110420 Virtual Planning Board Minutes

Browse Search

Approved 1/6/21 113 114 Earl Lewellyn: If we dropped back the traffic generation intensity by that 10%would we still be recommending removal of 115 160,yes we would indeed. It was an issue brought up even before we instituted that addition. 116 117 David Blankfard: Would that exit have to be removed on day one? 118 119 Earl Lewellyn: My personal recommendation is yes,you would absolutely want to have it operational at day one and 1 120 believe that is the opinion of NCDOT too. 121 122 Melissa Poole: There is a hotel in phase 2 do you already have that or it's just a proposal and you don't know what it will 123 be? 124 125 Beth Trahos: There is not a specific hotel user today. 126 127 Stan Beard: If I can address some of the phase 2 questions,we only call it phase 2 because it will be subsequent to Buc- 128 ee's operating and breaking in as we get the kinks out of our operating,traffic. We watch that very intently for the first half a 129 year and then once we get comfortable with where we are and everyone else around us,we will start fielding inquiries from 130 other users, hotels, retail shops, sit-down restaurants who like think we are a good fit for them. A hotel, and please keep in 131 mind that we will continue to own this entire development for the foreseeable future. We're going to be very stringent who 132 the hotel is, it's going to be in the higher up major chain type of offerings. The same thing with sit down restaurants. 133 134 Melissa Poole: My question is around a lot of public comments that I've seen have been around potential crime and I know 135 that is a concern. It always is any time you've got any industrialized space, particularly when you are going to have a hotel. 136 So, can you commit to an internal entry to rooms hotel versus an external. 137 138 Stan Beard: This will be a hallway hotel,there will not be a motel situation at all. 139 140 Melissa Poole: On pages 114-115 from the memo from Department of Environment,Ag and Parks and Rec(DEAPR) 141 regarding the Seven Mile Creek watershed, and it references;the staff recognizes the site plan submitted shows the 142 developers effort to preserve the watershed (I'm summarizing that)as the easement grantee, the County would be 143 responsible for monitoring the site. It looks like a recommendation, I'm just curious as to with this recommendation,what's 144 going on with that? 145 146 Michael Harvey: You're talking about Christian Hirni's memo(shared screen). Obviously, as Ms. Trahos has indicated, 147 there are several open spaces areas (Mr. Harvey identified the areas on the map denoting open space) and the darker 148 areas are stream buffers around identified wetland areas and streams. In discussions with DEAPR staff there was a 149 question on whether or not there would have to be conservation easements put around these areas to preserve and protect 150 the water features. The applicant has already indicated that they are going to comply with Section 6-13, the stream buffer 151 standards, of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). As a result,the natural area in and around these streams would 152 have to be protected with either a 65 or 85 foot buffer. In certain instances,there will actually be more land are preserved, 153 though designed open space, in a natural state increasing established County buffers. I believe what Mr. Hirni was 154 referring to is that we(the County)would have to monitor development activities to ensure that the buffer is protected 155 consistent with existing land use regulations. One of the concerns Mr. Hirni has also talked about is the potential for 156 environmental degradation of the Seven Mile Creek preserve which is the area south of the Project(shown on GIS). This is 157 the area(Mr. Harvey identified an area of property at the southeastern portion of the project)that does flow, at least is 158 anticipated to flow,across the interstate approximately 1,000 feet south to property owned by Orange County and others 159 within the Seven Mile Creek Preserve area. What the County is also obligated to do is hold this applicant to existing 160 stormwater control measures as detailed within the UDO, including nutrient(nitrogen and prosperous) removal as part of 161 our stormwater rules. When you look at the totality of the development and you look at DEAPR's memo and staff 162 conditions,we believe that we have addressed DEAPR's concern and that a conservation easement is not going to be 163 necessarily warranted due to existing compliance with County regulatory standards. There are going to be multiple moving 164 parts to that issue but it needs to be remembered what regulations we have in place and how they will be enforced on this 165 project if approved. 166 167 Craig Benedict: To restate the summary, if approved,the master plan development rezoning is a document that gets 168 recorded and stays with the land. These uses and various regulations they have to adhere to are ongoing commitments by