Agenda - 09-15-20; 5-a - Zoning Atlas Amendment - Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZ) for the Research Triangle Logistics Park (RTLP)

Browse Search

STAFF COMMENT: Both Planning and NC Department of Transportation (NC DOT) staff have reviewed the proposal. Comments from County staff are contained in Attachment 6. The TIA indicates a secondary access point serving the project shall be necessary given the anticipated intensity of the project, which NC DOT staff have determined Service Road is unable to support. At this time the applicant is proposing to use Davis Road to address this need. Staff has expressed concern over anticipated access onto Davis Road. The TIA for the project identified upgrades intended to ameliorate potential impacts to adjacent property owners. This includes installation of a traffic light at the intersection of Davis Road and Old NC Highway 86. Staff has recommended the imposition of various condition(s) to address access management issues as contained in Attachment 11. Land Uses: As previously indicated herein, the applicant is proposing various land uses focusing on warehousing/supply chain fulfillment services, research/development, and manufacturing activities. The proposal also includes a list of prohibited land uses. As part of the MPD-CZ process, only those approved land use categories can be developed within the project consistent with applicable development standards. STAFF COMMENT: Proposed uses are consistent with: • The existing MPD-CZ for Settlers Point; • Previous general use zoning district designation(s) for the parcels south of Interstate 40, specifically Economic Development Hillsborough (EDH-5); • Section 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses of the UDO; and • Anticipated land uses for the area as reflected within the adopted Orange County Comprehensive Plan and the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan Several comment(s) have been made insinuating the applicant is not providing sufficient/specific information on the actual ‘tenants’ for the project. It has been suggested the County should deny the project unless/until specific tenants can be identified for public scrutiny and approval. Land use and zoning processes do not allow/require the level of scrutiny sought by the general public (i.e. veto power on specific tenants). The applicant is obligated to identify those land use categories it is seeking approval from the County to develop but are not obligated/required to provide a site specific development plan identifying actual ‘tenants’ for approval. Through this process, the County is essentially creating a new zoning district with mandatory development standards/criteria governing actual development activities. The County does have the ability to comment/make conditions on proposed land use categories (i.e. manufacturing land uses, research land uses, professional office land uses, etc.) but does not have the ability to compel the applicant’s identify specific clients or reject same. If there is a concern over a particular activity, the BOCC can impose conditions addressing same. 7