Browse
Search
OUTBoard agenda 020717
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange Unified Transportation Board
>
Agendas
>
2017
>
OUTBoard agenda 020717
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 10:18:30 AM
Creation date
3/26/2018 10:17:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/7/2017
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
OUTBoard minutes 021617
(Message)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange Unified Transportation Board\Minutes\2017
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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
agenda abstract. 221 <br />222 <br />David Blankfard asked, to be sure he understood, that at the last meeting, the applicant was asking for clearance of 223 <br />the buffer and now they are proposing less. 224 <br />225 <br />Michael Harveyanswered that the applicant is now proposing to abide by the 50 percent clearance rule and where 226 <br />they are creating visual breaks, they are proposing to re-landscape with low-lying foliage. He said the applicant would 227 <br />explain that tonight. 228 <br />229 <br />David Blankford checked that the applicant wasn’t required to replant low-lying foliage in those visual breaks.230 <br />231 <br />Michael Harvey answered that he is technically correct. 232 <br />233 <br />A member asked a clarifying question about the amount of clearing proposed. 234 <br />235 <br />Michael Harveyanswered the applicant is proposing to clear 1,100 feet. They are going to do additional clearing 236 <br />breaks and then re-vegetate them but not to the height of the current trees. Staff has determined that this would be 237 <br />consistent with provisions of Section 6.6.4 (A) as it currently reads. 238 <br />239 <br />Paul Guthrie asked is there a long-term commitment for the low-lying foliage to be maintained. 240 <br />241 <br />Michael Harvey answered affirmatively. 242 <br />243 <br />Michael Harveysaid regarding signage, the applicant has provided the required renderings. Regarding land use and 244 <br />schools(elementary, middle and high schools), the applicant has determined it is best at this time to eliminate this as 245 <br />a land use. So, the applicant has proposed a modification to the application to eliminate this as a land use. To add it 246 <br />back would take an amendment process that would be reviewed by the Planning Board and go to a public hearing. 247 <br />248 <br />Michael Harvey reviewed the language proposed for the condition that stipulates that water systems and water 249 <br />pressure shall complywith all applicable Town of Hillsborough utility, building and fire code standards based on the 250 <br />proposed land use. That is language that the staff and applicant are agreeable to. When asked, he clarified that the 251 <br />standards at the time of the proposal would apply. 252 <br />253 <br />Paul Guthrie asked about sewercapacity for this project. 254 <br />255 <br />Michael Harveysaid as this project is developed, a developer might find there is not adequate capacity and be 256 <br />unable to move forward until accommodation is made. 257 <br />258 <br />Craig Benedict said Orange County designed the sewer running under the interstate because it is an economic 259 <br />development district. There is enough capacity. Large water and sewer usersare not proposed for that area. He 260 <br />indicated the plan for sewer development south of Interstate 40 on a map. 261 <br />262 <br />Paul Guthrie asked if it would require a pumping station. 263 <br />264 <br />Craig Benedict answeredno, the plan is for it to flow by gravity. The plan is to avoid a lift station if possible. 265 <br />266 <br />When there were no further questions about the utility condition, Michael Harvey reviewed that the requested tree 267 <br />survey could not be ready for this process. After reviewing the minutes, it was determined that the county 268 <br />commissioner who had requested that had not intended to request a tree survey be complete before the application 269 <br />was approved but rather to help determine which trees should remain as the site is developed. Regarding limiting the 270 <br />number of outdoor lighting fixtures, the applicant is willing to work with the county on that but wants to make sure 271 <br />there is adequate lighting for security purposes. A condition will be implemented that says that outdoor lighting 272 <br />fixtures can be extinguished after hours consistent with applicable safety features. Regarding the discussion and 273 <br />consensus (but no vote) on the allowance of30 percent retail (Page 231), a formal recommendation will be 274 <br />requestedthis evening. Regarding hours of operation, staff concurs with the applicant that to market the site, the 275 <br /> 10
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.