Browse
Search
Agenda - 02-01-1994 - VII-A
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1994
>
Agenda - 02-01-94 Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 02-01-1994 - VII-A
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2015 8:25:45 AM
Creation date
1/28/2015 8:23:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/1/1994
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
VII-A
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19940201
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
2 <br /> r <br /> 4. Section 3.3, Circulation and Parking, should be revised to change all <br /> references to "should" to "must" or "shall". <br /> In addition to the changes to the Design Manual,the Board of Commissioners also <br /> felt that another public hearing should be held on the Manual and the Table of <br /> Permitted Uses (included in the Manual). The Board set the public hearing for <br /> January 18, 1994. However, due to the lack of a quorum of Planning Board <br /> members,the public hearing was opened then continued to this meeting.Citizens <br /> present at that meeting were permitted to present their comments for inclusion <br /> in the official public hearing record at this meeting.Draft minutes of the January <br /> 18, 1994 meeting as well as written comments provided at that meeting have been <br /> included as attachments to this abstract. The staff response to some of these <br /> comments is as follows: <br /> 1. With regard to the comment that the 379 acres proposed for Primary <br /> Development in the I-40/Old N.C. 86 District is over 30% more than <br /> either of the other EDD's, the 285 acres designated for Open Space is <br /> over 50% more than either of the other EDD's. <br /> 2. With regard to the comment that the intent of the I-40/01d N.C. 86 <br /> District is to create a"business park" setting, a comparison of the list of <br /> permitted uses in that District with those permitted in Durham's business <br /> park zoning district is provided as an attachment.As can be seen on the <br /> comparison table,the major differences between the two districts are with <br /> respect to manufacturing and retail uses. Manufacturing uses involving <br /> the production of food, paper, furniture, rubber, and plastic products, <br /> sporting and transportation equipment, and printing and publishing <br /> establishments are permitted in the I.40/01d N.C. 86 District but are not <br /> allowed in the business park zone. Retail uses are also excluded from the <br /> business park zone. <br /> The rationale for inclusion of retail uses is based on a review of reference <br /> materials concerning business and office parks. Retail uses are generally <br /> located in a service court or commercial center for the convenience of <br /> employees who work in the park as well as nearby residents.The I-40/Old <br /> N.C.86 District proposal is modeled after this approach; e.g., retail uses <br /> are limited to locations in service courts or multiple use commercial <br /> centers. <br /> 3. With regard to the comment that the I-40/Old N.C. 86 District has been <br /> designated as"open space"on the Hillsborough Cooperative Plan and the <br /> District is a serious departure from that Plan, there is no Cooperative <br /> Plan, only a Cooperative Planning Agreement with a map showing the <br /> boundary of a Cooperative Planning Area While the corporate limits and <br /> extraterritorial jurisdiction (urban areas), and the transition areas as <br /> shown on the map reflect land use plan designations in the County's <br /> adopted Land Use Element, the open space area has not been <br /> incorporated into that Element. <br /> Work on the Cooperative Plan was put on hold in March, 1992 when the <br /> two governing boards asked for additional information concerning the <br /> small area planning process, the density required to financially support <br /> public water/sewer extensions into the open space area,and the ability to <br /> limit connections to such lines, once extended. Issue papers addressing <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.