Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
47 <br /> Kimley>>>Horn Page 4 <br /> iii. The narrative uses the term 'acceptable levels of service'. Be mindful that there will be some <br /> property owners within the notification area who would argue the proposed traffic impacts of <br /> the project are not acceptable to them; <br /> Response: Comment noted. The term "Level of Service" is a quantitative engineering <br /> measure of traffic operations correlated to volume to capacity ratios, vehicle delay, <br /> density, and other measured paraments at acceptable levels as defined by the Highway <br /> Capacity Manual and NCDOT. <br /> iv. Staff is not clear on what is meant by the statement 'remove duplicative ramp activity on I- <br /> 40/85 between Hwy 70 and Mt. Willing Road'. <br /> Response: This statement is in reference to removal of Westbound 1-40 Exit 160,which <br /> duplicates the function of Exit 161. <br /> D. The narrative on page 7 provides a synopsis of beneficial impacts with the development of'Phase <br /> 1' of the Project(i.e. the Buc-ee's Travel center). There is, however, no overview of the project as a <br /> whole. Staff is concerned a lack of analysis/explanation of the anticipated benefits of the Project as <br /> a whole will become a focal point of criticism. <br /> Response: The Narrative has been revised to provide more explanation for the project has a <br /> whole. Refer to Section 1-1 of the Narrative for details. <br /> E. Page 9 of the narrative uses the term 'vacant' to describe property to the south of the Project. As a <br /> general observation, staff has seen previous projects criticized for using the term 'vacant' with <br /> residents arguing there is nothing inherently wrong with property that is undeveloped. Staff suggests <br /> you consider revising language within the document to indicate property without land <br /> uses/developments be referred to as 'undeveloped' rather than 'vacant'. <br /> Response: The reference in the Narrative to adjacent `vacant' properties has been revised to <br /> show that the properties are `undeveloped' as recommended. Refer to Section 1-3 of the <br /> Narrative for details. <br /> F. Page 10 of the narrative, under Section 1-5 (B) contains the following language: <br /> 'Therefore, there will be instances where modifications will be allowed without requiring <br /> administrative review under the UDO ..." <br /> Staff believes what you are trying to articulate is that certain modifications to the Project will not <br /> require 'BOCC review/approval'. Technically, the Project is always under'administrative review' by <br /> staff consistent with the provision(s) of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Staff does not <br /> want someone to argue your narrative is inconsistent with the UDO. <br /> Response: The Narrative has been revised to specify that certain modifications to the project <br /> will not require Board of County Commissioners review and approval. Refer to Section 1-6.13 <br /> of the Narrative for details. <br /> G. Consistent with Section 1-5 (C)of the Narrative, staff understands you are requesting 'vested rights' <br /> for the Project. This request, however, may not be necessarily required. What this proposal <br /> represents is, ultimately, the adoption of a new zoning district governing development of <br /> approximately 104 acres of property. There will be development requirements, conditions, and a list <br /> of permitted land uses for this new district. If approved, the new zoning district is not subject to being <br /> extinguished without formal County action to rezone the property consistent with Section 2.8 of the <br /> UDO. Staff is continuing to review language with the Attorney's office and will provide additional <br /> analysis in the near future. <br /> Response: Comment noted. If necessary, the Narrative will be revised upon additional <br /> analysis by Orange County. <br /> 00 Morris Street, Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 . .: <br /> I <br />