Agenda - 12-04-2017 - 8-a - Minutes

Browse Search

11 1 2. Lighting is a concern with many homeowners in the area that appreciate dark skies. 2 That is a quintessential part of the character of the area. Again, some types of 3 developments (eg office or research) can mitigate these problems but others virtually 4 demand intrusive lighting (gas stations, restaurants, warehousing). Standing lights are a 5 concern. 6 3. Noise. More traffic, more noise and not much more needs to be said in that regard. Also 7 the wooded areas provide a near complete buffer for traffic noise from Interstate 40 for 8 nearly all parcels on Davis Rd. Removal of that buffer will degrade the homeowner 9 experience. 10 4. Visual aesthetic. The good news here is that most of this is completely under control of 11 the developer and the county. But I would hope that the design criteria would strike the 12 use of a 50ft 20x20 sign for District 2. Again, that would be wholly inappropriate for the 13 area. Old 86 is a scenic drive and the northern most part of that highway should have 14 as much protection as is possible from an aesthetic point of view. Likewise, Interstate 15 40 has a very clear and clean visual aesthetic. Driving east from Efland where Interstate 16 40 splits from Interstate 85, there is no signage of that size on the road until one arrives 17 in Wake County. Much care has been taken to remove standing billboards of any type 18 from intruding on the visual experience of the highway. The Interstate 40 corridor is, 19 visually, one of the nicest highways in state in this regard. In Orange County it has 20 many aspects of a boulevard and it should be kept that way. 21 I think that it is fair to say that most homeowners on Davis Rd, and in this area of the county, 22 view the exit at Interstate 40 and Old 86 as their entranceway to their homes. At present that 23 entrance way is rural and quiet. The county now wants to allow the placement of three large 24 developments literally right on our front steps. I cannot argue against development, but I would 25 hope that the county and the developers respect the character of the area. One only has to 26 drive west into Alamance County to visualize what I am most concerned with: another highway 27 exit built to satisfy transit economics but completely disrupting the character of the surrounding 28 local area. 29 30 Best regards 31 Matthew Kostura 32 4201 New Hope Springs Dr 33 Hillsborough, NC 27278 34 35 Ronald Siebar reviewed the following comments: 36 37 Dear County Commissioners: 38 I strongly disagree with the actions taken so far in regard to the three parcels that make up the 39 proposed Settlers Point Development. 40 1. I find it appalling that not all of the members of the Planning Board had adequate time 41 to read the comprehensive proposal for this huge development before sending a 42 recommendation to the County Commissioners. This appears to be a "rush job" and to 43 whose benefit? 44 2. I object to any approval of District I tenants in the "warehouse district" 45 until ALL members of both commissions have been able to read the report and vote 46 on the proposed development. It doesn't make sense on such a big project to do 47 otherwise. 48 3. I object to the proposed rezoning of Districts II and III because the described districts 49 do not disclose what tenants or tenant mix is going to be present, nor do they 50 adequately take into account the water resources that Hillsborough will be asked to 51 supply. I understand that District III has been delayed until a later date; we need to 52 delay the up-zoning for properties in the proposed District II as well. 53 4. The proposed development of the districts does not adequately anticipate, and 54 therefore does not protect against, the adverse visual and aural impact of such a