d. The project shall comply with the stormwater requirements listed in the Meuse Rules. This includes: i. No net increase in peak flow leaving the site from the predevelopment conditions for the 1- year, 24-hour storm; predevelopment conditions are those currently existing as of April 9, 2008, and ii. Nitrogen load contribution leaving the site must be held to 3.61bs per acre per year. e. 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 best management practices (BMPs). f. Innovative stormwater BMPs and practices shall be utilized that meet or exceed the requirements of the current version of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual (July 2007). g. The project shall utilize on-site stormwater best management practices (BMPs) to meet these requirements to the extent practical. Using offset payments only in lieu of stormwater BMP's will not be accepted. h. The project shall install stormwater BMP's to remove enough nitrogen to bring the development down to 3.6 lbs/ac/yr export OR do a combination of BMP's and offset payment to achieve a 3.6 lbs/ac/year export. A combination of stormwater BMP's and offset payment will be allowed under the following conditions: i. Onsite stormwater BMPs are designed so that the computed nitrogen loading is below 7.0 lbs/ac/year that is more restrictive that the Meuse Rules currently require. ii. The offset fee to bring the remaining loading rate to the 3.6 lbs/ac/year is used in Orange County. i. The developer shall collaborate with County staff during the SMP design process. To encourage this, a minimum of three meetings with stormwater staff will be conducted prior to submittal of the. SMP. ~ ~f' CONDITION: PROPOSED BY: DEVELOPER RESPONSE: AD~ISTRATION COMn~NT: Condition Twelve Proposed by staff within The Developer has no opposition to Approve the condition as original recommendation the condition as recommended by written. ' presented to the Planning staff or the Planning Board Board and BOCC on April 2, 2008 and June 3, 2008. Recommended for approval by the Planning Board on August 13, 2008 s5 CONDITION THIltTEEN -GENERAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS -ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS (Formerly listed under Section 2-3-3 of Staff recommended conditions -June 3, 2008 BOCC abstract -Attachment 3A) 13. In addition to any and all applicable local or State requirements, the following specific standards shall govern environmental and water quality issues for this project: a. BVPD shall not propose to develop buildings, hardscape, roads or parking areas on portions of sites that meet any one of the following criteria: i. Previously undeveloped land whose elevation is lower than 5 feet above the elevation of the 100- year flood as defined by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), ii. Land that is specifically identified as habitat for any species on Federal or. State threatened or endangered lists, iii. Within 100 feet of any contiguous wetlands, as defined by United States Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR, Parts 230-233 and Part 22, and isolated wetlands or areas of special concern identified by state or local rule, OR within setback distances from wetlands prescribed in state or local regulations unless otherwise mitigated in accordance with US Army Corps guidelines/standards, and iv. Previously undeveloped land that is within fifty (50) feet of a water body, defined as seas, lakes, rivers, streams and tributaries which support or could support fish, recreation or industrial use, consistent with the terminology of the Clean Water Act. b. The developer is restricted from using potable, municipal water, for irrigation purposes. As a result, the developer shall utilize: i. Captured rainwater, or ii. Water treated and conveyed by a public agency specifically for non-potable uses for irrigation of landscaped area within the development, or iii. The use of individual wells for irrigation, permitted in accordance with all applicable .local and State regulations, shall only be used only in cases where the North Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) certifies that the proposed well will not exacerbate previously identified soil/water contamination, will not cause contaminated water to flow off the site, and will not create a situation where pollutants are allowed to flow off-site as runoff. (** Note: The Planning Board revised staff s original recommendation to read as shown. The rationale behind the amendment was fo allow for individual wells only when the developer could demonstrate that the well would not case for further surface or groundwater contamination) c. As outlined within the Landscaping and Buffer standards, the developer shall only install landscaping that does not require permanent irrigation systems and are considered to be drought tolerant, regionally native, vegetation in accordance with County regulations, d. Through lease agreements, covenants, and other similar deed restrictions the developer shall require that all tenants install and utilize `ultra' low flow water fixtures (i.e. toilets, sinks, shower heads, etc.) as part of the development. (** Note: The Planning Board revised staffs original recommendation to include the work `ultra' within the sentence. The rationale behind the amendment was to make reference to a specific type of frxture) 5~ CONDITION: PROPOSED BY: DEVELOPER RESPONSE: ADMIl~TISTRATION COMII~NT: Condition Thirteen Proposed by staff within With respect to the language Agree with Developers to original recommendation contained within 13 (b) (iii) above, amend to delete (13) (b) (iii). presented to the Planning the applicant is concerned over the Board and BOCC on Planning Board's recommended LEED standards will April 2, 200$ and June condition relating to the use of wells adequately guide well usage. 3, 2008. for irrigation. The Planning Board While the applicant understands that revised the language the Planning Board's concern over the within (13) (b) (iii) to potential of having additional include a provision that contamination of ground and surface individual wells could be water, this is ultimately a problem used for irrigation only in that the adjoining property owner, instances where it was who has created the problem, needs to demonstrated that the correct and that the developer should well would not further not be affected due to on off-site exacerbate the identified problem. ground water contamination problems. We would request the following: Recomnnended for The use of individual wells for approval by the Planning irrigation and/or other potable Board on purposes shall be allowed subject to August 13, 2008 the review and approval of local and State agencies, including NC DENR With respect to .the language contained within 13 (d) above, specifically referring to the use of `ultra' low flow water fixtures, the applicant requests that all references to this provision be stricken. These conditions make reference to the developer adhering to LEED standards. We have volunteered to adhere to these standards and are willing to ensure, through out lease agreements and deed restrictions, that our tenants will continue to follow accepted LEED practices. We do not want, however, to make specific references to any one (1) LEED standard. This seems counterintuitive and only serves to complicate the various conditions. ~~ If we agree to accept a condition. that we shall adhere to various LEED development standards, we do not see the need to constantly spell out certain guidelines within this document that are reflected through LEED. 5g CONDITION FOURTEEN - GENERAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS - INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (Formerly listed under Section 2-3-3 (3) of Staff recommended conditions -June 3, 2008 BOCC abstract -Attachment 3A) - 14. In addition to any and all applicable local or State requirements, the following specific standards shall govern indoor environmental quality issues for this project: a. Smoking shall be prohibited within a building or that there be designated smoking areas within a structure. If smoking areas are designated within a building, they shall be so located to effectively contain, capture, and remove ETS from the building, b. That external smoking areas shall be a minimum of fifty (50) feet away from entries, outdoor air intakes and operable windows. CONDITION: PROPOSED BY: DEVELOPER RESPONSE: ADMINISTRATION COMIlVIEENT: Condition Fourteen Proposed by staff within The Developer has no opposition to Approve the condition as original recommendation the condition as recommended by written. presented to the Planning staff or the Planning Board Board and BOCC on April 2, 2008 and June 3, 2008. Recommended for approval by the Planning Board on August 13, 2008 ~~ CONDITION FIFTEEN -ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS (Formerly listed under Section 2-4 of Staff recommended conditions -June 3, 2008 BOCC abstract -Attachment 3A) 15. In addition to any and all applicable local or State requirements, the following specific standards shall govern architectural design issues for this project: a. Building and site design within the BVPD shall adhere to the various LEED certification standards as detailed herein, b. A BVPD Architectural Review Board (BVPD-ARB) shall be established prior to the submission of any site plan commencing the development of any land use within the three (3) BVPD Development Districts. The purpose of this review board is to oversee, comment, and guide the design of any and all proposed buildings, signage, additional landscaping, lighting, and other similar submittals to ensure compliance with all applicable standards as referenced herein. Membership on the board shall include: i. The applicant(s), ii. ANC registered architect, iii. ANC landscape architect, iv. ANC civil engineer, v. Other building and design professionals as appropriate. vi. A representative of the Orange County Historic Preservation Committee, and vii. Two (2) community representatives appointed by the County. (** Note: subsections vi. and vii. added by Planning Board on August 13, 2008) Once a submittal is deemed to be satisfactory, the ARB board shall issue a Letter of Compliance to the County indicating that the ARB members have found that, in their opinion, the project is consistent with the various guidelines, standards, and regulations governing development within the BVPD. No government agency responsible for the permitting of any project within the development site shall accept a development application without this Letter of Compliance. c. The following exterior finishes and/or siding materials shall be allowed throughout the project: i. Cement/concrete siding, such as Hardi-plank or equal material, shall be used to simulate wood and wood trusses where a rustic look is desired, ii. Brick and/or stucco, iii. Concrete in pre-cast or cast-in-place (ClP) applications shall be allowed. Where such material is utilized, large expanses will be broken-up and modulated with architectural variations like scoring, reveals, ornamental embellishments, etc. iv. Dry-stack and/or ashlar stone may be used as an identifying characteristic, v. Concrete masonry units (CMU's). For this project, CMUs shall be: bo 1. Standard block, painted for service areas -out of public view, rears of parapets, etc OR 2. Split-face CMU's and/or ground face vi. All storefronts and glass walls shall utilize glazing. Reflective and/or mirrored glass is prohibited. d. All buildings shall be designed to incorporate and/or accommodate passive and active alternative energy systems per LEED Standards, e. Streetscapes, for connected or individual buildings connected via a court yard or plaza, shall utilize similar design elements and compositions to ensure uniformity, f. With respect to roof lines and design, the following standards shall apply: i. Roof designs that serve to enhance the capture of natural light shall be encouraged, ii. All rooftop HVAC equipment, elevator overrides, and other similar devises will either be: 1. Clad in exterior materials that are not reflective or illuminated and are stealth-like in their appearance ,OR 2. Are designed as an architectural feature, OR 3: Screened through some vegetative buffer or fencing. g. Solar panels shall be allowed to be installed along roof tops, including raised panels to allow for tracking of the suns rays, so long as the panels do not create sufficient glare to create a public safety hazard, and The installation of these devises shall be reviewed and approved by the Orange County Planning Department on acase-by-case basis. h. Slopped standing seam metal roofs shall be permitted to long as they are designed to blend in with the architecture of the building and the district, i. Flat roofs comprised of TCP, EPDM, rubber single-ply membrane and other similar products shall be permitted to 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. j. 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, k. Maximum slopes shall be maintained across all parking and pedestrian spaces to guarantee compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 1. Any required deviation to address NC DOT drive slope requirements shall be limited to occur along access drives and/or between individual districts to avoid internal District slope conflict creating accessibility issues, m. Principal entrances shall have a front fagade serving as the primary means of public ingress and egress that faces either a public space/court yard or a street, n. Parks, green plazas, squares, court yards, etc shall have a minimum area of at least one - tenth (1/10) of an acre,. These areas shall be located, at a maximum, within one-sixth (1/6) ~O of a mile of at least seventy-five percent (75%) of any and all dwelling units and/or business entrances, CONDIfiION: PROPOSED BY: DEVELOPER RESPONSE: ADMINISTRATION COM1VVllII NT• Condition Fifteen This condition The applicant opposes the inclusion Delete condition addition of (a) incorporates Design of local, community, representatives . vi and vii. Solutions Six (6) and or a member of the Orange County Seven (7) as Historic Preservation Committee on Existing regulations of recommended for the internal architectural review architectural and site plan approval by the Staff and board. review are adequate. Planning Board. If the County is concerned about Proposed by staff within soliciting such input, then these original recommendation individuals should be allowed to presented to the Planning participate in the staff's review of Board and BOCC on submitted site plans rather than be April 2, 2008 and June involved with the internal matters of 3, 2008. the developer. Revised and The developer requests that the recommended for revisions be deleted. approval by the Planning Board on August 13, 2008 Planning Board specifically has requested that items (a) vi and vii be added (shown in Bold type) b;~ CONDITION SIXTEEN -ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS -SETBACKS (Formerly listed under Section 2-4 (8) of Staff recommended conditions -June 3, 2008 BOCC abstract - Attachment 3A) 16. Setbacks for this development shall in accordance with all applicable County standards in addition to the following: Setback from Internal Properly Line Freestanding building/structure In-line building Signs, Storage, Vehicular use areas, Front 10 feet 1 foot Zero Side 10 feet Zero Zero Rear 10 feet 1 foot Zero When proposed use is adjacent to common owned property such as a private street, alley, and parking area and developer can demonstrate on a site specific development plan that such setbacks shall not create a public safety hazard. If staff cannot make such determination, then the appropriate setbacks as detailed within County Ordinances shall be used. When the proposed use is not. a freestanding structure, then the applicable setbacks as detailed within County Ordinances shall be used. CONDITION: PROPOSED BY: DEVELOPER RESPONSE: ADI~ISTRATION COMl~~ENT: Condition Sixteen This condition The Developer has no opposition to Approve the condition as incorporates Design the condition as recommended by written. Solution Five as staff or the Planning Board recommended for approval by the staff and Planning Board. Proposed by staff within original recommendation presented to the Planning ' Board and BOCC on April 2, 2008 and June 3, 2008. Recommended for approval by the Planning Board on August 13, 2008 ~3 CONDITION SEVENTEEN - ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS -INTERNAL LANDSCAPING (Formerly listed under Section 2-4 (8) of Staff recommended conditions -June 3, 2008 BOCC abstract -Attachment 3A) 17. In addition to any and all applicable local or State requirements, the following specific standards shall govern landscaping issues for this project: a. All required internal and external landscaping shall be installed, or bonded, and maintained by the developer or their successor in perpetuity, b. All internal landscaping associated with the development of an individual land use shall be installed or bonded prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy allowing for the occupancy of any building within the development site, c. All landscaping shall be comprised primarily of drought tolerant; regionally native, vegetation excluding grassed/sodded areas, d. A comprehensive, and detailed, landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Orange County Planning Department prior to any internal or external earth disturbing activity or road work for review and approval by members of the staff as well as the following Planning partners, including: i. Cooperative Extension (staff arborist), ii. NC DOT if encroachments are needed, iii. Local utility companies (i.e. power, cable, phone, etc) e. Developer shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable local and State regulations within the submitted landscaping plan as well as the approved BVPD Master Plan, f. All external landscaping, if needed, shall be watered in accordance with the standards contained herein, g. Limits of disturbance shall be in accordance with the approved Master Erosion Control and Grading Plan as approved by the County prior to any earth disturbing