Browse
Search
OCPB minutes 121817
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Minutes
>
2017
>
OCPB minutes 121817
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 9:33:33 AM
Creation date
3/14/2018 5:20:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
12/18/2017
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Advisory Bd. Minutes
Document Relationships
OCPB agenda 121817
(Attachment)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Planning Board\Agendas\2017
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
View images
View plain text
Approved 1/10/2018 <br /> <br />Hunter Spitzer asked why the developer is asking for more clearing. Michael Harvey reviewed that it is for an access 165 <br />road, parking and a stormwater feature. 166 <br /> 167 <br />Tony Blake asked if the breaks are for signage. Michael Harvey answered no, there are signage regulations and they 168 <br />are not permitted in the buffer. The breaks are for the purpose of drivers on the interstate being able to see the 169 <br />development. No billboards are allowed. There are still signage limitations. 170 <br /> 171 <br />Lydia Wegman asked to hear from the developer on the variable buffer request. 172 <br /> 173 <br />Jim Parker spoke representing the developer. He said as much as we like to preserve buffers and trees, this is an 174 <br />economic development parcel that needs visibility from the highway. The end users who will use this property will 175 <br />want to be seen from the highway. If we can’t provide that, we’ll lose opportunity. The visibility would be one of the 176 <br />key reasons businesses would want to locate here. 177 <br /> 178 <br />Lydia Wegman asked if stormwater accommodation and parking is secondary to visibility to the road. Jim Parker 179 <br />confirmed that. 180 <br /> 181 <br />David Blankfard asked have you started developing what you plan to do in that area for signage. Jim Parker 182 <br />answered no, we’ve laid out some building footprints to give us an idea of how the circulation could work. What we 183 <br />anticipate is plausible in terms of parking. The hotel would be located where you would expect it to be on one of the 184 <br />highest points with good visibility from both directions. This is an economic development area at an interchange. 185 <br />Again, we are supportive of trees and buffers that protect residential developments. Neither the motorists nor the 186 <br />businesses that would locate there care about the buffer. The businesses want to be seen. 187 <br /> 188 <br />Paul Guthrie asked, from Jim Parker’s general perception, would this development fill out quickly. Jim Parker 189 <br />answered if the economy stays as it is and sewer service is extended quickly, it will. Since we have made it public in 190 <br />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 191 <br />can count on it. But to answer your question, I think it will. 192 <br /> 193 <br />Kim Piracci asked if the two little restaurants would be fast food restaurants. Jim Parker answered affirmatively. He 194 <br />said he was hoping for a sit-down restaurant but businesses in this type of development all work together. 195 <br /> 196 <br />Kim Piracci asked if there has been a feasibility study of the best use of this land. Jim Parker answered we have 197 <br />done our own studies, which are nonscientific and I don’t know if any are. On our team, we have brokers who deal 198 <br />with this day to day and know how to bring commercial users. They are excited about the property and opportunity. 199 <br /> 200 <br />Hunter Spitzer checked that the reduction of the depth of the buffer is also for visibility. Jim Parker answered yes, in 201 <br />addition to parking and access drives. 202 <br /> 203 <br />Lydia Wegman asked if 100 or 75 feet would be problematic. Jim Parker said he’s not trying to be flippant but if they 204 <br />thought they could get by with 75 feet of buffer, they would have asked for that. They are asking for what they need. 205 <br /> 206 <br />Craig Benedict said they have re-landscaped that parking lot with a tree every 10 parking spaces. Any encroachment 207 <br />has to be re-landscaped in accordance to what use is going on in there. 208 <br /> 209 <br />Michael Harvey said in summary, regarding the MTC buffer issue for this project, the applicant had requested 60 210 <br />percent breaks and county commissioners did not react with great comfort to that request. The applicant has said 211 <br />they’ll stick with 50 percent breaks but they are asking for reducing the remaining buffer from 100 feet to 50 feet in 212 <br />some places. Michael Harvey asked for the general reaction of the reduction of the buffer from 100 to 50 feet. 213 <br /> 214 <br />Kim Piracci said I’m remembering all the local residents at the public hearing were very concerned about the noise. I 215 <br />don’t like the idea of cutting all those trees. The developer can come up with another way. Once a tree is cut down, 216 <br />it’s gone. Planting a bush doesn’t make it better. 217 <br /> 218 <br />Hunter Spitzer said considering the board didn’t want the 60 percent break, the commissioners probably don’t want 219
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
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).