Agenda - 01-16-1999- 2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 All of the work completed by the PB/EDC Work Group led to the formulation of a more definitive goal; i.e., to develop an "economic development district" proposal with clear, acceptable performance standards and streamlined approval procedures. The concept of an economic development district was not new. The zoning district designation existed in the Zoning Ordinance, and the purpose of the district was "to provide locations for a wide range of low intensity industrial, institutional, office and research use with no adverse impacts beyond the space occupied by the use." While such districts are normally associated with the Land Use Plan designations of "Commercial' and "Commercial- Industrial" Activity Node, and designated in close association with interstate highways, some changes to the Land Use Plan were required to "target" economic development districts at specific locations. Thus, a new land use category entitled "Economic Development Activity Node" was proposed. A second proposal involved the actual application of the category through changes to the Land Use Plan (Map), including Township Plans. Finally, changes to the Land Use Element - Zoning District Matrix, and applicable goals and policies were proposed to insure consistency between the Land Use Element and the Zoning Ordinance. Associated with the changes to the Comprehensive Plan were proposals which sought to apply a revised "Economic Development District" zoning categoy to specific "target areas" in the county. Associated with the rezoning proposal was the establishment of performance standards and design criteria, and streamlined approval procedures applicable within those districts. The efforts of the PB/EDC Work Group culminated with the application of Economic Development District (EDD) land use and zoning classifications, and design guidelines by the Board of Commissioners to two districts in March, 1994, one at I- 85Buckhorn Road and another at I- 85/U.S. Highway 70. In January, 1995, another district was added at I -40 /Old N.C. 86 through cooperative efforts with the Town of Hillsborough. Since January, a cooperative planning effort has been undertaken with the Town of Hillsborough on proposed entranceway standards for the I- 85/N.C. Highway 86 interchange. In addition, adjustments to the district boundary lines in the I -40 /Old N.C. 86 EDD have been presented at public hearing and acted on by the Board of Commissioners. A proposal to expand the 1-85/Buckhorn Road district on the south side of I -85 (east of Buckhorn Road) was also considered at public hearing and subsequently adopted in August, 1996. Additional work in FY 1997 -98 will involve: (1) a cooperative planning effort, with the City of Mebane, on the proposed expansion of the I- 85/Buckhom Road district west of Buckhorn Road; and (2) a study of the impact of the I -85 widening on land parcels in the vicinity of interstate highway interchanges. The first initiative has been divided into two parts to reflect not only jurisdictional divisions but watershed boundaries as well. For the area east of Buckhorn Road, the expansion of the EDD will focus on Orange County's jurisdiction. To the west of Buckhorn Road, where both Orange County and the City of Mebane have jurisdiction, the expansion of the EDD will be undertaken through the cooperative efforts of both units of local government. Related to #2 above is an issue resulting from the widening of I -85 to eight lanes. As the interstate passes through Orange County, it bisects three watersheds: Back Creek, Upper Eno, and Lower Eno. In some watershed locations, the widening has created "islands" of land, surrounded by interstate interchanges,