Agenda - 02-15-1994 - VII-A - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

CONCERN-LNG ECONO}IIC DEVELOP:4,r\-' DISTRICTS Roy W. Roth 6 My remarks will primarily be concerned with the I-40/Old NC 86 EDD. I want to say first that I share your v' i n for this Economic Development District. I too would like to no a "showcase" entry into Orange County - or Hillsborough - from I-40 which presents a business park setting with a controlled environment, and which will offer jobs to Orange County residents.. However, I am concerned with the execution of this vision, as defined in parts of the Design Manual. I have been and still am concerned with the elimination some 4-500 acres of open space from the Cooperative Lazed Use Plan,in the formation of this EDD. But I will accept that, if the vision can be reached I am concerned, and have some confusion,with some sections of the Design Manual. (I do have to ask at this point, are we each talking about the same Design Manual?I assume that there have been no further changes since the Jan 18 Public Hearing.) Consider the Permitted Use tables, for a moment.I feel that some very positive steps were taken in the last draft, but I am confused with the rationale used to determine where uses are to be permitted. I recognize that it is difficult to determine whether a permitted use should or should not be accepted in one of the EDDs. But, why should household furniture masurfacture be allowed in one district and not another, while both have paper products manufacturing?Why should plastic products manufacture be permitted in one district and not another, while both may have pharmaceutical products manufacture? My point is, that the rationale for accepting or rejecting a permitted use seems somewhat arbitrary. Two weeks ago, Mr. WitIhoit asked me for my recommendations concerning "permitted uses". rm sorry that I can't do this unless- or until - a rationale is set which:defines or categorizes permitted uses. At this point, I don't know what this rationale is or should be. Let's look at Research Triangle Park for a moment,.an area which many hold up as a successful model. Criteria required in the zoning provisions for the Research Triangle Park include a minimum budding lot size of eight(8)acres, with no more than 15%of the total area of a tract being covered by buildings.I did not see any 3irm7ar criteria in the Design Manual. I may have missed it, but I could and no minimum limitation on tract size. I suggest that this type of limitation should be incorporated into the manual. i I My conclusion and recommendations?.The Planning Board and the EDC have come a long way. There is a shared vision of how the I-40101d NC 86 district should look However, I do not think that the Design Manual presently, completely implements this vision. On the one hand, the manual excauciadn;#y details the type of wire that should be used to support a newly planted tree, while on the other hand, I see no limitation of lot size. I agree that this EDD should be planned so that annexation by Hillsborough and strip development are avoided. My recommendation is to proceed now with the other two districts,but spend a mottle more time with the I-40/Old NC 86 planning. Let's make sure that the vision is acheived. MA�Jti•�� . a.* ,mage ;1feb94 c . RECEIUEO FROM 3:9 644 ;00; P. 1