activity. h. Required parking lot landscaping shall be required to demonstrate with the following additional requirements: i. Parking lot shade trees shall be provided at a ratio of one (1) three inch (3") minimum caliper tree for every ten (1) parking spaces. The applicant/developer is required to demonstrate that ninety percent (90%) of the parking spaces are within fifty (50) feet of the center of a shade tree as shown in the following diagram: ~~ ii. The minimum tree planting area shall be nine (9) feet by eighteen (18) feet except where tree grates are provided. In these cases, the minimum plating area shall be sixty-four (64) square feet in area by two (2) feet in depth, iii. Where proposed parking lots and drives abut interior property lines, the ten (10) foot required landscape area may be split among the two (2) adjoining property owners. i. Screening of parking areas along the perimeter boundary of the project shall maintain a minimum tree spacing of sixty (60) feet and provide the required thirty-six inch (36") screening, required to be a minimum of twenty-four inches (24") at initial planting, adjacent to proposed parking spaces. G5 i. Thirty percent (30%) of a buildings perimeter shall be landscaped while maintaining the necessary sidewalk area ii. These areas may consist of lawn/planters or shrub areas so long as the shrub areas, that have to be twenty,-four inches (24") minimum in width, comprise a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the total linear dimension along the building's perimeter j. Landscaping along a buildings perimeter shall be in accordance with the following ~~ k. With respect to internal street landscaping, there shall be one (1) tree at a three inch (3") caliper provided every sixty (60) feet as shown on the diagram below: ~~i~~~~; ~~sl~~~ 51 .hE y~ 1 ~ I ~ i If ~`IF 1 1 ~-~ it ~~ ~~f 5 ~:, +, ~ ~,, ~,1 1 ~ 1 it `~ ~ ~ ~ ~'E ~ Y - 'S !i 1 1 j ~` ~ ~ 1 4 1 1; ~ 1 1 1. All ground level HVAC, mechanical equipment cabinets, etc. shall be screened from view through the use of landscaping, walls, and or fencing, m. All solid waste containers, dumpsters, recycling bins, etc. shall be enclosed within a screened area with shrubs or plats plated along the base. In cases where the enclosure is connected to a building, then planting shall not be required but the dumpster shall still be enclosed. ~~ CONDITION: PROPOSED BY: DEVELOPER RESPONSE: ADMINISTRATION CONIl~~NT: Condition Seventeen This condition The Developer has no opposition to Approve the condition as incorporates Design the condition as recommended by written. Solution(s) Eight, Nine, staff or the Planning Board and Ten as recommended for approval by the staff and Planning Board. Proposed by staff within original recommendation presented to the Planning Board and BOCC on April 2, 2008 and June 3, 2008. Recommended for approval by the Planning Board on August 13, 2008 ~8 CONDITION EIGHTEEN - ARCHTTECTiTKAL DESIGN STANDARDS -SIGNS (Formerly listed under Section 2-4-3 of Staff recommended conditions -June 3, 2008 BOCC abstract - Attachment 3A) 18. In addition to any and all applicable local or State requirements, the following specific standards shall govern the erection and use of signs for this project: a. Freestanding Property Development Sign: providing the name of the development as well as major tenants associated with the development. Maximum Number: One (1), Maximum Height: Fifty (50) feet, Maximum Size: Three hundred (300) square feet. Style of Sign: Internally illuminated cabinet style signs shall be prohibited. Freestanding signs be either raised blocked lettering. Setback from property line: Forty (40) feet (Note: Tlie Planning Board recommended that the freestanding sign provision be deleted) b. Entry Portal Marker -providing the name of the development and identifying the names of major tenants. These signs are primarily intended for location at the main entrances to the project. Maximum Number: Eight (8) signs, Maximum Height: Eight (8) feet, Maximum Size: Three hundred (300) square feet each. Style of Sign: Internally illuminated cabinet style signs shall be prohibited. Entry portal markers shall be either raised blocked lettering or a wall style sign that is externally illuminated. Sign Allocation: For Entry Portal Markers, the name of the project shall occupy at least sixty percent (60%) of the sign area. Larger tenants are required to have a minimum of fifty thousand (50,000) square feet of floor area to qualify for signage on the Entry Portal Marker. Setback from right-of--way: Ten (10) feet Setback from private road: Five (5) feet c. Major Tenant Identification -providing the name of the tenant that will be wall or building mounted. These signs are reserved for tenants occupying freestanding buildings or who are part of amulti-tenant, single-story, freestanding building. Tenants qualifying for a Major Tenant Identification sign shall have to have a minimum of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet of floor area. Maximum Number: One (1) wall or building mounted sign per fagade or per individual rental space, Maximum Height: The sign cannot extend above the building/parapet height, Maximum Size: Two (2) square feet of signage for every one (1) square foot of frontage not to exceed three hundred (300) feet. In cases where a building contains ~~ multiple tenants, wall signs shall be allowed as follows: thirty-two (32) square feet of sign are per tenant not to exceed three hundred (300) square feet per building. Sign must fit above tenant space and can only occupy two-thirds (2/3) of the building fagade Style of Sign: No internally illuminated cabinet style signs shall be permitted within the development. Tenants are allowed to install a sign with individual letters that can be internally illuminated Setback from right-of--way: Not Applicable Setback from private road: Not Applicable d. Minor Tenant Identification -providing the name of the tenant that will be wall or building mounted. These signs are reserved for tenants occupying retail spaces along streetscapes where sidewallcs are intended to be provided to facility public access. Maximum Number: One (1) wall or building mounted sign per facade or individual rental space, Maximum Height: The sign cannot extend above the building/parapet height, Maximum. Size: Twenty-four (24) square feet. Style of Sign: No internally illuminated cabinet style signs shall be permitted within the development. Tenants are allowed to install a sign with individual letters that can be internally illuminated e. Projecting Signs: In cases where projecting signs are utilized, the sign shall be mounted a minimum of fifteen (15) feet above the sidewalk/pedestrian area. Projecting signs includes the following: i. Awnings, ii. Bracket signs (depicted) Setback from right-of-way: Not Applicable Setback from private road: Not Applicable f. Directional Monuments Location Maps, Carpool Lot Signs- providing tenant location information to motorists and pedestrians along streets to manage traffic flow throughout the project. Maximum Number: As determined by staff during site plan review, Maximum Height: Twelve (12) feet, Maximum Size: One hundred (100) square feet each, Setback from right-of-way (a11 classifications): Ten (10) feet, g. Secondary Directional Signage- providing essential information to motorists and pedestrians with respect to services offered by the tenants (i.e. pick-up/drop-off areas, loading zones, drive-thru lanes do not enter, etc.). Secondary Directional Signage can contain advertising material, such as a logo or name of the tenant. Maximum Number: As determined by staff during site plan review, Maximum Height: As determined by staff during site plan review, ~o Maximum Size: Sixteen (161 squaze feet Setback from right-of--way (all classifications): Ten (10) feet h. Window Signs Menu Signs and Individual Information Signs- A sign erected on the interior side of a window of a place of business advertising any service, product, special, or sale conducted within the business where it is located. Window Sign's can also include the stenciling of the name of anon-residential establishment and may include hours of operation, phone numbers, and other pertinent information associated with the non-residential land use. Window Signs shall be limited to occupying a maximum of thirty (30) percent of the total window azea where the sign is to be erected. This includes signs advertising specials within the business, signs advertising sales, and signs advertising the name and other pertinent business information associated with the principal use that may be etched, attached, or otherwise made a permanent part of a pane of glass. CONDITION: PROPOSED BY: DEVELOPER RESPONSE: ADMINISTRATION COMI~~NT: Condition Eighteen Proposed by staff within The developer is extremely concerned Main project ID sign noted in original recommendation over the recommended deletion of the 18a is acceptable. presented to the Planning `Freestanding Property Development Boazd and BOCC on Sign'. April 2, 2008 This type of sign is essential in Revised and advertising and bringing attention to recommended for the development and will be a central approval by the Planning component of the developer's passive Board on marketing campaign. August'13, 2008. Specifically, the Planning Boazd has recommended that the Freestanding Property Development Sign, as contained in subsection (a) be prohibited. The Board does not believe that such a sign is warranted for this develo went. ~~ CONDITION lYIlVLTEEN -TRANSPORTATION -EXTERNAL IlVIPROVEMENTS (Formerly listed under Section 3-1 of Staff recommended conditions -June 3, 2008 SOCC abstract - Attachment 3A) 19. In addition to any and all applicable local or State requirements, the following specific standards shall govern external transportation improvements for this project: a. ' External roadway improvements shall be constructed in accordance with a phased construction/development plan in accordance with NC DOT requirements and guidelines, the approved Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), the approved Master Plan, and the standards outlined herein, As previously indicated, BRA shall post a bond andlor Letter(s) of Credit for alI required external roadway improvements prior to the approval of any site plan or the issuance of a Building/Zoning Compliance Permit authorizing any and all development within the BVPD-ED project. b Required roadway improvements shall be accommodated within existing road rights-of- way. If additional right-of-way is required, the developer shall secure the necessary land via purchase agreements with affected property owners in accordance with NC DOT right- of-way acquisition process, c. The proposed roadway expansion of the existing bridge over Interstate 85 to accommodate five (5) lanes of traffic, as detailed within the TIA, shall be designed to accommodate bicycle lanes and pedestrian sidewalks running both north and south, a. The proposed widening of Buckhorn Road to accommodate four (4) lanes of traffic, shall be designed to accommodate bicycle lanes and pedestrian sidewalks running both north and south, b. The developer shall widen Buckhorn Road along the southbound lane, from the intersection of West Ten Road, to create a merge lane for all southbound traffic as required by the approved TIA, c. A bicycle lane provided along the eastern portion of West Ten Road running along property line of the development, (Clarify location) d. All street signals shall be erected utilizing metal poles, e. The County, the City of Mebane, and NC DOT shall approve all metal utility poles allowing for the erection of street signals, both internal and external, prior to installation, f. The developer shall identify and develop segregated entrances and exists for pedestrian and construction vehicular traffic during the development of the project to avoid conflict. These entrances shall be reviewed and approved by the Orange County Planning Department prior to the commencement of earth disturbing activities, g. The developer shall install sidewalks along the perimeter of the property allowing for additional pedestrian access to the site, h. The proposed two (2) additional left and right turn entrances/exits proposed for Buckhorn Road shall be installed but shall not be opened until construction begins on projects within District Two or Three as required by the approved TIA, i. The developer shall construct two (2) proposed bus pullouts at transit stops along Buckhorn Road concurrent with road improvements to Buckhorn Road to include a transit shelter at each stop, '72. j. The developer shall install a transit shelter at the two (2) transit stops (bus pullouts) within the development, k. All traffic directional signage shall be installed at this time as well including, but not limited to: i. Stop signs, ii. Yield signs, iii. Bus parking and unloading informational signs, iv. Lane ends, Merge signs, v. Caution Pedestrian Traffic -Yield Signs, vi. Traffic safety signs designed to direct construction traffic throughout the site, vii. Traffic warning signs indicating the location of private driveways and forbidding public access to the various properties, viii. Through traffic signs, ix. Any and all signs required by NC DOT for the project CONDITION: PROPOSED BY: DEVELOPER RESPONSE: ADMINISTRATION COIVIlVIENT: Condition Nineteen Proposed by staff within Approve the condition as original recommendation No opposition written. presented to the Planning. Board and BOCC on April 2, 2008 Revised and recommended for approval by the Planning Board on Au ust 13, 2008 7.3 CONDITION TWENTY -TRANSPORTATION -INTERNAL IlVIPROVEMENTS (Formerly listed under Section 3-4 of Staff recommended conditions -June 3, 2008 BOCC abstract - Attachment 3A) 20. In addition to any and all applicable local or State requirements, the following specific standards shall govern internal transportation improvements for this project: a.. All internal roadways shall be constructed in accordance with. any and all applicable NC DOT requirements. b. The main access roadway for the BVPD-ED project, running west to east throughout the project, shall be built to the appropriate NC DOT public road standard. A stub out shall be developed allowing for potential connectivity to the eastern property and shall be maintained by BRA until such time as the roadway is accepted for maintenance by a governmental entity. c. BRA and/or their successors shall bear any and all landscaped responsibility for the perpetual upkeep and maintenance of any landscaped medians or landscape dividers located within a roadway as detailed within Condition 3A herein, d. All internal traffic improvements shall be completed in accordance with all Traffic Improvement Plans, submitted as part of staff's review of site specific development plans, e. All streets and sidewallcs shall be designated as available for general public use through an easement(s) as detailed herein, f. In implementing the internal circulation traffic pattern, the following street shall be designed to accommodate the followinng maximum speed limits: i. Alleys affording access to residential land uses and to the rear of various buildings for service delivery: Ten (10) Miles and Hour, ii. Streets serving the interior portions of District II: Ten (10) Miles and Hour, iii. Streets serving as service roads to allow for the free flow of traffic between the various districts as well as Buckhorn and West Ten Roads: Twenty-two (22) Miles and hour. g. Crosswalks shall be painted, or otherwise delineated, within the roadways to signify pedestrian crossing points, h. The developer shall cause crosswalk signals to be installed, where stoplights are located, providing assistance to deaf and visually impaired individuals announcing when it is safe to cross thoroughfares, i. Entrances to parking areas for individual uses, whether it is a single, independent, land use or a multi-tenant building, shall be designed to channel traffic through central points off of interior thoroughfares in an effort to avoid unnecessary vehicular and/or pedestrian interaction, j. In cases where a corner lot is created within the development, parking shall not be located directly adjacent too the corner facing the intersection. Instead, the developer shall install landscaping, and/or a prominent building feature, within this area, k. Any proposed land use making use, or needed, drop-off zones/areas shall be provided near building entrances and segregated from required parking spaces and/or vehicular travel lanes, 1. Parking areas shall be separated from structures by: ~~ i. A raised concrete walkway, ii. A landscaped buffer/natural area, or iii. A segregated pedestrian walkway. iv. In no case will parking be allowed to directly abut a proposed structure, unless it is a parking deck. m. Parking areas shall be designed so that pedestrians walls parallel to moving cars in order to minimize the need for pedestrians to cross parking aisles and landscape areas n. All exterior lighting, including traffic signals and street lighting shall conform to ASHRAE / IESNA Standard 90.1-2004, Exterior Lighting Section, without addenda, for Zone LZ3 - Medium (CommerciaUIndustrial, High-Density Residential) o. Mass transit stops and various support structures (i.e. bus shelters) shall be constructed within each district prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy allowing for the occupancy of and building within the subject district. Internal lighting of these structures shall be provided utilizing solar collectors, or any other acceptable form of renewable power source that is available, p. Street front parking shall be provided in accordance with the following standards: i. In cases where angled parking is proposed, the parking space shall not exceed a angle of ninety (90) degrees in order to facility ease in backing out of spaces ii. In instances where angled parking/street front parking is utilized, the developer shall only allow for aone-way traffic flow pattern to be utilized in order to guarantee motorists and pedestrian safety or shall angle the parking in such a manner that there will be no conflict iii. In cases where angled parking is utilized the required parking stall