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