OCPB agenda 121817 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 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 necessitating the development of a u‐turn holding lane to allow traffic to access the Interstate is in the County’s best interest(s). Please note the Director will make the final determination once the final packet is submitted for review and will discuss the matter with the Planning Board at its December regular meeting. I suggest a second meeting with all parties once the documentation is available and ready for review. 3. REVISIONS TO CONCEPT SITE PLAN: a. As previously indicated the BOCC has requested a concept site plan denoting the anticipated location of parking areas, access roads, stormwater features, landscaping, building(s), etc. for District(s) 1 and 2. b. A tree survey shall be required denoting the location of ‘specimen trees’ in District(s) 1 and 2. The survey should provide the location of significant foliage (i.e. species, height, width, etc.) within the various development areas. c. A more detailed buffer plan denoting proposed/required project buffers (i.e. perimeter, MTC, stream AND floodplain, roadway, etc.) including widths, explanation of existing vegetation (i.e. pictures of the existing foliage being preserved) or more detail (i.e. cross section and rendering) on how required buffers would be replanted if necessary. 4. Consideration of additional conditions not already addressed herein: a. A requirement that there be a reduction in the number of outdoor lighting features being left on after local business operations close for the evening. There were also additional suggestions signs be required to be extinguished after hours as well. This was to address concerns over light pollution. STAFF COMMENT: There was interest expressed by the applicant to review this option BUT there was also expression of concern over having sufficient lighting to curb vandalism and the potential of illicit activities within the project after hours. b. Including of language within the conditions encouraging/promoting water reuse for landscaping. STAFF COMMENT: There is language in the narrative indicating the applicant would engage in same. It will be added to the next draft of condition(s). 54