dimensions shall be: Nine (9) feet by Eighteen (18) feet q. Curb stops shall be required in all parking lots in cases where there is no proposed island, landscape area, or sidewalk to provide a traffic break r. Drive isles for parking areas shall meet the following minimum width requirements: i. One-way traffic: Minimum of twelve (12) feet of traveUdrive isle, ii. Two-way traffic: Minimum of twenty-four (24) feet of traveUdrive isle p. All parties involved with this project shall sign a Memorandum of Agreement regarding transit service. The Agreement shall describe how the bus transit service shall be provided such that all building entrances are within one-quarter (1/4) mile of a transit stop. Further, service shall be phased such that it shall be provided prior to issuance of the last certificate of occupancy for each development phase. Each transit stop shall have a covered and at least partially enclosed transit shelters with kiosks and illuminated to five (5) average maintained footcandles. Information at each kiosk shall detail local transit information including basic schedule and route information, q. Each building or groups of buildings requiring individual building permits shall provide bicycle parking spaces or storage for at least one (1) percent of the parking space capacity, r. Parking areas within the project may be designated as park and ride lots. s. The developer shall construct four (4) bus pullouts and transit shelters at locations indicated for transit stops on the submitted Transportation and Pedestrian Plan. t. The developer shall construct bicycle lanes on both sides of internal roads where bicycle lanes are indicated on the submitted Transportation and Pedestrian Plan. The developer ~5 will provide bicycle lanes along the major access road through the development to adjacent property in the Economic Development District all the way to the eastern property boundary. u. The developer will provide wide outside lanes, twelve feet (l2') in width to accommodate bicycle traffic on minor/drives internal roads where bicycle lanes are not provided. v. The developer shall construct sidewalks on both sides of all internal roads.. The developer will provide sidewalks along both sides of the major access road through the development to adjacent property in the Economic Development District all the way to the eastern property boundary. w. The developer shall provide crosswalks at all intersections within the development. Crosswalk improvements may include painting, pavement changes, curb extensions that narrow the crossing distance, or other measures that may be. warranted to improve pedestrian safety including crosswalk signals that provide assistance to deaf and visually impaired individuals announcing when it is safe to cross at intersections on the major access road. x. All lease agreement, or individual sales documents, for future tenants shall include provisions requiring all tenants/property owner to adhere to the standards contained herein CONDITION: PROPOSED BY: DEVELOPER RESPONSE: ADMINTSTRATION CONIlkL)CNT: Condition Twenty Proposed by staff within Approve the condition as original recommendation No opposition written. presented to the Planning Board and BOCC on April 2, 2008 Revised and recommended for approval by the Planning Board on Au ust 13, 2008 ~l~ CONDITION TWENTY-ONE - TRANSPORTATION - PARI~NG/LOADING REQUIlZEMENTS (Formerly listed under Section 3-4 (1'~ of Staff recommended conditions -June 3, 2008 BOCC abstract -Attachment 3A) 21. In addition to any and all applicable local or State requirements, the following specific standards shall govern required parking spaces for this project a. Parking for individual land uses shall be based on the following standards: i. One (1) space for every three hundred (300) square feet of floor space within a Retail Trade (excluding Restaurants), Service (excluding Indoor/Outdoor Theaters), Manufacturing, Assembly, and Processing, and Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate land use, ii. One (1) parking space for each Residential Dwelling, Multi-family unit, iii. One (1) parking space for every three (3) seats in a Indoor and/or Outdoor Theater, iv. One (1) parking space for shift employee within a Retail Trade, Restaurant facility as well as one (1) parking space for every four (4) seats within the facility, v. One (1) parking space for every three hundred (300) of floor area within a Government facility. vi. One (1) space per every room in a hotel plus one (1) per shift employee vii. All parking lot spaces, unless other wise designated, shall be: Nine (9) feet by Eighteen (18) feet. b. Required parking spaces may be reduced by no less than thirty percent (30%) within a given District or other development area if the developer adheres to the following: i. The spaces allotted for each individual use shall be shown on the application for a Zoning Compliance Permit, ii. The distance from the farthest allotted space to the main entrance of a structure housing the use that it is intended to serve not to be more than four hundred (400) feet, iii. The spaces shall be located within the same District or within four hundred (400) feet of the proposed use to qualify for a reduction on the required parking, iv. Twenty percent (20%) may be compact car parking with a dimension of seven and a half (7 r/Z) feet in width and sixteen (16) feet in depth. c. All required parking spaces shall be improved with asphalt, concrete or other similar material as originally installed and approved by the County, d. Handicapped parking shall be provided in accordance with the standards of the State of North Carolina Building Code. e. Off-street loading (loading berths) shall be provided in accordance with the following standards: i. One (1) space for each five thousand (5,000) square feet of floor area not to exceed three (3) berths, ii. A loading berth shall adhere to the following dimensional requirements: ~`~ a. A minimum width of twelve (l2) feet, b. A minimum depth of sixty (60) feet, and c. A vertical clearance of sixteen (16) feet above finished grade of the space. CONDITION: PROPOSED BY: DEVELOPER RESPONSE: ADMINISTRATION CONIlI~NT: Condition Twenty-One Proposed by staff within Approve the condition as original recommendation No opposition written. presented to the Planning Board and BOCC on April 2, 2008 Revised and recommended for approval by the Planning Board on Au ust 13, 2008 7S CONDITION TWENTY-TWO - UTILITIES - WATER/SEWER (Formerly listed under Section 4-1 of Staff recommended conditions -June 3, 2008 BOCC abstract -Attachment 3A) 22. A written, signed agreement between the applicant and the City of Mebane shall be executed, which describes the timing, phasing, design, and fmancing of public water distribution and public sanitary sewer collection mains for the project, consistent with the following: WATER: . District I: The initial needs of the large single retailer are available in the existing infrastructure in Buckhorn Road.. District I will be extension of the twelve inch (12") waterline into the property along the main entry street providing ingress/egress into to District I. At current capacities and pressures of the existing City of Mebane infrastructure domestic and fire flow service shall be available. A private booster pump shall be installed if determined by the City of Mebane and Orange County that it is necessary to provide adequate water pressure to tenants to address fire safety issues. District IIand/or III: The build-out of the other two (2) Districts, regardless of which District is developed first, will require the extension of an additional water lines either from the north side of I 40/85 or from the west along Bowman Road and West Ten Road. As part of the development project, the developer shall submit a detailed Utility Master Plan for review and approval to the City of Mebane and Orange County outlining the appropriate steps that will be taken to provide water service to the remaining Districts prior to the recording of the Class A SUP documents. SEWER: Sewer Collection will be supplied to the BVPD project in a phased format consistent with the District phasing outlined herein. The following sewer improvements have been preliminary identified as being necessary to support the project: District I: District I will be served with a temporary private pump station and force main. The private line will discharge into the existing gravity sewer on the west side of Buckhorn Road. District II Development of District II will require the extension of the ten inch (10") gravity line from the Gravely Hill pump station to the east side of the property. Sewer easements shall be obtained and this will be a public line. Upgrade to the current GE pump station, north of I 40!85 and off of Industrial Drive, will most likely be required to accept this additional flow. ~q District ffi Development of District III will require the extension of a force main from the intersection of West Ten and Buckhorn Road to the new Regional Pump Station, and require an upgrade to the Gravely Hill Station. Additional improvements to serve BVPD_may be required upon the submission and review of comprehensive utility management plans by Orange County and the City of Mebane. Utilities shall be designed in accordance with City of Mebane Standards. Any and all bonding shall be in accordance with the provisions identified herein. CONDITION: PROPOSED BY: DEVELOPER RESPONSE: ADMINISTRATION COMl~~NT: Condition Twenty-Two Proposed by staff within Approve the condition as original recommendation No opposition written. presented to the Planning Board and BOCC on Apri12, 2008 Revised and recommended for approval by the Planning Board on Au ust 13, 2008 $ t~ CONDITION TWENTY-THREE -OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT -BUFFERS (Formerly listed under Section 5-1 of Staff recommended conditions -June 3, 2008 BOCC abstract - Attachment 3A) 23. In addition to any and all applicable local or State requirements, the following specific standards shall govern open space management for this project: The Open Space management plan differs from the Landscape Design standards outlined, as outlined herein, in the following manner: The preservation of Open Space is designed to address off-site impacts that may be experienced on adjacent properties versus the need to address the internal aspect of the development (i.e. landscaping) to provide relief from internal development issues. To that end, the BVPD project shall adhere to the following Open Space management standards: a. The eastern portion of the project shall. abide by the following Open Space requirements: i. There shall be a one hundred fifty (150) foot undisturbed, natural buffer along the perimeter of the BVPD property directly adjacent to the Clearview single-family residential subdivision that is located along West Ten Road, ii. There shall be a one hundred fifty (150) foot undisturbed, natural buffer along the eastern property line of the BVPD property. The developer reserves the right to request a reduction of this required Open Space if the adjacent properties are developed for non-residential purposes. b. The northern portion of the project, running parallel with Interstate 85, shall abide by the following Open Space requirements: i. There shall be a one hundred (100) foot undisturbed, natural buffer along the northern property line running parallel with Interstate 85 or as approved herein, ii. The developer shall thin existing vegetation to create visual breaks within this buffer in approximately twenty-five (25) percent of the required Open Space, in accordance with the Orange County regulations and the following standards: a. These areas shall only be utilized to develop stormwater retention ponds. There shall be no permanent structure erected within this area that are intended to provide a service consistent with the BVPD project (i.e. a commercial business), b. Disturbed vegetation will be replaced with indigenous, drought resistant vegetation that will achieve a height of six (6) feet within five (5) years in an. effort to re-establish the opaque nature of the buffer, c. The western portion of the project, running parallel with Buckhorn Road, shall abide by the following Open Space requirements: i. There shall be a twenty-five (25) Open Space area along the western property line, ii. The developer shall install earthen berms, three (3) to four (4) feet in height, and add additional landscaping around six (6) existing single-family residential properties along Buckhorn Road for additional Open Space protection. iii. There shall be a one hundred (100) foot buffer around the existing single-family residences that abut this project along Buckhorn Road. ~I d. The southern portion of the project, running parallel with West Ten Road, shall abide by the following Open Space requirements: i. There shall be a twenty-five (25) foot wide Open Space corridor area along the southern property line, ii. Existing vegetation shall be thinned to allow for visual breaks from the roadway, iii. Additional vegetation will be installed consistent with proposed internal and external landscaping standards. CONDITION: PROPOSED BY: DEVELOPER RESPONSE: ADIVZ~TISTRATION COMIVIT;NT: Condition Twenty- This condition is intended Comment pending Three to reflect the proposed There are major concerns over this Design Solutions, condition. The developer is getting numbers Thirteen (13) staff additional language and Fourteen (14) concerning this issue that staff will forward when it arrives. Proposed by staff within original recommendation presented to the Planning Board and BOCC on April 2, 2008 and June 3, 2008 Revised and recommended for approval by the Planning Board on August 13, 2008 Specifically, the Planning Board recommended denial of Design Solutions Thirteen (13) and Fourteen (14) and have recommended that the development adhere to all applicable buffer requirements as outlined within the Design Manual (refer to subsections (b) and (c)) 8~ ADDITIONAL PROPOSED BY: APPLICANT RESPONSE: ADMINISTRATION PROPOSED COMIV~NT: CONDITIONS - PLANNING BOARD: 24. The Planning Board Proposed by the This appears to be very Delete condition recommends that the Planning Board on redundant given the fact that applicant be required to May 21, 2008 Condition Two (2) requires comply with state, federal and compliance with all Orange County regulations applicable County and State and ordinances to keep the regulations, which include east-west road out of the preservation of stream stream buffer. buffers. 25. The Planning Board Proposed by the 'This should not be a Delete condition recommends that the Board of Planning Board on condition on this project County Commissioners May 21, 2008 given the fact that this is a evaluate the adequacy of fire ~ request of the Planning Board protection and funding in the for the County to take some Efland area given the action and study an issue. demands of the proposal. The Ordinance indicates that if any condition of an approved SUP is not adhered to then the SUP is voided. So if the County Board does not comply, then that could impact our SUP. 26. 'The Planning Board Proposed by the We are not required to Delete condition recommends that a neutral, Planning Board on prepare, by the Ordinance, a balanced and thorough fiscal May 21, 2008 fiscal impact or market study and economic analysis of the as the Planning Board has project be prepared for the continuously demanded. benefit of the Planning Board, Commissioners, and citizens. 27. The Planning Board Proposed by the Again, this should not be a Delete condition recommends that the Board of Planning Board on condition on this project Commissioners explore May 21, 2008 given the fact that this is a additional inter-local request of the Planning Board agreements relating to zoning for the County to take some and planning in this area action and study an issue. involving Mebane, Efland, The Ordinance indicates that and the County. if any condition of an approved SUP is not adhered to. then the SUP is voided. So if the County Board does not comply, then that could im act our SUP. ~t3 28. That a fiscal analysis be Proposed by the The developer has no Delete condition conducted to determine the Planning Board on objection to a fiscal analysis costs associated with August 13, 2008 being conducted but cannot providing public services to support the imposition of a the project (i.e. fire, police, condition making it our EMS, etc) and that the responsibility to provide developer be required to funds for any perceived provide adequate funds to all shortfall. public agencies to off-set the increase in the provision of The Planning Board imposed such services due to the this condition based on their development of the project as belief that a similar condition proposed. was imposed by the Town of Hillsborough on developer's within the Waterstone development. This condition calls for the dedication of land and for the making of a `voluntary' contribution. The developer is akeady proposing to devote approximately one (1) acre of this project to serve public safety needs. We do not believe we ought to be mandated to pay additional monies, above and beyond what we will pay as part of the existing fire/rescue tax district imposed on this property, for public safety services. 