Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
STAFF COMMENT: At the onset of the meeting, staff indicated comments had <br />been received from the NC Department of Transportation (NC DOT) related to <br />their review of the MPD-CZ on Friday July 31, 2020 (Attachment 1). <br />The applicant has reviewed and responded to these comments (Attachment 2). <br />Staff prepared a memorandum (Attachment 3) discussing traffic impact concerns <br />along Davis Road in response to these 2 documents. <br />As of the writing of this abstract, staff has not received any further comment(s) or <br />responses. <br />2. A Board member suggested the driveway onto Davis Road be removed to address traffic <br />impact concerns. <br />STAFF COMMENT: NC DOT has indicated the MPD-CZ will require a second <br />access point as Service Road is not sufficiently sized or located to safely handle <br />the traffic needs for the project. <br />At this time, NC DOT staff has indicated their support for the proposed driveway <br />off of Davis Road based o n submitted traffic count data, and recommended <br />roadway improvements, as detailed within the applicant’s traffic impact analysis. <br />Staff has discussed alternatives to the proposed driveway off of Davis Road, <br />specifically focusing on development of a driveway off of Old NC Highway 86. At <br />this time, however, the applicant is not able to secure the necessary property to <br />accommodate the proposal. <br />3. A suggestion was made to prohibit truck traffic utilizing the Davis Road driveway. <br />STAFF COMMENT: Unfortunately, this suggestion is inconsistent with NC DOT <br />expectations for the project. Staff is concerned over our ability to enforce such a <br />standard. <br />4. Several Board members indicated there ought to be a condition requiring trucks, seeking <br />to access Interstate 85, to utilize Interstate 40 rather than drive down Churton Street. <br />STAFF COMMENT: Staff does not believe we would have the ability to enforce <br />such a condition as Churton Street is a State maintained roadway that does not <br />preclude truck traffic. <br />5. A Board member suggested the project provide 1 electric vehicular (EV) charging station <br />for every 100,000 sq.ft. of proposed building area. If this condition is imposed, it is <br />anticipated there would be approximately 40 EV spaces at project build-out; <br />STAFF COMMENT: The applicant has agreed to provide 2 charging stations per <br />building. <br />6. Board members expressed concern over proposed permitted uses indicating more <br />specificity was needed. Specifically, there was a concern manufacturing could include <br />bio-weapon research/development and unethical testing of products on animals; <br />7. Several Board members suggested a condition requiring placement of vegetation along <br />external property lines designed to address light trespass concerns from vehicles utilizing <br />their ‘high beams’ while driving within the project. <br />STAFF COMMENT: The applicant indicated they believed their proposed <br />landscaping along the common property lines would address the issue. <br />40