Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
County Attorney to explain more of what is in the ordinance and what is not. She said that <br /> some of the uncertainty is that everyone is trying to figure out what is exactly being approved. <br /> She would like more detail from the developer, with consent. She asked if this was allowable <br /> in the ordinance. Geof Gledhill said that the direct answer is yes, more detail can be <br /> requested. He said that he tried to explain in his letter that any economic development district <br /> that has been created in the zoning ordinance, the staff looks at all of the detail in the approval <br /> process. The applicant could walk in with the same tract of land and develop it through a site <br /> plan review process, which is only a staff review process. Each of the individual uses would <br /> be a site plan review process under this possibility. This is different because the developer <br /> wants to change some things in the design manual and is proposing alternative design ideas <br /> to the Board. He is suggesting that the way this is being offered to the Board is that the Board <br /> will approve the master plan of this project and then the details are still left up to the staff as <br /> the staff goes through the process of issuing permits for this project. He said that the reason <br /> why there is not more detail is that the people who are putting this project together do not <br /> know what this is going to look like at the detailed site plan level. The developer has to sell <br /> this to the people that are going to fill up these spaces. The zoning ordinance allows the <br /> Board to ask for more specificity. <br /> Commissioner Carey said that if the Board approves the concept plan, then it is up to <br /> staff to require the performance standards if they exceed the ordinance requirements. Geof <br /> Gledhill said yes and it would have to meet the uses of each district. There cannot be a <br /> proposal that is not part of the concept plan. <br /> Commissioner Nelson made reference to visibility and the buffer along 1-40, and said <br /> that there are plenty of large developments where communities really care about how it looks <br /> when you drive down the interstate, and they are very careful about the buffers. He <br /> understands that all of the retail chains say that they need visibility, but if the community <br /> insisted it be done a different way, then the retailers will still come. He thinks that it is a fallacy <br /> that it has to be done this way. Regarding drive-thrus, he said that not having drive-thrus will <br /> help with green emissions. Carrboro banned drive-thru windows in 1995 or 1996 for air <br /> pollution and greenhouse gas reasons. He said that fast food restaurants will still come. This <br /> is being built as a green development, and if everyone is serious about it, then there should <br /> not be any drive-thrus. <br /> Chair Jacobs asked if there was any relation between the height of the sign and <br /> addressing the visibility issue. He asked if there was a design solution, since 60 feet is within <br /> the ordinance, that would allow the sign to go up and be a signature feature, but there would <br /> not be a penetration of the buffer. He understands the concerns with visibility, but he would <br /> like a compromise. <br /> John Fugo is the general contractor for the retail portion and he said that he deals with <br /> retailers every day. He said that the County Commissioners' comments are well taken, and <br /> sometimes the retailers come anyway without visibility, but in other situations, they simply say <br /> no. It depends on where the development sits in the population base. Southpoint is right in <br /> the middle of a dense population base, but you cannot see it from the interstate. He does not <br /> think that this would work for Buckhorn Village because there is not a population base there. <br /> He said that the reason the developers came up with the 60% penetration of the buffer is that <br /> he understood that the project could not be developed through negotiation. He said that a sign <br /> above the trees does not look good. He said that there is a better way, and it is somewhere in <br /> between what the County wants to maintain and what the developers need to lease this site <br /> where the population is lacking immediately around it. <br /> Chair Jacobs said that there is some negotiation and the SUP can be modified. He <br /> asked Geof Gledhill about this. Geof Gledhill said that the whole project would have to go <br /> back on the table. He said that he is not sure where the no negotiation idea came from. In <br />