29. That the developer be Proposed by the No opposition to this held to adhering to the LEED Planning Board on condition. standards as indicated in their August 13, 2008 correspondence with the Planning Staff and Planning Board members. ATTACHMENT THREE C (3C) SUP FINDINGS OF FACT: RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PERTAINING TO BUCKHORN VILLAGE CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION: Buckhorn Road Associates LLC BUCKHORN VILLAGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -ECONOMIC DEVELOPENT DISTRICT (A-01-08) ~~ Planned developments must comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Article Eight (8) for Special Uses. Article 8.2.1 b) requires written findings certifying compliance with the following: 1. That the use will maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed, and operated according to the plan as submitted, 2. That the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, unless the use is a public necessity in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and 3. That the location and character of the use, if developed according to the Plan submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is complaint with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Specific regulations governing individual Special Uses as set forth in Article Eight (8) Section 8.8.23. These regulations are divided into various sections that include: (a) Regulations establishing specific review and submittal requirements for Planned Developments per Article Seven (7) Planned Developments of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (hereafter `Ordinance'), (b) The requirements of Section 8.8 Regulations Governing Individual Special Uses, and (c) The requirements of Section 8.2. Listed below are the findings of the Board of County Commissioners regarding the application in question. The findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Board in its deliberations. ARTICLE SEVEN (7) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT: ARTICLE 7 SECTION 7.2.2 PROPERTY OWNER MUST APPLY FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (`Yes' indicates complaint• `No' indicates non-compliance) EVIDENCE PLANNING EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ADMINISTRATION SUBMITTED TO ORDINANCE BOARD TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS FINDINGS FINDING(S) FINDINGS FINDING(S) 7.2.2 Property owner must apply for Planned The Board found that The Administration Development District there was sufficient makes a X Yes No information within the X Yes _ No recommendation for The property owner must _ application indicating that an affirmative voluntarily apply for the the property owner finding based on Planned Development allowed the application to information contained district. be submitted. within the record, s'S specifically the Specifically, the Board Buckhorn Village found that the application application as included a letter from the submitted by the property owner, Orange applicant, including County Investors Appendix A of the Partnership, authorizing application that the applicant to submit contains a letter from the application as part of the property owner an offer to purchase the authorizing the property. submittal of the application for review b the Coun ARTICLE 7 SECTION 7 2 3 ALLOWED USES MUST BE SHOWN ON PLAN (`Yes' indicates complaint : `No' indicates non-compliance) ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDING(S) ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDING(S) 7.2.3 Allowed Uses Must Be Shown On The Plan On a Six (6) to Two (2) The Administration vote the Planning Board makes a If the petitioner elects to X Yes _ No recommended that an X Yes ,_ No recommendation for apply for a Planned affirmative finding be an affirmative Development District the made as the Board finding based on petition must specify the determined that there information contained actual use(s) intended for was sufficient within the record, the property specified in the documentation within the specifically the petition and the intended record indicating that the Buckhorn Village use(s) must be permitted in applicant had provided a application as the corresponding general list of uses that will be submitted by the use district. In the petition allowed within the project applicant, including for a Planned Development consistent with the EDD Chapter Two (2) District, the County Manual Table of Section 2-3 outlining Commissioners are to Permitted Uses, the proposed uses approve, approve with specifically: that would be conditions or disapprove developed within this the petition on the basis of 1. Residential project. the proposed site plan and Dwelling, Multi- the specific proposed use. family, Further, the Administration Any change in the use 2. A ricultural, g and Forestry recommends the shown on the plan .will be , Fishing adoption of a treated as an amendment , condition that to the Planned 3. Manufacturing, establishes the Development, as set forth Assembly, and specific allowable in Article 7.8. Processing, uses for the Buckhorn Village 4. Trans ortation, P project as agreed to Communications, by the Applicant. and Utilities, ~~ 5. Retail Trade, With respect to the 6. Finance, Insurance, concern over the applications and Real Estate, compliance with the 7. Services, Ordinance, specifically the 8. Government submittal of a site This information was plan, we base our detailed within Chapter recommendation .that Two (2) Section 2-3 of the the applicant has met submitted application as the requirements of well as on the submitted the Ordinance on the concept plan contained following: within the application. 1. Section 7.5.1 of Planning Board members the Ordinance rejected the notion that a requires that an proper site plan was not applicant seeking submitted as part of the Planned application. Development approval submit a preliminary concept plan showing the following: a. The general arrangement of land uses within the proposed district, b.The general location and function of the vehicular and pedestrian circulation system, c. The general solutions to the provisions of utilities, d.The general arrangement of common facilities such as open space, recreational installations, improvements, etc, e.A general description of the method of financing the installation and ~~ operation of the common facilities, and f. A schedule of construction of all elements of the proposal 2. While all Planned Development projects are required to obtain a Class A Special Use Permit, the project is not a typical Special Use project where a specific land use is being proposed. As a result a detailed site plan is not required, 3. Section 7.21 of the Ordinance indicates that a project within a Economic Development District is a Planned Development when it cannot meet the criteria for site plan approval as listed in Section 14.3 of the Ordinance. This section requires that staff approve a formally submitted site plan that indicates how it complies with the various provisions of the Ordinance. This application cannot supply a specific site plan as it is proposing to modify/alter existing design standards and because it is not proposing a specific use of roe .This is a ~~ master/concept plan proposing the overall development of a parcel of property through the various provisions contained in Article Seven (7) of the Ordinance. ARTICLE 7 SECTION 7 2 5 SPECIAL USE REQUORED FOR EACH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (`Yes' indicates complaint ~ `No' indicates non-compliance) ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDING(S) ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED, TO SUPPORT FINDING(S) 7.2.5 Special Use Required for Each No Finding Was made as The Administration Planned Development no motion was made to makes a Yes No make an affirmative or X Yes _ No recommendation for Within the Planned _ _ negative finding on this an affirmative Development District only item by the Planning finding based on those uses authorized by Board. information contained Article 4 as permitted in the within the record, zoning district with which specifically the the PD corresponds shall ~ Buckhorn Village be permitted, and all other application, which requirements of the contains the corresponding district shall necessary application be met. In addition, within requesting the a PD no use shall be issuance of a CLASS permitted except pursuant A SPECIAL USE to a Special Use Permit PERMIT for this authorized by the County project. Commissioners which shall specify the use or uses authorized as required in Article 8.8.23. If the petition is approved, the County Commissioners shall issue a Special Use Permit authorizing the requested use with such reasonable conditions as the governing body determine to be desirable in promoting public health, safety and welfare. ~~ The authorization of a Special Use Permit in any Planned Development District for any use which is permitted only as a "Class B" special use in the zoning district which corresponds to the Planned Development District shall preclude any requirement for Board of Adjustment approval but shall be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. ARTICLE 7 SECTION 7.4.1 RELATION TO MAJOR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES (`Yes' indicates complaint ; `No' indicates non-compliance) ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDING(S) ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FIN,DING(S) 7.4.1 Relation to Major Transportation Facilities The Board voted Five (5) The Administration to Three (3) to makes a PD districts shall be so Yes ~ X No recommend a negative X Yes _ No recommendation for located with respect to finding on this item an afFrmative Interstate I~ighways, arterial indicating that: finding based on and collector streets or information contained mass transit facilities, and The transportation within the record, shall be so designed as to analysis fails to specifically: provide direct access to adequately address such districts without issues related to 1.The revised TIA creating traffic along minor weekend travel patterns, analysis submitted streets in residential issues related to County by Arcadis, the neighborhoods outside the residents' (ravel to the applicant's district project property, and transportation insufficiently addresses engineering firm, issues that would arise in detailing weekend the event that NC DOT counts on existing fails to fund necessary and proposed improvements in 1-40 and traffic impact on Buckhorn Road local roadways, 2.Testimony from staff and the applicant indicating that each site plan submitted proposing development within the ro'ect R~ will include a full transportation assessment that will be reviewed and approved by staff and the NC DOT prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit and that a condition of this approval would be that all external and internal traffic improvements would be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, Administration does not believe that there is a concern over the lack of funding for various elements of this project. If external or internal roadway improvements are not completed, or cannot be completed, then permits will not be issued in accordance with the conditions associated with the approval of this project. Further, Administration makes a recommendation for an affirmative finding as no formal evidence was presented to refute the testimony or evidence entered into the record concerning this matter. ~i ARTICLE 7 SECTION 7 4 2 RELATION TO PUBLIC UTILITIES FACILITIES, AND SERVICES (`Yes' indicates complaint ; `No' indicates non-compliance) ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDING(S) ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDING(S) 7.4.2 ,Relation to Public Utilities, Facilities and The Board voted Five (5) The Administration Services to Three (3) to makes a Yes X No recommend a negative X Yes _ No recommendation for PD districts shall be so finding on this item an affirmative located in relation to indicating that: finding based on sanitary sewers, waterlines, information contained storm and surface drainage There is insufficient within the record, systems and other utility information on how the specifically: systems and installations demands of the project 1.The Application, that neither extension nor would affect future specifically enlargement of such availability of water and Chapter Four (4) systems will be required in sewer in the Efland area detailing the manner, form, .character, and other nearby locales anticipated location, degree, scale or improvements that timing in a manner resulting will be made to in higher net public cost or existin earlier incursion of public water/sewer cost than would infrastructure to development in forms support this generally permitted under ro'ect. p ~ current zoning and development policies for 2.A letter provided the area. by the City of Mebane during the February 23, Public Hearing indicating that they can support the development of this project from a utility service perspective, 3. REPORT F-4 as contained within Attachment Five (5) of the record (pages 523-528) submitted by Paul Thames discussing water/sewer issues associated with this project and the Efland 9z Sewer project, 4.The Orange County Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement (WSMPBA) indicating that this area is intended to be served by public water and/or sewer. The applicant is not required to demonstrate that this project will not require additional upgrades to existing water/sewer infrastructure to support future, unknown, development. The applicant is required to provide sufFcient documentation that the proposed project can be supported by - existing systems or that they accept the responsibility for making any and all improvements as required by the County and/or the appropriate public utility provider. Further, Administration makes a recommendation for an affirmative finding as no formal evidence was presented to refute the testimony or evidence entered into the record concerning this matter. `~3 ARTICLE 7 SECTION 7 4 3 PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE SITE: RELATION TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY 1`Yes' indicates complaint ; `No' indicates non-compliance- ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDING(S) ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDING(S) 7.4.3 Physical Character of the Site; The Board voted Five (5) The Administration Relation to Surrounding to Three (3) to makes a Property Yes X No recommend a negative X Yes _ No recommendation for finding on this item an affirmative The site shall be suitable indicating that: finding based on for development in the information contained manner proposed without The project is not within the record, hazards to persons or consistent with other specifically: property, on or off the tract, nearby existing 1. REPORT D-1 as free from the probability of development (existing contained within flooding, erosion, residential areas) and Attachment Five subsidence or slipping of goals and (5) of the record the soil or other dangers. recommendations of the (pages 138-143) Condition of soil, ground Efland-Mebane Small submitted by water level, drainage and Area Plan and Planning staff topography shall all be The project does not responding to appropriate to both the kind involve the creation of a questions about and pattern of use development with the the projects intended. range of uses (i.e. consistency with manufacturing and various, industrial) as anticipated approved, by the EDD Design planning Manual for the specked documents, area, but involves REPORT E-13 2 primarily refail trades, . as contained hotels and services within Attachment Five (5) of the record (pages 381-384) addressing concerns over the projects compliance with the Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan, 3. REPORT F-3 as contained within Attachment Five (5) of the record (pages 511-512) addressing the projects consistenc with ~~f- surrounding development, 4. REPORT F-7 as contained within Attachment Five (5) of the record (pages 537-554) providing an analysis of the requested uses for this project and their consistency with the existing Economic Development District Design Manual, The project is proposed to be developed in an existing Economic Development District where such project are a permitted use of property subject to the approval of a Planned Development (PD) master plan in accordance with Article Seven (7) of the Zoning Ordinance. Further, Administration makes a recommendation for an affirmative finding as no formal evidence was presented to refute the testimony or evidence entered into the record concerning this matter. °15 ARTICLE 7 SECTION 7 5 PROCEDURES ON PD AMENDMENTS: (`Yes' indicates complaint ; `No' indicates non-compliance) ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDING(S) ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDING(S) 7.5.1 Applications: Materials To Be The Board voted The Administration Submitted unanimously to make a makes a X Yes No recommendation for an X Yes _ No recommendation for Applications for PD _ affirmative finding an affirmative amendments shall be indicating that the finding based on submitted as for other application contains all information contained amendments. Material required information per within the record, submitted with the Section 20.3.2 of the specifically, the application or on Zoning Ordinance and applicant has subsequent request by the the application provides provided the following Zoning Officer shall include, the basic information as information within the in addition to the basic required by Section 7.5.1 application packet: material required by 1. The arrangement subsection 20.3.2, all plans, of land uses, maps, studies and reports specifically within which may reasonably be Chapter Two (2) required to make the Land Uses and determinations called for in Development the particular case, with Strategies of the sufficient copies for application, necessary referrals and records. 