Agenda - 03-01-1994 - VII-A - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

CONCERNING ECO`iOIIIC DEVELOP-MZE`'T DISTRICTS Rov W. Roth My r-.-.arks wig -.rimarly be concerned with`h e I-4ol'old Nc 86 EDD. I wart:o say t= that I shay_your j j for this Economic Development District. I too would tike :o see a "showcase" 9=1 into Orange County - or IEL'sborough - -om I-40 which presents a r.< business pa 3er a ing with controlled environment, and which will offer jobs .o Orange Count' residents.. However, I am concerted with the execution of:his vision, as defined in ;arts of:re Design Manual. I have been and still am concerned with the elimination some 4-500 acres of open space 4om the Cooperative Land 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 :o ask at this poim, are we each to king about the same Design Manual? I assume that there have been no Bother changes since the Tau 18 Public Hearing.) Consider the Permitted Use :ables, 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 dr.amane whew uses are to be permitted. I recognize that it is difficult to deter=* le whether a permitted use should or should not be accepted in one of the EDDs. But, wiry should household furniture mamficture be allowed in one district and nat another, while both have gaper products mamAcyzine. Why should plastic products manufacture be permitted in one district and not another, while both may have pbarmaceutical products manufacture? My pouts is, that the rationale for accepting or rejecting a permitted use seems somewhat arbitrary. Two weeks ago, W. Willhoit asked me for my recommendations concerning "permitted uses". rm sorry that I can't do this unless - or untsff - 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 success:ul model. Criteria required in the m®g provisions for the Research Triangle Park include a minimurn building lot in of eight(8)acrek with no more than IS% of the total are of a tract being covered by build:^vs. I did not no hey sim7ar wteris in the Design M. Anual. I may have missed it, but I could and no minimum limitation on tract sae. I XWW that this type of limitation should be incorporated into the maul. My conclusion and rxom nendations?.The Planning Board and the EDC have come a long way. There is a sbwW vision of bow the I-4WW NC E6 dist =should look. However, I do not think that the Design Manual presently, completely implements this vision. On the one hand, the manual excrucia&A•den h the type of wire that should be used to support a newly planted tree, while on the other hand, I an tso won of lot size. I agree that this EDD should be planned so that annexation by Msborough and strip development are avoided. My recommendation is to proceed row with the other two dimrlct%but spend a Attie more time with the I-4010ld NC 86 planning. Let's make sun that the vision is acheived. MAeJtt-4,._, I feb94 vE v 'ASS