Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
David Blankfard asked for clarification about the parcel to the north. Michael Harvey answered that the applicant is 166 <br />choosing to propose a solid buffer for District 1. 167 <br /> 168 <br />Hunter Spitzer asked why the developer is asking for more clearing. Michael Harvey reviewed that it is for an access 169 <br />road, parking and a stormwater feature. 170 <br /> 171 <br />Tony Blake asked if the breaks are for signage. Michael Harvey answered no, there are signage regulations and they 172 <br />are not permitted in the buffer. The breaks are for the purpose of drivers on the interstate being able to see the 173 <br />development. No billboards are allowed. There are still signage limitations. 174 <br /> 175 <br />Lydia Wegman asked to hear from the developer on the variable buffer request. 176 <br /> 177 <br />Jim Parker spoke representing the developer. He said as much as we like to preserve buffers and trees, this is an 178 <br />economic development parcel that needs visibility from the highway. The end users who will use this property will 179 <br />want to be seen from the highway. If we can’t provide that, we’ll lose opportunity. The visibility would be one of the 180 <br />key reasons businesses would want to locate here. 181 <br /> 182 <br />Lydia Wegman asked if stormwater accommodation and parking is secondary to visibility to the road. Jim Parker 183 <br />confirmed that. 184 <br /> 185 <br />David Blankfard asked have you started developing what you plan to do in that area for signage. Jim Parker 186 <br />answered no, we’ve laid out some building footprints to give us an idea of how the circulation could work. What we 187 <br />anticipate is plausible in terms of parking. The hotel would be located where you would expect it to be on one of the 188 <br />highest points with good visibility from both directions. This is an economic development area at an interchange. 189 <br />Again, we are supportive of trees and buffers that protect residential developments. Neither the motorists nor the 190 <br />businesses that would locate there care about the buffer. The businesses want to be seen. 191 <br /> 192 <br />Paul Guthrie asked, from Jim Parker’s general perception, would this development fill out quickly. Jim Parker 193 <br />answered if the economy stays as it is and sewer service is extended quickly, it will. Since we have made it public in 194 <br />the last 2 or 3 months, we have had a lot of interest but no one is going to sign until they know it’s coming and they 195 <br />can count on it. But to answer your question, I think it will. 196 <br /> 197 <br />Kim Piracci asked if the two little restaurants would be fast food restaurants. Jim Parker answered affirmatively. He 198 <br />said he was hoping for a sit-down restaurant but businesses in this type of development all work together. 199 <br /> 200 <br />Kim Piracci asked if there has been a feasibility study of the best use of this land. Jim Parker answered we have 201 <br />done our own studies, which are nonscientific and I don’t know if any are. On our team, we have brokers who deal 202 <br />with this day to day and know how to bring commercial users. They are excited about the property and opportunity. 203 <br /> 204 <br />Hunter Spitzer checked that the reduction of the depth of the buffer is also for visibility. Jim Parker answered yes, in 205 <br />addition to parking and access drives. 206 <br /> 207 <br />Lydia Wegman asked if 100 or 75 feet would be problematic. Jim Parker said he’s not trying to be flippant but if they 208 <br />thought they could get by with 75 feet of buffer, they would have asked for that. They are asking for what they need. 209 <br /> 210 <br />Craig Benedict said they have re-landscaped that parking lot with a tree every 10 parking spaces. Any encroachment 211 <br />has to be re-landscaped in accordance to what use is going on in there. 212 <br /> 213 <br />Michael Harvey said in summary, regarding the MTC buffer issue for this project, the applicant had requested 60 214 <br />percent breaks and county commissioners did not react with great comfort to that request. The applicant has said 215 <br />they’ll stick with 50 percent breaks but they are asking for reducing the remaining buffer from 100 feet to 50 feet in 216 <br />some places. Michael Harvey asked for the general reaction of the reduction of the buffer from 100 to 50 feet. 217 <br /> 218 <br />Kim Piracci said I’m remembering all the local residents at the public hearing were very concerned about the noise. I 219 <br />don’t like the idea of cutting all those trees. The developer can come up with another way. Once a tree is cut down, 220 <br />77