Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
135 <br />Michael Harve <br />From: Michael Harvey <br />Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 2:13 PM <br />To: Jim Parker (jimparker16 @gmail.com); Ariel Gamboa (ariel.gamboa @summitde.net); Ed <br />Sirgany (ed.sirgany @summitde.net) <br />Cc: Travis Myren; Craig Benedict (cbenedict @orangecountync.gov); Tom Altieri; Nishith <br />Trivedi; Patrick R. Mallett <br />Subject: Required information related to Settlers Point <br />Attachments: Att 11 - Revised Resolution of Approval with Conditions.doc <br />As you are already aware the Settlers Point Conditional Zoning application was reviewed by the Orange County Board of <br />Commissioners (BOCC) at its November 14, 2017 public hearing. <br />The application was referred back to the Planning Board to address suggested modification(s) to several condition(s) <br />associated with the project and to address requests for additional information by the BOCC. At this time the Planning <br />Board is slated to review the project at a special meeting scheduled for Monday December 18, 2017. In preparation for <br />this meeting the following information is necessary to be completed for review: <br />1. Existing Conditions: <br />a. CONDITION 6 —the applicant had objections to granting approval /denial authority to the Orange Rural <br />Volunteer Fire Department and suggested modification to allow review of development proposals while <br />maintaining approval authority with the County and Town Fire Marshal's. You will need to be prepared <br />to review this matter with the Planning Board as they recommended the condition. <br />b. CONDITION 13 (h) (vi) MTC BUFFER modifications —the BOCC expressed concern over the proposed <br />clearing of the MTC buffer as suggested by the applicant and indicated there preference to restrict <br />clearing to what is currently allowed within Section 6.6.5 (A) of the UDO (i.e. clearing only 50% of the <br />MTC Buffer). <br />The applicant made comment(s) at the hearing that they could abide by the clearing limits already <br />established within the UDO so long as encroachment of utility, stormwater, and vehicular use areas (i.e. <br />roadways, travel lanes, parking) could be accommodated within a 50 ft. portion of the 'disturbed' MTC <br />buffer. Please be prepared to discuss this alternative. You will need to provide a schematic illustrating <br />how the project will comply with the provisions of Section 6.6.5 (A) as well as how much 'encroachment' <br />is being proposed, what would be allowed, and any proposal to re- vegetate the area to address buffer <br />requirements for vehicular use areas (i.e. roadway and parking). <br />c. CONDITION 13 (k) SIGNAGE —the BOCC expressed concern over a lack of detail on how the architectural <br />landmark freestanding sign and the entry portal signs would look and a general understanding of their <br />anticipated location. BOCC members reiterated a rendering of both signs is required before same can <br />be considered for approval as part of this project. <br />STAFF COMMENT: A BOCC memberwanted clarification on allowable illumination of <br />signage. Condition 13 (k) (iii) (2) (e) indicates external lighting would be allowed for an entry <br />portal sign. This was an error on staff's part. The allowance shall be removed to ensure <br />consistency with the Settlers Point narrative. <br />