2. The location and function of Such applications shall vehicular/pedestria include a report identifying n circulation, all property owners within specifically within the area of the proposed Chapter Three (3) district and giving evidence Transportation of of unified control of its the application, entire area. The report shall state agreement of all 3. The provision of present property owners utilities, specifically and/or their prospective within Chapter successors in title: Four (4) Utilities and Other Public a) To proceed with the Services of the proposed application, development according to the 4. The arrangement regulations in effect of common when the map facilities and open amendment creating space, specifically the PD district is within Chapter passed, with such Five (5) Open modifications as are Space of the set b the Board of C~ County application, Commissioners in the course of such 5. A the method of action; and financing the installation and b) To ,provide bonds, operation of the dedications, common facilities, guarantees, specifically within agreements, Chapter Six (6) contracts, and deed Ownership and restrictions Management ~ of acceptable to the the application, and Board of County Commissioners for 6. A schedule of completion of such construction of all development elements of the according to proposal, as approved plans and detailed for continuing throughout the operation and application and the maintenance of such various exhibits areas, facilities and including -the services as are not Traffic Capacity to be provided, Assessment operated or contained within maintained at Appendix C of the general public application as well expense; and such as the revised dedications, Traffic Capacity contributions, or Assessment guarantees as are submitted to the required for County in July of provision of needed 2008 by Arcadis. public facilities and services; and As previously c) To bind future indicated the successors in title to application is deemed any commitments to be complete as the made under (a) and applicant has (b) above. submitted a detailed application and a In addition to, or as part of, preliminary the report described above, development concept applicants shall submit a plan outlining the preliminary development intended concept plan and proposals development activity in accord with (a) above on the subject parcel which shall show: as required under this Section of the 1.The general Ordinance. arrangement of land uses within the proposed districts. 2.The general location and function of the vehicular and edestrian ~~7 circulation system. 3.The general solutions to the provision of utilities 4.The general arrangement of common facilities such as open space, recreational installations, improvements, etc. 5.A general description of the method of financing the installation and operation of the common facilities. 6.A schedule of construction of all. elements of the proposal. ARTICLE 7 SECTION 7 5 2 PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED (`Yes' indicates complaint ~ `No' indicates non-compliance) ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDING(S) ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDING(S) 7.5.2 Preliminary Review of Application as The Board voted The Administration Submitted: unanimously to make a makes a X Yes No recommendation for an X Yes _ No recommendation for On receipt of the affirmative finding an affirmative application and preliminary indicating that record finding based on concept plan and detailed contains sufficient information contained proposals as indicated documentation indicating within the record previously, the Zoning that the Zoning Officer Officer shall cause a study caused an internal staff to be made by qualified review of the application representatives of the to determine compliance County and such other with all applicable agencies or officials as regulations that could appear appropriate in the impact the project. circumstances of the case to determine conformity Further, the Board found with the Comprehensive that there was sufficient Plan, and to zoning, and documentation within the subdivision regulations, soil record indicating that the erosion and sedimentation Zoning Officer regulations, as well as the determined that there specific regulations and was sufficient information standards related to to allow for the formal q8 specific classes of PD acceptance of the districts contained in this application and allow the article, applicable in the project to move forward case through the review rocess. ARTICLE l SECTION 7 5 3 PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE WITH APPLICANT (`Yes' indicates complaint ; `No' indicates non-compliance) ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDING(S) ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMII?ED TO SUPPORT FINDING(S) voted The Board The Administration Section 7.5.3 Preliminary . unanimously to make a makes a Conferences with X Yes No recommendation for an X Yes No recommendation for Applicant - affirmative finding _ an affirmative Following such study, indicating that record finding based on unless complete conformity contains sufficient information contained is found, the applicant shall documentation indicating within the record be notified in writing of that the Zoning Officer discrepancies, and of the asked the applicant to willingness of the Zoning submit additional Officer to confer for the documentation purpose of assisting in concerning this project to bringing the material clarify and specific submitted, as nearly as various aspects of the possible, into conformity project. with requirements and/or to define specifically the Staff received additional modification(s) of information on the regulations or of the following dates: Comprehensive Plan which seem justified in view of 1. January 4, 2008, equivalent service of public 2. January 7, 2008, purposes by the proposal. 3. January 18, If the applicant joins in such 2008, conferences, changes may 4. January 25, be made in the original 2008, and proposal, further conferences may be held, 5. February 4, 2008 and additional material may The revised application be requested to guide in was deemed to be determinations. complete for presentation In the course of such at the February 19, 2008 preliminary conferences, Quarterly Public Hearing recommendations for held by the BOCC and changes shall be recorded the Planning Board in writing along with the reasons therefore, and shall g~ became part of the record in the case. Applicants shall indicate, in writing, their disagreement and the reasons therefore. Such response by applicants shall also be included in the .record. ARTICLE 7 SECTION 7 5 4 ZONING OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATIONS (`Yes' indicates comulaint ; `No' indicates non-compliance) ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDING(S) ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDING(S) Section 7.5.4 Zoning OfFcer's Recommendations At such time as further conferences appear unnecessary, or at any time on request of the applicant, the Zoning Officer shall prepare a written. report to the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners, containing the following findings: The Administration The Board voted Five (5) makes a (a) As to the suitability of to Three (3) to recommendation for the proposals for the recommend a negative an affirmative general type of PD finding on this item finding based on category, the physical indicating that: information contained characteristics of the land, Yes X No X Yes _ No within the record, and relation of the - The project is not specifically: proposed development to consistent with other REPORT D-1 as 1 surrounding areas and nearby existing . contained within existing and probable future development (existing Attachment Five development; residential areas) and (5) of the record goals and (pages 138-143) recommendations of the submitted by Efland-Mebane Small Planning staff Area Plan and responding to The ro'ect does not uestions about ~o~ involve the creation of a the projects development with the consistency with range of uses (i.e. various, approved, manufacturing and planning industrial) as anticipated documents, by the EDD Design 2. REPORT E-13 as Manual for the specified contained within area, but involves Attachment Five primarily retail trades, (5) of the record hotels and services (pages 381-384) addressing concerns over the projects compliance with the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan, 3. REPORT F-3 as contained within Attachment Five (5) of the record (pages 511-512) addressing the projects consistency with surrounding development, 4. REPORT F-7 as contained within Attachment Five (5) of the record (pages 537-554) providing an analysis of the requested uses for this project and their consistency with the existing Economic Development District Design Manual, The project is proposed to be developed in an existing Economic Development District where such project are a permitted use of property subject to the approval of a Planned Development (PD) master plan in accordance with !o! Article Seven (7) of the Zoning Ordinance. The anticipated/probable future land uses within this area will be non-residential in nature and, as a result, the Administration finds that the project is consistent with the overall vision and anticipated land uses for the area as detailed within both the Economic Development District Design Manual and the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Further, Administration makes a recommendation for an affirmative finding as no formal evidence was presented to refute the testimony or evidence entered into the record concerning this matter. b) As to relation to major roads and mass transit The Board voted Five (5) The Administration facilities, utilities and to Three (3) to makes a other facilities and Yes X No recommend a negative X Yes _ No recommendation for services; finding on this item an affirmative indicating that: finding based on information contained The transportation within the record, analysis fails to specifically: adequately address issues related to 1. The revised TIA weekend travel pasterns, analysis issues related to County submitted by residents' travel to the Arcadis, the project property, and applicant's insufficiently addresses transportation issues that would arise in engineering firm, the event that NC DOT detailing fails to fund necessary weekend counts improvements in 1-40 and on existing and Buckhorn Road proposed traffic 10.2 impact on local roadways, 2. Testimony from staff and the applicant indicating. that each site plan submitted proposing development within the project will include a full transportation assessment that will be reviewed and approved. by staff and the NC DOT prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit and that a condition of this approval would be that all external and internal traffic improvement would be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, Administration does not believe that there is a concern over the lack of funding for various elements of this project. If external or internal roadway improvements are not completed, or cannot be completed, then permits will not be issued in accordance - with the conditions associated with the approval of this project. Further, Administration makes a recommendation for an affirmative findin as no formal ~ ~~ . evidence was presented to refute the testimony or evidence entered into the record concerning this matter. c) As to the adequacy of evidence on unified The Board voted ~ The Administration control and the suitability unanimously to make a makes a of any proposed X Yes _ No recommendation for an X Yes - No recommendation for agreements, contracts, affirmative finding an affirmative deed restrictions, indicating that the finding based on sureties, dedications, application contains all information contained contributions, sufficient information within the record guarantees, or other outlining the steps that instruments, or the need will be taken to guarantee for such instruments, or the unified control of the for amendments in those project proposed; d) As to the suitability of plans proposed or the desirability of amendments; The applicant proposed Fourteen (14) Design Solutions (i.e. amendments) for this project. Action on these items were as follows: At their August 13, 2008 The Administration DESIGN SOLUTION ONE: Board members meeting makes a As outlined on page fifteen X Yes _ No , asked for a re-analysis of X Yes _ No recommendation for (15) of the application this item due to revised an affirmative reading as follows: information concerning finding based on the ability for these units information contained `The applicant requests to be supported by local within the record a waiver from Section infrastructure (i.e. 2.2 of the EDD Design . water/sewer) and based Manual' on clarification of staffs The applicant is requesting original comments and . the ability to allow for multi- recommendations family residential concerning this item development within Districts II and III of the project. The Board voted Five (5) Currently, multi-family to Three (3) to residential land uses are recommend approval of not listed within the the Design Solution as Economic Development presented by the Primary (ED-P) zoning applicant. district, which the subject property is currently zoned. r~~- DESIGN SOLUTION TWO: During .their August 13, The Administration The applicant had originally 2008 meeting, the makes a requested that the existing Planning Board voted to recommendation for composite ratio methods re-evaluate the request an affirmative established within the EDD based on the applicant's finding based on the Design Manual be replaced X Yes _ No proposed revision. X Yes _ No revised Design with a `floor area ratio' and Solution requiring the `maximum building height' The Board voted developer to adhere limitation to control land use unanimously to to a Site Volume intensity, specifically a recommend approval of Ratio of One (1) for maximum floor area ratio of the revised Design the entire project and point thirty (.30) and a Solution as follows: that each site plan maximum building height of submitted proposing six (6) stories. The Buckhorn Village the development of Planned Development an approved land use On July 31, 2008 staff shall adhere to a shall provide the received a letter .from the cumulative Site Volume necessary data developer indicating that Ratio of One (1) for the indicating compliance they would like to revise the entire project. The with this standard. requested Design Solution developer is required to and request that they be demonstrate on . all allowed to adhere to a Site submitted site plans the Volume Ratio of One (1) for cumulative total of the entire project as building and landscape detailed within Section 2.3 volume ratios and define Land Use Intensity of the how each individual EDD Design Manual development project is complying with the overall Site Volume Ratio standards of One (1) DESIGN SOLUTION Administratio THREE: The Planning Board n makes voted Six (6) to Three (3) recommendation for As outlined on page twenty to make an affirmative an affirmative (20) of the application finding and recommend g on the findin reading as follows: X Yes No approval of the proposed X Yes - _ No Design Solution `The applicant requests _ Design Solution based on. allowing for the a waiver from Section staffs finding and on the modification of the 2.4 Environmental following conditions: maximum slope Factors -Grading and 1.That the waiving of factor when it can be Erosion Control - the grading demonstrated that Planting Area Slopes of requirement be the request is the EDD Design Manual' reviewed on a case- necessary to address The applicant is requesting by-case basis in ith issues associated with avoiding the ability to utilize a accordance w staffs unnecessary grading maximum slope factor of recommendation or land disturbance. 2:1 rather than the listed , maximum slope of 3:1. and Within the request the 2.That DENR best applicant indicates that the management existing grade of the .practices be applied roe would re uire to the grading and ion `unnecessary grading and increate the total footprint of disturbance' if the maximum 3:1 slope ratio was adhered to. The applicant is requesting the ability to use a slope ratio of 2:1 or flatter in an effort to avoid unnecessary disturbance on the property and make use of the natural shape of the land with minimal grading. re-establishment of grass slopes DESIGN SOLUTION The Plannin Board g The Administration makes a FOUR:. voted Eight (8) to One (1) recommendation for As outlined on page twenty to make an affirmative an affirmative (20) of the application finding and recommend finding on the reading as follows: X Yes No approval of the proposed X Yes No Design Solution `The applicant requests a _ Design Solution based on staffs finding and on the - - allowing for the waiver from Section 2.4 ~ following conditions: modification for access/drive way Environmental Factors - Grading and Erosion 1. That the waiving of slopes in cases Control - Driveway and the requirement be where it can be Access Drive Slopes of the reviewed on a case- demonstrated on a EDD Design Manual' by-case basis in site specific accordance with development plan The applicant is requesting staffs that the additional the ability to utilize NC DOT recommendation, slope is necessary to standards of two percent comply with NC DOT (2%) or %4" per foot requirements. minimum and a twelve percent (12%) maximum access/drive slope where necessary. The applicant argues that with the existing slope standards of two percent (2%) minimum and five percent (5%) maximum for access/driveways is common, there will be need for additional flexibility given the number of connections proposed with this development. DESIGN SOLUTION FIVE: The Planning Board The Administration voted Eight (8) to One (1) makes a As outlined on page twenty- to make an affirmative recommendation seven 27 of the findin and recommend for an affirmative tv~ application reading as approval of the proposed finding on the follows: X Yes No Design Solution based on X Yes _ No Design Solution `The applicant requests a _ staffs finding and on the allowing for the waiver from Section 3.1 ~ following conditions: modification of Architectural Design - 1. The modification shall setback requirements only in situations Building Sefbacks and Height of the EDD Design only be allowed when where the developer Manual and the required the applicant can demonstrate on a can demonstrate on ten (70) foot driveway ' site-specific a site-specific development plan setback development plan that the proposed The applicant is requesting that the proposed buildings will be able the ability modify the buildings will be able to lie accessed by existing setback and to be accessed by local emergency building height limitations local emergency responders including for internal property lines responders. including fire, EMS and police for the Buckhorn Village fire, EMS and police to address a public project to allow for: to address a public safety issues safety issue in 1. A front, side, and keeping with staff rear