Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
136 <br />TIA —there has been a modification to the submitted TIA as reviewed by NC Department of Transportation. This <br />revision was provided to the staff on November 14, 2017. As we have already discussed staff will need more <br />detail on the proposed roadway layout including a rendering denoting the distance of the holding lane for the u- <br />turn, anticipated location of same, explanation of the travel trips that will trigger development of the currently <br />recommended configuration as denoted in the November 14, 2017 e -mail, turning template(s) for the <br />intersection, more detail on how intersection will be handled (i.e. stop sign versus stop light and what traffic <br />trip(s) point generates the need for a light versus a stop sign) and renderings /schematics denoting 'visibility' of <br />the u -turn from north bound traffic on NC Highway 86 (i.e. we really need to have an idea what this u -turn area <br />will look like and how it will look to oncoming traffic). <br />STAFF COMMENT: This next statement represents my personal observation and is not intended to <br />indicate the determination of Comprehensive Planning /Transportation staff or the Director: /am not <br />convinced the proposed u -turn layout is appropriate for the roadway and I believe development of same <br />will exacerbate existing congestion. /am not convinced there is sufficient area to allow 'trucks' to make <br />the u -turn and then accelerate to then have to slow down to access the Interstate ramp. Regardless of <br />NC DOT's views on the matter I do not subscribe to the view turn restrictions off of Service Road <br />necessitating the development of a u -turn holding lane to allow traffic to access the Interstate is in the <br />County's best interest(s). <br />Please note the Director will make the final determination once the final packet is submitted for review <br />and will discuss the matter with the Planning Board at its December regular meeting. I suggest a second <br />meeting with all parties once the documentation is available and ready for review. <br />3. REVISIONS TO CONCEPT SITE PLAN: <br />a. As previously indicated the BOCC has requested a concept site plan denoting the anticipated location of <br />parking areas, access roads, stormwater features, landscaping, building(s), etc. for District(s) 1 and 2. <br />b. A tree survey shall be required denoting the location of 'specimen trees' in District(s) 1 and 2. The <br />survey should provide the location of significant foliage (i.e. species, height, width, etc.) within the <br />various development areas. <br />c. A more detailed buffer plan denoting proposed /required project buffers (i.e. perimeter, MTC, stream <br />AND floodplain, roadway, etc.) including widths, explanation of existing vegetation (i.e. pictures of the <br />existing foliage being preserved) or more detail (i.e. cross section and rendering) on how required <br />buffers would be replanted if necessary. <br />4. Consideration of additional conditions not already addressed herein: <br />a. A requirement that there be a reduction in the number of outdoor lighting features being left on after <br />local business operations close for the evening. There were also additional suggestions signs be <br />required to be extinguished after hours as well. This was to address concerns over light pollution. <br />STAFF COMMENT: There was interest expressed by the applicant to review this option BUT <br />there was also expression of concern over having sufficient lighting to curb vandalism and the <br />potential of illicit activities within the project after hours. <br />b. Including of language within the conditions encouraging /promoting water reuse for landscaping. <br />STAFF COMMENT: There is language in the narrative indicating the applicant would engage in <br />same. It will be added to the next draft of condition(s). <br />