Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 11/01/2017 <br /> <br />6 <br />the feature. As described, the sign will be subject to UDO guidelines that govern design for an entry portal marker. <br />Staff did not have any major concerns with signage; they just want to ensure that the signage does not exceed <br />square footage requirements, despite this being a high intensity project. <br /> <br />Tony Blake said that a project such as this may want a sign visible from the interstate. This issue is better addressed <br />sooner than later. <br /> <br />Michael Harvey responded that there are not going to be many opportunities for a McDonald’s to come to this site <br />and have the 60 – 70 foot sign. The applicable signage requirements from the UDO still apply. <br /> <br />Tony Blake replied that he had brought-up form-based code for this reason. <br /> <br />Michael Harvey said that master planning, at its heart and soul, gives a developer the opportunity to propose different <br />standards to try and address peculiarities of a specific project, and it is up to the BOCC to determine if there is <br />sufficient justification. Mr. Harvey explained that with this project, the Staff and the applicant have been working on <br />how to best apply design standards, landscaping, and signage innovatively and reasonably while following the UDO. <br />There is some flexibility in this project, like with the MTO buffer, that still upholds the County’s vision of preservation <br />of the view-shed along the interstate as best as possible. Mr. Harvey said that Staff is satisfied that the application is <br />complete and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He reiterated that Staff and the developer agreed that <br />environmental assessments would be part of all site plan reviews, though it is too soon for a formal Environmental <br />Impact Assessment (EIA) as the layout of the property has not yet been determined. The development is consistent <br />with other existing and anticipated development in this area, and Staff believes that that the land uses are compatible <br />and consistent with what is already allowed in the economic development districts. Mr. Harvey said that the Town of <br />Hillsborough has provided the County Planning Department with its courtesy review comments and expressed some <br />concern about District 3. District 3 was originally proposed as residential, specifically senior housing. Future Land <br />Use Map amendments cannot be updated until the Water and Sewer Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) and other <br />related documentation is modified to allow for this are to be considered as Transition Area. Per the emails that Mr. <br />Harvey sent to Board members, the Town of Hillsborough and County elected officials are interested in meeting to <br />discuss this further; Margaret Hauth, Hillsborough’s Planning Director and County Planning Staff are working to <br />facilitate this meeting. As discussed previously, District 3 will not be considered at this time due to its current land <br />use designation. The Board’s options are to recommend tabling the entire application until the Water and Sewer <br />Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) and Future Land Use Map are modified (Staff is not recommending this option); <br />recommend approval of District 1 and 2 for this project as they would be consistent with current and anticipating <br />development activity and are consistent with the Future Land Use Map, with a recommendation of delaying action on <br />District 3 until the Water and Sewer Boundary Map (WASMPBA) and Future Land Use Map issues are resolved; <br />recommend denial of the project (Staff is not recommending this option); or recommend approval of the application <br />as submitted, including District 3 (Staff is not recommending this option). <br /> <br />Kim Piracci said that this is the first time she has heard of Settler’s Point mixed use development and it seems like <br />with very little information, she has more questions than answers. She said that if she moved to approve this, she <br />does not feel like she knows what she is approving. <br /> <br />Michael Harvey said that part of this process is for the Board to ask questions to get a comfort level. He pointed to <br />the detailed, comprehensive narrative that Staff has provided and maps outlining what the area will look like. This <br />project was originally submitted February/March of 2017 and was then tabled. It was resubmitted in August 2017 and <br />this is the first hearing for the Planning Board to review the project. The narrative provides the standards for <br />developing this project. Since this is a master plan, there are not specifics on where exactly a hotel or a motel or an <br />industrial site will go. Board members are being asked to approve the zoning and regulatory limitations that will <br />govern this project overtime, from setbacks to land use buffers to parking requirements, etc. Staff will utilize the <br />Board’s approval to approve or deny the developer’s site plans as they come forward. This is different than a Special <br />Use Permit application is required to have a site plan showing how the property is going to be developed. Rather, this <br />process is a rezoning process. Design standards and criteria can and are going to be opposed. This criteria will be <br />the basis for approval of site plans as Staff moves forward. <br />16