yard setback for recommendations freestanding buildings and structures of ten (10) feet versus twenty-five (25) feet, 2. A setback for in-line shops and buildings of one (1) foot for front and rear setbacks and a zero (0) side yard setback, A zero (0) line setback for buildings adjacent to vehicular use areas, storage areas, and signs. DESIGN SOLUTION SIX: The Planning Board The Administration voted Eight (8) to One (1) makes a As outlined on page thirty to make an affirmative recommendation for (30) of the application finding and recommend an affirmative readin as follows: g approval of the proposed finding on the `The applicant requests a X Yes _ No Design Solution with the X Yes - No Design Solution waiver from Section 3.1 following conditions: allowing for the Architectural Design - 1.The light reflecting modification in only in cases where it can be Corrugated Metal; Highly from roofing materials demonstrated on a Reflective Surfaces; and and will not create a site-specific Illuminated Roofing of the ' public safety, traffic development plan EDD Design Manual hazard, or annoyance that the: The applicant is requesting to others, the ability to have flexibility 2.All roof materials shall 1. The light in using highly reflective have SRI for roof reflecting from roof materials when they pitches less than 2:12 roofing materials are designed to achieve the of 78 and an SRI of 29 and will not various ener ob'ectives ray outlined within the application. for roofs with a pitch greater than 2:12 (Reference to LEED Standards) create a public safety, traffic hazard, or annoyance to others, and 2. All roof materials shall have SRI for roof pitches less than 2:12 of 78 and an SRI of 29 for roofs with a pitch greater than 2:12 (Reference to LEED Standards) The Planning Board The Administration DESIGN SOLUTION voted unanimously to makes a SEVEN: make an affirmative recommendation for As outlined on page thirty finding and recommend an affirmative (30) through thirty-one (31) approval of the proposed finding on the of the application reading X Yes _ No Design Solution with the X Yes _ No Design Solution as follows: following conditions allowing for the modification in only in `The a licant re uests a pp q 1.The light reflecting cases where it can be waiver from Section 3.1 from solar energy demonstrated on a Architectural Design - collection features will site-specific Corrugated Metal; Highly not create a public development plan Reflective Surfaces; and safety hazard, and that the: Illuminated Roofing of the ' 2.Any buildings utilizing EDD Design Manual solar panels shall have 1. The light reflecting The EDD Design Manual its longer building axis from solar energy requires that solar panels is at least one and a collection features must be flush with the slope half (1'/Z) times the will not create a of the roof. The applicant shorter axis and the public safety indicates that there may be longer axis is within hazard, and situations where solar fifteen degrees (15°) of 2. Any buildings panels cannot be flush with the geographic utilizing solar the roof and that flexibility is east/west axis (LEED panels shall have needed to allow for their Standard) its longer building use axis is at least one and a half (1'h) times the shorter axis and the longer axis is within fifteen degrees (15°) of the geographic east/west axis (LEED Standard) DESIGN SOLUTION The Planning Board i~$ EIGHT: voted Seven (7) to Two (2) to make an As outlined on pages thirty- affirmative finding and two (32) through thirty-three recommend approval of (33) of the application the proposed Design reading as follows: Solution with the following conditions: `The applicant requests a Yes X No X Yes No waiver from Section 3.2 . _ 1. Fifty percent (50%) of _ Landscape Design - the parking lot surface Landscaping Parking area shall be in shade Areas of the EDD Design within five (5) years of Manual' initial canopy tree planting, The EDD Design Manual 2. Parking surtace paving requires that a landscape materials shall have a island be provided for every SRI of at least 29 ten (10) parking spaces. (LEED Standard), and The applicant is proposing 3.Open grid parking lot the following: paving or other ` ... shade trees are to be pervious paving systems are strongly rovided at a rafio of one p encouraged because (1) three inch (3') caliper of their high tree per ten (1 D) individual reflectance values and parking spaces provided their compatibility with that ninety percent (90%) heat island effect of the spaces are within reduction. frfty (50) feet of the center of a shade tree' The applicant argues that this provision will require the planting of the same number of tress that would be required under the Design Manual, but would allow for larger trees to be planted, allow for a more compact parking lot with less impervious surtace area The Planning Board The Administration DESIGN SOLUTION NINE: voted Seven (7) to Two makes a As outlined on page thirty- (2) to make an recommendation for four (34) of the application affirmative finding and an affirmative reading as follows: recommend approval of finding on the X Yes No the proposed Design X Yes _ No Design Solution `The applicant requests a _ Solution allowing for the waiver from Section 3.2 modification Landscape Design - Building and Grounds of the EDD Design Manual' The EDD Design Manual requires that the entire base or foundation of a ia~ proposed structure is to be landscaped. The applicant is proposing the following: ` ... to provide for building and grounds Landscaped Areas along thirty percent (30%) of a buildings perimeter to soffen building edges while maintaining necessary sidewalk and outdoor display areas' The applicant argues that this modification will allow for the use of sidewalks and pedestrian plazas to promote the accessibility of the project. The Planning Board The Administration DESIGN SOLUTION TEN : voted Six (6) to Three (3) makes a As outlined on page thirty- #o make an affirmative recommendation five (35) of the application finding and recommend for an affirmative reading as follows: approval of the proposed finding on the X Yes No Design Solution X Yes - No Design Solution `The a licant re uests a pp 9 _ allowing for the waiver from Section .3.2 .The Board also modification on the Landscape Design - recommended that condition that it only Building and Grounds of conditions be placed on be permitted in the EDD Design Manual' the SUP indicating that situations where the The EDD Design Manual this Design Solution can only be utilized when the develo er can p indicates that no fence or applicant can demonstrate on a site-specific wall shall be allowed within demonstrate on a site- development plan ten 10 feet of an front ( ) y specific development plan that the design property line or street right- that there shall not be any . feature will not create of-way. public safety risk: created, a public safety risk The- applicant is proposing and additional and that the to reduce this requirement encroachment is needed, encroachment is and allow for the placement to foster the development needed to foster of landscape and of acceptable acceptable architectural walls within architectural features architectural features one (1) foot of internal and/or landscaping. and/or landscaping. property lines and street right-of--ways provided that adequate site triangles and utility accesses are preserved. The Planning Board DESIGN SOLUTION voted Six (6) to Three (3) ELEVEN: to make an affirmative !16 As outlined on page thirty- finding and recommend six (36) of the application approval of the proposed reading as follows: Design Solution and to `The applicant requests a impose the various sign conditions as waiver from Section 3.5 X Yes No recommended by staff. Signs and Lighting -Signs _ - General Criteria of the The Board further voted EDD Design Manual' to recommend, denial of the proposed Primary The EDD Design Manual Project ID sign requested limits the use of signs within by the applicant, this district beyond what is specifically the request needed to support the for: project. The applicant requests the One (1) PD ident~cation following: sign that is fifty (50) feet l.One (1) project in height not more than identification sign that 24' wide placed no higher is fifty (50) feet in than 40' and not more height and six hundred than 600 SF per side for (600) square feet in two sides, area, 2.A Maximum of eight (8) Tenant/Directory Signs that are fifteen (15) feet in height and have three hundred (300) square feet of sign area each, 3.For each `Major/Minor Tenant' three (3) signs (wall, window, etc) for each building, 4.One (1) projecting sign for each `Minor Tenanf, Directional signs at a maximum height of twelve (12) feet with a maximum size of one hundred (100) square feet for each sign The Planning Board The Administration DESIGN SOLUTION voted Six (6) to Three (3) makes a TWELVE to make an affirmative recommendation finding and recommend for an affirmative As outlined on page forty- approval of the proposed finding on the two (42) of the application X Yes No Design Solution X Yes _ No Design Solution readin as follows: 9 - _ allowing for parking `The applicant requests a modification and waiver from Section 3.3 recommends ~r~ Circulation and Parking - Parking Standards of the EDD Design Manual' The applicant is requesting that required parking for retail uses be modified from one 1 s ace for eve two () P ry hundred (200) square feet to one (1) space for every three hundred (300) square feet. , approval of the various parking conditions recommended by the Zoning Officer and the Planning Board that have been agreed to by the applicant. The Planning Board Pending DESIGN SOLUTION voted Six (ti) to Three (3) THIRTEEN Yes X No to make an negative As outlined on page forty- finding and recommend five (45) of the application denial of the proposed reading as follows: Design Solution `The applicant requests a waiver from Section 3.2 of the EDD Design Manual requiring that breaks in the MTC buffers be limited to one (1) and no more that twenty-five percent (25%) of the total buffer' The applicant is requesting that more `buffer breaks' from 25% to 60% be allowed along the Interstate to afford the development additional visibility. The Planning Board Pending DESIGN SOLUTION voted Seven (7) to Two FOURTEEN Yes X No (2) to make an negative rindirig and recommend As outlined on page forty- denial of the proposed six (46) of the application Design Solution reading as follows: `The applicant requests a waiver from Section 3.2 of the EDD Design Manual requiring fifty (50) to one hundred (100) foot buffers along adjacent residential properties along Buckhorn Road' The applicant is proposing to reduce this buffer to twenty-five (25) feet in width ~~z e) As to the adherence to PD or general regulations or as to desirable specific modifications in PD or general regulations as applied to the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are necessary or justified in the particular case by demonstration that the public purposes of PD or other regulations would be met to at least an equivalent degree by such modifications. ARTICLE 7 SECTION 7 21 PD-ED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (`Yes' indicates complaint ~~ `No' indicates non-compliance) ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDING(S) ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDING(S) Section 7.21.1 PD-ED On August 13, 2008 the The Administration District: Planning Board voted Six makes a (6) to Two (2) to make an recommendation for PD-ED .District(s) may be affirmative. Indicating an affirmative established in accordance that the Applicant had X Yes No finding based on with the general procedures X Yes _, No submitted adevelopment - _ information contained and requirements set forth proposal requesting: within the record in Articles 7.1 through 7.9 and with the intensities and 1. The rezoning of in locations in accordance property from with the Comprehensive Economic Plan and the Zoning Development (ED) Ordinance and Atlas. to Buckhorn Village Planned Development - The purpose of this district Economic is to provide for properly Development located and planned non- (BVPD-ED) residential development consistent with Orange 2. The approval of a County's Strategic Plan for Planned Economic Development. Development-Class A Special Use Permit Application S ecificall ,this district is ri3 intended to provide an (hereafter `PD/SUP') opportunity for development proposing the plans, submitted under the development of a provisions of Article 6.29 unified commercial (Development Standards center on the for Economic Development property. ED Districts) of this Within the application, the ordinance, to be considered applicant indicates that for approval when such they are seeking to plans do not: propose modifications of 1. Meet the criteria for existing regulations within site plan approval Article 6.29 (ED Design listed on Article 14.3; Manual) to allow for the development of the 2. Address agency project. comments solicited during the site plan The applicant is seeking review process; and/or to revise fourteen (14) design standards to allow 3. Adhere to the design for the PD/SUP to be standards applicable approved by the Board of within Economic County Commissioners. Development Districts as set forth in Article The submitted application 6.29 of this ordinance, includes a detailed description of the overall and which pose a design purpose and intent of the solution which is equal to or development while better than could be indicating that the obtained through the applicant is proposing application of the criteria fourteen (14) design and standards contained in solutions to address the Design Manual. specific development In such cases, application issues associated with for and approval of a this project and that the . Planned Development application complies with District shall be governed all applicable submittal by the general and specific requirements outlined standards and procedures within .Articles Seven (7) for the issuance of a of the Zoning Ordinance. Planned Development Permit as set forth in this Article. i I h~- ARTICLE 8 8 REGULATIONS GOVERNING INDIVIDUAL SPECIAL USES ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDING(S) ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDING(S) Section 8.8 Regulations Governing Individual Special Uses: The regulations for each Class A and Class B Special Use are divided generally into two sections: the first consists of additional and specific components of the application beyond those necessary to comply with Section 8.6, while the second consists of the specific standards which are supplementary to the general standards in Section 8.2 and to the required conditions in Subsection 8.4.7. The following additional information is required for all Special Use Applications: On August 13, 2008 the The Administration 8.8 a) - For Class A ~ Planning Board voted Six makes a Special Uses twenty-six (6) to Two (2) to make an recommendation for (26) copies of the Site Plan, affirmative Indicating an affirmative and for Class B Special X Yes _ No that the Applicant had X Yes _ No finding based on Uses ten (10) copies of the submitted the necessary information contained Site Plan, prepared by a site plans as required, within the record, registered North Carolina and detailed, within specifically, the land surveyor, landscape Section 7.5.1 of the applicant has architect, architect, or Ordinance. submitted a site plan engineer, which shall The Board based their prepared by Summit a Consulting contain the information. decision on staffs , re istered 9 listed in Article 14.2.2. Where the application assessment that while en ineerin /surve g g y involves a Preliminary typical Special Use it i firm within the State Subdivision Plat, twenty-six e re a s projects requ plan submitted showing of North Carolina, (26) copies of the Plat all applicable information and Mr. Scott Murray Murra of Scott T re aced in accordance . 115 with Section V of the detailed within Section Incorporated, a Orange County Subdivision 14.2 of the Ordinance, certified landscape Regulations shall be Planned Development architect. provided projects ark not held to As previously the same standard given indicated the the specific nature of the application is deemed project as detailed within to be complete as the Article Seven (7) of the applicant has Ordinance. submitted a detailed application and a preliminary development concept plan outlining the intended development activity on the subject parcel as required under this Section of the Ordinance. With respect to the concern over the applications compliance with the Ordinance, .specifically the submittal of a site plan, we base our recommendation that the applicant has met the requirements of the Ordinance on the following: 1. Section 7.5.1 of the Ordinance requires that an applicant seeking Planned Development approval submit a preliminary concept plan showing the following: a.The general arrangement of land uses within ' the proposed district, b.The general location and function of the vehicular and edestrian 1r~ circulation system, c. The general solutions to the provisions of utilities, d. The general arrangement of common facilities such as open space, recreational installations, improvements, etc, e.A general description of ' the method of financing the installation and operation of the common .facilities, and f. A schedule of construction of all elements of the proposal 2. While all Planned Development projects are required to obtain • a Class A Special Use Permit, the project is not a typical Special Use project where a specific land use is being proposed. As a result a detailed site plan is not required, 3. Section 7.21 of the Ordinance indicates that a project within a Economic Development District is a Planned Development when it cannot meet the criteria for site plan approval as listed in Section 14.3 of !f~ the Ordinance. This section requires that staff approve a formally submitted site plan that indicates how it complies with the various provisions of the Ordinance. This application cannot supply a specific site plan as it is proposing to modify/alter existing design standards and because it is not proposing a specific use of . property. This is a master/concept plan proposing the overall development of a parcel of property through the various provisions contained in Article Seven (7) of the Ordinance. 