OCPB agenda 121817 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 The application was referred back to the Planning Board to address suggested modification(s) to several condition(s) associated with the project and to address requests for additional information by the BOCC. At this time the Planning Board is slated to review the project at a special meeting scheduled for Monday December 18, 2017. In preparation for this meeting the following information is necessary to be completed for review: 1. Existing Conditions: a. CONDITION 6 – the applicant had objections to granting approval/denial authority to the Orange Rural Volunteer Fire Department and suggested modification to allow review of development proposals while maintaining approval authority with the County and Town Fire Marshal’s. You will need to be prepared to review this matter with the Planning Board as they recommended the condition. b. CONDITION 13 (h) (vi) MTC BUFFER modifications – the BOCC expressed concern over the proposed clearing of the MTC buffer as suggested by the applicant and indicated there preference to restrict clearing to what is currently allowed within Section 6.6.5 (A) of the UDO (i.e. clearing only 50% of the MTC Buffer). The applicant made comment(s) at the hearing that they could abide by the clearing limits already established within the UDO so long as encroachment of utility, stormwater, and vehicular use areas (i.e. roadways, travel lanes, parking) could be accommodated within a 50 ft. portion of the ‘disturbed’ MTC buffer. Please be prepared to discuss this alternative. You will need to provide a schematic illustrating how the project will comply with the provisions of Section 6.6.5 (A) as well as how much ‘encroachment’ is being proposed, what would be allowed, and any proposal to re‐vegetate the area to address buffer requirements for vehicular use areas (i.e. roadway and parking). c. CONDITION 13 (k) SIGNAGE – the BOCC expressed concern over a lack of detail on how the architectural landmark freestanding sign and the entry portal signs would look and a general understanding of their anticipated location. BOCC members reiterated a rendering of both signs is required before same can be considered for approval as part of this project. STAFF COMMENT: A BOCC member wanted clarification on allowable illumination of signage. Condition 13 (k) (iii) (2) (e) indicates external lighting would be allowed for an entry portal sign. This was an error on staff’s part. The allowance shall be removed to ensure consistency with the Settlers Point narrative. 2. TIA – there has been a modification to the submitted TIA as reviewed by NC Department of Transportation. This revision was provided to the staff on November 14, 2017. As we have already discussed staff will need more detail on the proposed roadway layout including a rendering denoting the distance of the holding lane for the u‐ turn, anticipated location of same, explanation of the travel trips that will trigger development of the currently recommended configuration as denoted in the November 14, 2017 e‐mail, turning template(s) for the intersection, more detail on how intersection will be handled (i.e. stop sign versus stop light and what traffic trip(s) point generates the need for a light versus a stop sign) and renderings/schematics denoting ‘visibility’ of 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 will look like and how it will look to oncoming traffic). STAFF COMMENT: This next statement represents my personal observation and is not intended to indicate the determination of Comprehensive Planning/Transportation staff or the Director: I am not convinced the proposed u‐turn layout is appropriate for the roadway and I believe development of same will exacerbate existing congestion. I am not convinced there is sufficient area to allow ‘trucks’ to make the u‐turn and then accelerate to then have to slow down to access the Interstate ramp. Regardless of NC DOT’s views on the matter I do not subscribe to the view turn restrictions off of Service Road 50