Minutes - 20080519 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

to Economic Development (north of US 70) and Eno Mixed Use (south of 70). She made reference to the map and said that the darker purple would remain as an Economic Development designation and the lighter purple would become Eno Mixed Use. The Economic Development area would have more intense land uses such as manufacturing, industrial, and warehousing uses. The Eno Mixed Use area would include retail/office/service and some residential. It is recommended to revise the Zoning Ordinance text to be consistent with the construct outlined in Appendix A (pp. 59-60). Smaller scale projects would be permitted through a staff administrative review and larger scale projects would require a special use permit. The current designations of Economic Development District Primary and Secondary would no longer be used, and properties would remain zoned as they are currently. Those properties zoned Economic Development (new designation) would look to the land use classifications to determine the permitted uses and approval procedures. There would likely be some sort of annexation agreement reached with Durham. Coordination with the City of Durham would be necessary for the zoning text changes. Transportation: There is a recommendation to approve an access management plan for the area. The concept is on page 54. Any future implementation measures and approvals need to recognize the anticipated redesign of the 1-85 and US 70 interchange, which is in the State TIP but is not funded yet. Housing: The plan is to make sure that future zoning text changes do not make existing conforming residential uses in the EDD area non-conforming. In the mixed use, there would be greater density as the distance from existing single-family houses or uses increase. The intent of the mixed use area is for some residential, but mostly non-residential. The recommendation in the plan is that future implementation measures should limit the amount of residential in that mixed use area. Perdita Holtz said that last Tuesday there was an open house style public information meeting and 13 people attended. The recommendation is for the plan to go to the regular Planning Board meeting on June 4th for review and comment to be brought back to the regular Board of County Commissioners' meeting on June 24th for adoption consideration. She read the Manager's recommendation. Chair Jacobs asked if Durham's Urban Growth area conformed to the reserve area. Perdita Holtz said that the reserve area is much larger than Durham's Urban Growth Boundary within Orange County, except that the Urban Growth Boundary extends a little bit further west than where the Eno EDD line and small area plan line was drawn. The map is on page 45. Renee Price asked how much the County was going to continue offering to other counties. She said that it seems that this is giving away potential tax base. Chair Jacobs said that the simple answer is that it is still in Orange County, so the taxes are still captured. Michelle Kempinski asked about Durham's Urban Growth Boundary and the intention of Durham to extend into Orange County. She asked if there was any interlocal agreement between Orange County and Durham. Perdita Holtz said that there is not an agreement for that issue yet, but there is a Courtesy Review Agreement for projects within this area. One of the recommendations of the plan is to establish an interlocal agreement.