8.8 b) -Elevations of all On August 13, 2008 the The Administration proposed structures to be Planning Board voted makes a used in the development. unanimously to make an recommendation for affirmative Indicating an affirmative X Yes No that the Applicant had X Yes _ No finding based on _ submitted the necessary information contained architectural renderings within the record .within the application outlining the proposed height, construction materials. and elevations of the proposed structures. 8.8 c) -Twenty-six (26) On August 13, 2008 the ~ The Administration copies of the Environmental Planning Board voted makes a Assessment and/or unanimously to make an recommendation for Environmental Impact affirmative Indicating an affirmative Statement, if required, by X Yes _ No that the Applicant had finding based on the Orange County submitted the necessary information contained Environmental Impact documentation to satisfy within the record Ordinance. this requirement. Specifically, the Board found that the Phase One /IS Environmental Site Assessment, completed by GEL Engineering of North Carolina, was sufficiently detailed to provide the required information. 8.8 d) - A fee, as set by the On August 13, 2008 the The Administration Orange County Board of Planning Board voted makes a Commissioners. unanimously to make an recommendation for affirmative Indicating an affirmative X Yes No that the Applicant had X Yes _ No finding based on _ submitted the necessary information contained review fee within the record 8.8 e) -Method of disposal On August 13, 2008. the The Administration stumps, and limbs of trees Planning Board voted Six makes a , , construction debris (6) to Two (2) to make an recommendation for associated with the activity affirmative Indicating an affirmative X Yes No that .the Applicant had X Yes _ No finding based on _ testified for the record information contained that trees, limbs, stumps, within the record and construction debris created from land clearing activities would be disposed off in accordance with County policies. ~'/ g ARTICLE 8 2 4 SPECIFIC STANDARDS/ALL SPECIAL USES ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non -compliance) (continued) ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDING(S) ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDING(S) In addition to the general standards stated in 8.2 the following specific standards shall be addressed by the applicant before the issuance of a Special Use Permit: a) Method and adequacy On August 13, 2008 the The Administration of provision of sewage disposal facilities, solid Planning Board voted Six (6) to Two (2) to make an X Yes _, No makes a recommendation for and water. waste X Yes No affirmative Indicating an affirmative , _ that the Applicant had finding based on sufficient information information contained relevant to this finding. within the record, specifically: Specifically, the applicant 1.The Application, has indicated that the specifically project will be served via Chapter Four (4) existing public water and detailing the sewer lines maintained by anticipated the City of Mebane. improvements that will be made to Further, the applicant has existing indicated that any and all water/sewer required utility infrastructure to improvements necessary support this to support the project, project. both on and off-site, shall be completed by the 2.A letter provided developer. by the City of Mebane during the February 23, Public ~ Hearing indicating that they can support the development of this project from a utility service perspective, 3. REPORT F-4 as contained within Attachment Five (5) of the record a es 523-528 ~zo submitted by Paul Thames discussing water/sewer issues associated with this project and the Efland Sewer project, 4.The Orange County Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement (WSMPBA) indicating that this area is intended to be served by public water and/or sewer. b) Method and adequacy On August 13, 2008 the The Administration of police, fire and Planning Board voted Six makes a rescue squad (6) to Two (2) to make an recommendation for protection. affirmative Indicating an . affirmative . X Yes No that the Applicant had X Yes _ No finding based on _ supplied sufficient information contained information concerning within the record the provision of these services. Specifically that fire protection will be provided by the Efland Fire Department, rescue service by the Orange County Emergency Management, and police protection by the Orange County Sheriff c) Method and adequacy On August 13, 2008 the The Administration of vehicular access to Planning Board voted Six makes a the site and traffic (6) to Two (2) to make an recommendation for conditions around the affirmative Indicating an affirmative site. X Yes No that the Applicant had X Yes _ No finding based on _ provided sufficient information contained detailed concerning this within the record item to make an affirmative recommendation. S ecificall , the Board ~~Z ~ found that a traffic impact analysis (TIA) has been submitted and reviewed in accordance with the provisions of Article Thirteen (13) of the Zoning Ordinance. Further, this report indicated that any and all necessary external and internal roadway improvements shall be installed prior to the commencement of non- residential land use operations within the project as detailed within the TIA and required by NC DOT d) Other use . specific On August 13, 2008 the The Administration standards are set forth Planning Board voted Six makes a in Section 8.8. (6) to Two (2) to make an recommendation for affirmative Indicating an affirmative X Yes No that the Applicant X Yes _ No finding based on _ provided necessary detail information contained per the requirements of within the record Section 8.8 and, specifically, Section 8.8.23 %22 ARTICLE 8 Section 8 21 (b) (1- (2) (3) ("Will" indicates compliance; "Will Not" indicates non-compliance) EVIDENCE PLANNING EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ADMINISTRATION SUBMITTED TO ORDINANCE BOARD TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS FINDINGS FINDING(S) FINDINGS FINDING(S) In accordance with Article 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Board of Commissioners shall also consider the following general conditions before the application for a Special Use can be approved: Article 8.2.1 & 8.2.2 1. The use will maintain or On August 13, 2008 the promote the public health, Planning Board voted Pending safety and general welfare, unanimously to make an if located where proposed x Will _ Will affirmative finding. and developed and Not operated according to the plan as submitted. Article 8.2.1 2. The use will maintain or On August 13, 2008 the enhance the value of Planning Board voted Pending contiguous property (unless Five (5) to Three (3) to the use is a public Will x Will make's negative finding. necessity, in which case the Not use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property). Article 8.2.1 3. The location and character of the use, if Pending developed according to the plan submitted, will be in _ Will _ Will harmony with the area in Not which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. ~z~ RECOMMENDATION: PENDING: CONDITIONS: ATTACHNL~N'T FOUR (4) STATEMENT OF INCONSISTENCY: STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COIVINIISSIONERS PURSUANT TO NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTE 153A-341 REGARDING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS FOR BUCKHORN ROAD ASSOCAITES LLC (PD-Ol-O$) Orange County has received and reviewed the application of Buclchorn Road Associates, LLC, (the "Applicant") to amend the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and Atlas to rezone four (4) parcels of real property containing approximately one hundred and thirty (130) acres from Economic Development District (I-85Buckhorn Road EDD) and/or Rural Residential One (R 1) to Buckhorn Village Planned Development -Economic Development District (BVPD-ED). The parcels are identified more particularly in the relevant application for amendment submitted by the Applicant. The Orange County Board of Commissioners has determined that the action is inconsistent.with Orange County's adopted comprehensive plan, and the Board of Commissioners proposed action on the amendment is not reasonable and not in the public interest for the following reasons: 1) That pursuant to Section 20.3.2 (e) of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, the Board fmds that the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment will not carry out the intent, and purpose of the adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof including, but not limited to, the following: a. The goals, policies, and objectives as detailed within the adopted Orange County Comprehensive Plan including, but not limited to, the Economic Development Element, and 2) That the proposed amendment is not consistent with the Orange County Economic Development Strategic Plan for Growth in that the amendment will not allow for the type or classification of jobs, as identified within the Economic Development Strategic Plan. 3) That the Board fmds that the proposed amendment will result in land uses that are not similar to existing development as the existing land uses surrounding the project are residential in nature. 4) That the Board fmds that there is insufficient documentation, submitted by the applicant, indicating that the project can be served through existing utility services. As a result the Board fmds that the project cannot be served by exiting utilities. Adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners this day of , 2008. Barry Jacobs, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners ~ z~- ATTACHMENT FIVE (5) RESOLUTION OF DET~IAL: RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COLfNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO DENY AN ORDINANCE FOR A ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT FOR A PLANI~TED DEVELOPMENT PETITION OF BUCKHORN ROAD ASSOCAITES LLC (PD-Ol-08) Date: Applicant/Owner: Buckhorn Road Associates LLC ~z5 The Board of County Commissioners for Orange County (hereafter "BOCC" or "Board") herby denies an Application For Amendment , (the "Application") to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance") and the Orange County Zoning Atlas (the "Atlas"), submitted by Buckhorn Road Associates LLC, (the "Applicant") to amend the Ordinance and Atlas by rezoning those certain parcels of property described more fully below: FROM: Economic Development District (I-85/Buckhron Road EDD) and/or Rural Residential One (R-1) TO: Buckhorn Village Planned Development -Economic Development District (BVPD-ED) . The parcels affected by the Application are located at the intersection of Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) and West Ten Road (SR 1144) being further identified as in the Orange County Land Records Office as follows: 1. A one hundred ten (1.10) acre tract of land identified as 508 Buckhorn Road (TMBL 3.28..20 /PIN 9834-561587), 2. A seventeen (17) acre tract of land also identified as 508 Buckhorn Road (TMBL 3.28..20C /PIN 9834-47-5147), 3. A one (1) acre parcel of property that is located west of the two (2) previously identified properties, listed as 527 Buckhorn Road (TMBL 3.28..13 /PIN 9834-36-4223), and 4. A two (2) acre parcel of property along West Ten Road, adjacent to the previously identified one hundred ten (110) acre tract of land (TMBL 3.28..57C /PIN 9834-54- 1735) These parcels shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Property" or "property". The Property is further identified by the following legal description: Tracks 1 and 2 (128.05 Acres total) PIN 9834-56-1587 / 9834-47-5147 BEGINN]NG at a point at the intersection of the, centerline of West Ten Road SR 1144) and the centerline of Buckhorn Road (SR 1114), said point having NC ~zb Grid Coordinates N. 844646.257 feet, E. 1933702.566 feet (NAD 83/07), and mm~ing thence with the centerline of Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) along 4 courses as follows: N.10°24'43"W. 132.35 feet to a point, N.02°43'30"W. 105.50 feet to a point, N.00°36'24"E. 326.95 feet to a point and N.00°53'28"E. 384.62 feet to a point; thence with the lines of now or formerly Naola Fearrington, Maggie Murphy, Joe Fearrington, Phyllis Foust and Jasper Foust along 8 courses as follows: N.89°01'28"E. 346.54 feet to an existing iron pin, N07°25'56"W. 65.11 feet to an existing iron pin, N07°40'27"W. 65.04 feet to an existing iron pin, N07°37'42"W. 80.48 feet to an existing iron pin, N07°32'31"W. 185.11 feet to an existing iron pin, N07°40'25"W. 214.32 feet to an existing iron pin, N07°47' 11"W. 179.59 feet to an existing iron pin, and N80°50'40"W. 116.23 feet to point in the centerline of Buckhorn Road (SR 1114); thence with the centerline of Buckhorn Road ( SR 1114) along 4 courses as follows: N12°52'50"E. 63.86 feet to ,point, N10°43'08"E. 183.67 feet to point, N04°14'02"W. 227.56 feet to point and N10°55'43"W. 300.03 feet to point; thence with Venture Capital Group along 2 courses as follows: N84°14'06"E. 28.44 feet to point and a curve to the left having a radius of 997.69 feet, an arc length of 717.82 feet (chord bearing and distance N50°45' 16"E 702.44 feet) to a point in the south right of way line of Interstate Highway I-85; thence with the south right of way line of Interstate Highway I-85 along 8 courses as follows: a curve to the right having a radius of 1352.38 feet, an arc length of 386.20 feet chord bearing and distance N87°13'25"E 384.89 feet) to a point, S81°54'34"E. 194.37 feet to point, S79°13' 14"E. 177.50 feet to point, S79°13' 14"E. 72.57 feet to point, S80°35'43"E. 949.99 feet to point, N77°38'08"E. 53.94 feet to a point, S81°00'51"E. 133.85 feet to an existing iron pin and, S80°46'20"E. 22.51 feet to an existing iron pin; thence with the west line of now or formerly Don Collins S08°42'04"E. 1209.06 feet an existing iron pin; thence with the lines of "Clearview Subdivision (Plat Book 71 page 146) lots 24,23 and E-23 along 2 courses as follows: S87°13'11"W. 1038.93 feet to an existing iron pin and S08°42'25"E. 214.12 feet to an existing iron pin; thence with the north line of now or formerly D H Doby S84°33'36"W. 210.04 feet to an existing iron pin; thence with the north and west lines of now or formerly N Thomasson along 2 courses as follows:S84°40'11"W. 209.89 feet to an existing iron pin and S08°58'20"E. 691.72 feet to an existing iron pin: thence with the west line of now or formerly F Kirkpatrick S08°43'33"E. 300.66 feet to an existing iron pin; thence with the north and west lines of now or formerly N Thomasson along 3 courses as follows: S87°46'31"W. 253.89 feet to an existing iron pin , S04°57'07"E. 301.62, feet to an existing iron pin, and S04°57'07"E. 25.31 feet to a point in the centerline of West Ten Road (SR 1144); thence with the centerline of West Ten Road (SR 1144) along 6 courses as follows: 5.88°37'49"W. 260.79 feet to a point, 5.89°38' 18"W. 485.65 feet to a point, N.87°44'05"W. 130.27 feet to a point N.82°29'51"W. 228.74 feet to a point, N78°12'51"W. 95.94 feet to a point and N.77°09'29"W. 114.27 feet to a point at the intersection ~ of the centerline of West Ten Road (SR 1144) and the centerline of Buckhorn Road SR 1114), the POINT OF BEGINNING and being the major portion of property of Orange County Investors as described in Deed Book 475 Page 583 and Deed ~z~ Book 4126 page 223 containing approximately 128.05 acres as shown on survey entitled "Re-zoning Description Plat, 128.05 Acres Total, Properly Surveyed For Orange County Investors" dated January 04, 2008, preliminary plat by William H. McCarthy, Jr. PLS, Summit Consulting Project 07-390E to which plat reference is. hereby made for a more particular description of same. Bearings used in this description are based on NC Grid NAD 83/07. Tract 3-R 0.49 Acres PIN 9834-36-4225 BEGINNING at a point having NC Grid Coordinates N. 846,393.224 feet, E. 1,933,838.722 feet (NAD 83/07) in the east right of way line of Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) in the south line of Orange County Investors (see Tract 1 as shown on plat entitled "Property Surveyed For Orange County Investors" Plat Book 39 page 109 and Deed Book 475 page 583 Orange County Registry) and said point being the northwest corner of that portion of Tract 1, as shown on plat entitled "Final Plat Division of Bertha Foust Estate" Plat Book 75 page 44 Orange County Registry, lying on the east side of Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) and running thence with the south and west lines of Orange County Investors (see Tract 1 as shown on plat entitled "Property Surveyed For Orange County Investors" Plat Book 39 page 109 and Deed Book 475 page 583 Orange County Registry) along 2 courses as follows: 5.82°26'36"E. 86.56 feet to an existing iron pin and 5.07°47'11"E. 179.59 feet to an existing iron pin at the northeast corner of Phyllis Foust (see Plat Book 5 page 22, part of tract 6 and Deed Book 932 page 60 Orange County Registry); thence along and with Foust's north line N.85°26'33"W. 151.90 feet to a point in the east right of way line of Buckhorn Road (SR 1114): thence along and with the east right of way line of Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) N.13°06'44"E. 181.99 feet to a point, the place and POINT OF BEGINNING, and being all of that portion of Tract 1, as shown on plat entitled "Final Plat Division of Bertha Foust Estate" Plat Book 75 page 44 Orange County Registry, lying on the east side of Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) containing 0.49 acres more or less, designated as Tract 3-R on plat entitled "Re-zoning Description Plat, 2.49 Acres Total, Property Surveyed For Buckhorn Road Associates, LLC" dated February 11, 2008, preliminary plat by William H. McCarthy, Jr. PLS, Summit Consulting Project 07-390E to which plat reference is hereby made for a more particular description of same. Bearings used in this description are based on NC Grid NAD 83/07. Tract 4-R 2.00 Acres PIN 9834-54-1735 BEGINNING at a point having NC Grid Coordinates N. 844,586.556 feet, E. 1,935,288.799 feet (NAD 83/07) in the center of West Ten Road (SR 1144) at the southwest corner of Nellie Hatch Thomasson and husband Carl E. Thomasson (see Tract 3 Deed Book 2049 page 227 Orange County Registry), said point being shown as the southeast corner of Tract 1 Plat Book 39 page 109 Orange County Registry, and n~nning thence with the centerline of West Ten Road (SR 1144) along 2 courses as follows: 5.86°17'47"W. 101.04 feet to a point and ~z~ 5.88°27'06"W. 176.82 feet to a point in the center of a Public Service Company of North Carolina Gas Easement; thence with the center of said easement along 3 courses as follows: N.04°57'07"W. 0.29 feet'to a point, N.04°57'07"W. 25.31 feet to an existing iron pin, and N.04°57'07"W. 301.62 feet to an existing iron pin; thence 5.87°46'31"E. 253.89 feet to an existing iron pin in the west line of Faye Ann Simmons Kirkpatrick (see Deed Book 3676 page 255 Orange County Registry) ;thence along and with the west lines of Faye Ann Simmons Kirkpatrick (see Deed Book 3676 page 255 Orange County Registry) and Nellie Hatch Thomasson and husband Carl E. Thomasson (see Tract 3 Deed Book 2049 page 227 Orange County Registry) 5.09°07'25"E. 328.71 feet to a point in the center of West Ten Road (SR 1144), the place and POINT OF BEGINNING, and being all Tract 4-R containing 2.00 Acres more or less as shown on plat entitled "Re-zoning Description Plat, 2.49 Acres Total, Property Surveyed For Buckhorn Road Associates, LLC" dated February 11, 2008, preliminary plat by William H. McCarthy, Jr. PLS, Summit Consulting Project 07-390E to which plat reference is hereby made for a more particular description of same. Bearings used in this description are based on NC Grid NAD 83/07. In accordance with the Ordinance, the Board hereby makes the following findings as to the denial of the Application: That pursuant to Section 20.3.2 (e) of the Ordinance, the Board fmds that the Application will not carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof including, but not limited to, the following: a. The goals, policies, and objectives as detailed within the adopted Orange County Comprehensive Plan including, but not limited to, the Economic Development Element, and b. The Orange County Economic Development Strategic Plan for Growth. 