Browse
Search
OCPB agenda 100417
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Agendas
>
2017
>
OCPB agenda 100417
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2018 3:55:46 PM
Creation date
3/14/2018 3:40:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/4/2017
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
OCPB minutes 100417
(Message)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Planning Board\Minutes\2017
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
348
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
101 East Orange Street • P. O. Box 429 • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 <br />919-732-1270 • Fax 919-644-2390 <br /> <br />3) Parking standard for industrial is very high, especially if uses end up with significant warehouse <br />space. <br />4) Elementary, middle, and high schools are listed as a permitted use in the light industrial portion of the <br />site. This is undesirable as schools are a very low density but high traffic impact uses. Allowing more <br />than 10 acres of an economic development district be taken by a non-taxable entity is not desirable. <br />Schools generally do not have spin-off investments to compensate. <br />5) This site is a poor location for senior housing. True senior housing does not need prime road access <br />but does need supporting retail and activities if the seniors are to be active and engaged. It’s unclear <br />that these uses are proposed for the retail component. This location is better suited to affordable <br />housing to provide easy highway access to employees who may need to travel significant distances to <br />their jobs. <br />6) Senior housing comes with many regulatory requirements from the state level if services are to be <br />provided, as stated in the narrative. Assisted living and skilled nursing can’t just be built without prior <br />approval and Certificates of Need from the state. I have inquired as to whether any certificates exist <br />for Orange County and the response from the state indicates it is unlikely that Orange County would <br />see approvals for more beds through 2020. If the proposal is really just for an age restricted <br />subdivision, the applicant should be compelled to remove these other services from their narrative as <br />they are unrealistic and build unreasonable expectations in the reviewing board and general public. <br />7) Any residential development in this area will be isolated from the remainder of Hillsborough. <br />Connectivity among neighborhoods is a high community priority. Isolation and the need for <br />connectivity are currently being discussed in updates to the county Master aging Plan as an important <br />quality of life aspect. Unless widening of South Churton includes sidewalks under I-40 and along the <br />project frontage, it will not be possible for someone living here to safely walk or bike to Waterstone or <br />any other part of town. This type of improvement can only happen with annexation as NCDOT does <br />not allow sidewalk construction without a maintenance agreement. We will be creating another <br />isolated node that will be extremely expensive to retrofit into the town’s ideal of connectedness. <br />8) The proposed development details and criteria do not align well with the town’s Unified Development <br />Ordinances for setbacks, building heights, and the like. If annexed, the town would likely need to <br />create a new zoning district to accommodate at least portions of this site or the site will be non- <br />conforming. <br />9) The narrative is very light on development details. Pages are committed to landscaping, signage, and <br />solid waste, but there is no clear mention of any other development standards. The signage <br />requirements are very different from town requirements and will create significant non-conformities if <br />this site is developed under these standards and then annexed. The town is nearing the end of its <br />amortization period for existing freestanding signs and could begin compelling sign replacements in <br />the city in 2 more years. To have the development happening with vastly different standards at the <br />same time will be a public relations nightmare. <br />10) The driveway spacing is less than optimal. The existing service road is close to the interchange ramps <br />and could be impacted by future widenings. The application doesn’t include any additional frontage to <br />access the western portion of the project or make use of Davis Road. <br />11) The submittal information gives no indication that there will be any internal connectivity on the east <br />side. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br /> Margaret A. Hauth, AICP <br />Planning Director <br />Assistant Town Manager <br /> 282
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.