2. Pursuant to Article Seven (7) of the Ordinance, the Board fmds that the Application is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Ordinance requirements and that, in accordance with Section 7.5.4, the Board makes the following findings: (a) As to the suitability of the proposals for the general type of PD category, the physical characteristics of the land, and relation of the proposed development to surrounding areas and existing and probable future development; The Board fmds that the proposed development is not similar to existing development as the existing land uses surrounding the project are primarily residential in nature. (b) As to relation to major roads and mass transit facilities, utilities and other facilities and services; The Board fmds that there is insufficient documentation, submitted by the Applicant, indicating that the proposed development can be served l2~ through existing utility services. As a result the Board finds that the project cannot be served by exiting utilities. (c) As to the adequacy of evidence on unified control and the suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, deed restrictions, sureties, dedications, contributions, guarantees, or other instruments, or the need for such instruments, or for amendments in those proposed; The Board fmds that the Application amendment does .not contain sufficient documentation indicating that the development will be under unified control guaranteeing the development of the property consistent with the proposed Application(s). (d) As to the suitability ofplans proposed or the desirability of amendments; The Board fmds that the plans proposed within the Application are not suitable for approval. (e) As to the adherence to PD or general regulations or as to desirable specific modifications in PD or general regulations as applied to the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are necessary or justified in the particular case by demonstration that the public purposes of PD or other The Board fmds that: i. The Application does not adhere to the applicable PD and/or general regulations, and ii. The Application does not contain desirable amendments, specifically the fourteen (14) proposed Design Solutions, that apply to this particular development as proposed by the Applicant. 3. That the members of the public who spoke at the several public hearings on the Application indicated broad-based opposition for the types of uses of the Property proposed within the Application and the potential negative environmental impacts that could result of the Application was approved. 4. That the types of uses of the Property proposed by the Application are not desirable to serve the residents of Northern Orange County. 5. That the jobs that are anticipated to be created as a result of the proposed uses on the Property are "low wage" jobs and thus not the type desired. 6. That there is property adjacent to Property at issue that is residential in nature, and the Application proposes uses that are far more intensive than adjacent land uses. This Ordinance shall become effective upon approval. The foregoing resolution having been submitted to a vote received the following vote: t3Q Ayes: Noes: Excused: Donna Baker, Clerk to BOCC Barry Jacobs, Chair Orange County Commissioners Law or-Ficls COLEMAN,- GrLE'DHILL, HARGRAVE ~ PEEK A PROFESSIONAL CQ1tPaRATiON 129 E. TItYaN ST1tF.EC P. O. DRAWER 1329 ~~ r yEpg~7 ,('1{, NpR'i'H G4RpLi1~A 27276 919-?32-2196 FAX 419-T32-7997 www.cghp-law.com September 12, 2008 Barry Jacobs, Chair Moses Carey, 3r. Valerie P. Foushee Alice M. Gordon IV11~e Nelson Prange County Board of Commissioners post lJffice BoX 8181 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 FRab11'HE DESK OF GEO~`FILEY E GLEDHiLL E.MA11s ~u11~cgL3~~~ RE; Buckhorn Village PDISI1k': Scope of Board of County Commissioner Revaew Dear Board Members: This letter is intended to provide an outline to the Boazd of your scope of review of the Buckhorn Village Plamied DevelopmendSpecial Use Permit application. The standards and requirements. for the Buckhorn Economic Development District aze detailed and specific. On the other hand, they permit all of the uses prescribed in the Economic t The details and specifics are, generally speaking, design Development Districts Manual by righ standards: The big picture is that a proposed development located in the Buckhorn Economic Development District maves'direetly to site plan approval so long as the development conforms to all of the requirements of the Economic Development Districts Manual. Site plan review and approval is conducted by the Orange County Planning staff and is intended to insure that the development conforms to the regulations in place. The Zoning Ordinance authorizes "planned developments: ' A Planned development when approved by the Board of County Commissioners is its awn zoning district. And, the Zoning Ordinance permits Planned development districts to be located in Economic Development Districts. That is, within the Buckhorn Economic Development District, a unique zoning district can be created via the planned development process. Tn the instant case that development district will be, if approved by the Board, the Buckharn Village Planned Development Economic Development District. Section 7.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, in pertinent Part, states as f°llows: Planned Development (PD) districts may be established for specialized purposes where tracts suitable in location, area and character for the use and structures proposed are to be Orange County Board of Commissioners Page 2 September 12, 2Q08 planned and developed on a unified basis. ,Suitability of tracts for the development proposed shall be determined primarily by reference to the Comprehensive Plan, but due consideration shall be given to the existing and prospective character of surrounding development. Section 7.21.1 of the Zoning Ordinance expressly provides for Planned Development Districts within Economic Development D~stncts when the plans for development do NOT: 1 • Meet the criteria for site plan approval. • • ; 2. Address agency comments solicited during the site plan review process; and/or' 3. Adhere to the design standards applicable within Economic Development Districts as set forth in Article 6.29 of this ordinance; and which propose a design solution which is equal to or better than could be obtained through the application of the criteria and standards contained in the Design Manual. In such cases, application for and approval of a Planned Development District shall be governed by the general and specific standards and procedures for the issuance of a Planned Development Pernut as set forth in [Article 7]. In other words, Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance per~~ a parallel method for the development of land in the Buckharn Economic Development District. Through the rezoning and special use processes, which. are necess t~hero eauPilre~ments ffor a PD D stri t thatrare unique to the Commissioners can establish uses and q created district. The process for this approval is, first, a legislative one, in effect, a "conditional" Zoning Ordinance Atlas amendment. And, if the z useg eormr~tmust be pln°ved to dpetail the specific Board of County Commissioners, a specral P ecial use requirements and conditions for the development of the land in the new district. The sp permit requirements are comparable to the requirements contained in the Economic Development Districts Manual for projects thltoarment islcreated by ordinan efamendment and Development District. Once the planned dev p the special use Permit is issued, the project is handled like a project in an economic development district that does not require a planned deveiopmentoanaldsiwith =~ec~t to the specific uses watlun it goes through one or many "final (site) plan app the PD district and other development requirements- Master plan or "concept plan" approval by the Board of Commissioners is contemplated by the Planned Development regulations. Section 7.5.1(c) of the Zoning Ordinance requu~es the applicant, to receive this approval, to show: Orange County Board of Ca~issioners Page 3 September 12, 2008 1. 'The general arrangement of land uses within the proposed districts. 2. 'The general location and function of the vehicular and pedestrian circulation system. 3. The general solutions to the provision of utilities. 4, The general arrangement of evmm-on facilities such as open space, recreational installations, improvements, etc.. . S. A general description of the method of financing the installation and operation ofthe common facilities. 6. A schedule of construction of all elements of the proposal. Section 7.5.4 of the Zoning Ordinance requires the Zoning Offic a osed by the developer in the recommendations v-nthrespect to the master planlconcept plan. p p form of "findings" to be made by the Board of County Commissioners: a) As to the suitability of the proposals for the general type of FD category, the physical characteristics of the land, and relation of the proposed development to surrounding areas and existing and probable future development; • b) As to relation to major roads and mass transit facilities, utilities and other facilities and services; c) As to the adequacy of evidence on unified control and the suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts,~deed ereslrir su h~instruments~or fornamendment~s m • guarantees, or other instruments, those proposed; . o osed or the desirability of amendments; d) As to the suitability of plans pr F ations ar as to desirable specific e) As to the adherence to PD or general regal modifications in PD or general regulations as applied to the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are necessary or justified in the particular case by demonstration that the public purposes of PD ar other regulations would be met to at least an equivalent degree by such modifications. Based an such findings, the Zoning Officer shall recommend approval of the PD amendment proposed, approval conditioned on stipulated modifications or disapproval, with recorded reasons therefore. The Board of County Commissioners then either approves the planned development amendment ar does not (Sections 7.5.5 and 7.5.6 of the Zoning Ordinance). if the Board the approval must be accompanied by approves the planned development conceptlmaster plan, the approval of the special use permit applicable to the planned development district created and which will almost always contain a number of conditions to insure that the development conforms to the concept plan approved by ~ ~ °ents of the Board dee7nksed necessary to appro eaa the development conforms to all of the requu project thax does not otherwise meet existing economic development district requirements. North Carolina law does, however, require that each condition for approval of a planned development Grange County Board of Commissioners Page 4 September 12, 2008 special use permit be accepted by the applicant. It is therefore critical to get the applicant's acceptance of all conditions that the Board of County Commissioners deems necessary to approve the zoning change. Put another way, although rezoning the property and the action approving the special use permits are separate actions, they are inextricably linked. If there is any condition that the Board of Commissioners thinks must accompany the project to satisfy it the zoning change works for the County it must have the agreement of the developer on that condition before it changes the zoning. 'This linkage of the zoning decision and the special use permit decision and conditions lets the developer and the community know that ~t~ut the conditions the Board deems necessary, the zoning change would not be approved. The only prior experience Orange County has in approving a planned development that is comparable to the Buckhorn Village application is the development now lmown as Churton Grove (formerly Scotswood) which was approved approximately 20 years ago. That approval was also, in effect, a master plan approval. And, the developer of that project is still going through the Planning staff site plan review process for one aspect of the development or another. Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance, providing for planned developments, refers to Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance and its requirements for special uses. Section $.8.23 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Planned Developments, con#ains minimal special use requirements and, in turn, refers to Sections 8.2 and 8.8. Section 8.2 contains the general standards that must be met for all special uses. They aze: (1) The use will maintain or promote the gublic health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted; (2} The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property...; (3} The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will be harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is • in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, a portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners; and including all applicable provisions of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 9,10 and 12 of this Ordinance.... The applicant shall have the burden of establishing by competent, material and substantial evidence in the form of testimony, exhibits, documents, models, plans and the like that the application meets the requirements for approval of a Special use. Section 8.8, applicable generally to special uses, requires site plan Level detail to be provided as part of the application process with respect to specific special uses such as telecarnmunication towers, elevated storage tanks, commercial cemeteries, community centers and the like. This level of detail is both necessary and practical in the consideration of discrete land uses. On the other hand, a planned development master/concept plan is eontemglated by Section 7.21.1 and Article ? in general. Site plan detail at the PD SUP approval level is typically Orange County Board of Commissioners Page 5 September 12, 2008 going to be neither necessary nor practical. Section 7.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance does require the PD application to show the intended uses within the Planned Development District. however, Section 7.6 ca11s for the Zoning Administrator to approve the final plans for the planned development "as a whole or stages or portions thereof deemed satisfactory in relation to the total development "That same section requires the Orange County Manager to certify that the conditions imposed by the Board of County Commissioners for approval of the Planned Development Special Use have been met in that final plan review process. And, the final plan review contemplated by Section 7.6 is the site plan review captured in Article 14 of the Zoning O .dinance. In'summary, the County Zoning Ordinance does contemplate Board of Commissioner consideration of the master plan development that i.s embodied in the Buckhorn Village application. It further contemplates, if there is Board of Commissioner approval of the Planned Development District and its accompanying special use permit, that that approval will, to the extent it varies the rap>.irements of the Bucklxorn Economic Development District, take the place of those requirements. And, the County Planning staff is charged, together with the County Manager through the site development review and approval process, with insuring that the planned development is built as approved by the Board. of County Commissioners. Very truly yours, COLEMAN, GLEDHII.L, HARGRAVE & PEEK, P.C. GEG/lsg xc: Craig Benedict Laura Blackmon F:1L,isallettersiBd of Comm ltr ~e Buekhcirn Village PD SUP.doe