Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
0,30 <br /> Provided on the following pages is a table summarizing the proposed changes to the adopted loca-gonal <br /> criteria. <br /> PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDI[ENTS <br /> 1. Amend Article 4.2.19 - District Statements of Intent and Application Criteria [Economic Development (ED) <br /> District] by revising it to read as follows: <br /> Economic Development (ED) District <br /> a. Intent <br /> The purpose of the Economic Development(ED)District is to provide locations for a wide range of low <br /> light industrial, distribution, flex space, office, and research service/retail uses. Flex space typically <br /> includes one-story buildings designed,constructed,and marketed as suitable for use as offices but able <br /> to accommodate other uses;e.g.,warehouse,showroom,manufacturing,assembly or similar operations. <br /> Such areas have been targeted for economic development and are located adjacent to interstate and <br /> major arterial highways. They are subject to special design criteria and performance standards used <br /> to minimize impacts beyond the space occupied by the use. <br /> b. Application Criteria <br /> This district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist: <br /> 1. The district is located adjacent to a Federal Interstate Highway, with direct access to a major <br /> arterial road. <br /> 2. The district is located outside of the Chapel Hill - Carrboro Rural Buffer area as designated <br /> in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. <br /> 3. The district shall not be located within the critical area of a designated water supply <br /> watershed. <br /> OPTION#1 -RBC0JCM LADED BY ORDINANCE RS'VIEW COAL[77TER <br /> 4. Urban sertdc ,such as water and sewer mains, am desirable, but not required if acceptable <br /> alternatives am aualable- <br /> OPTION#2-CONCEPT SUGGESTED BY COICIISSIONER CORDON <br /> 41 Urban saviees,such as water and sewer mains, am aatlabk or could be extended to serve <br /> the disbia <br /> The wording in Option #1 was not added as part of the Economic Development District proposals but existed <br /> previously as Article 4.2.19 b) 6 of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Gordon proposed no new wording, so the <br /> text provided simply tracks that used in the "Public Services/Utilities"locational standard (see following table). <br /> r*•rr*r**r*rrrrrrr**rr*r**rr**r**rr***rrr**r*r**rrr*rrr***rrr*rrr <br /> ORDINANCE REVIEW COBU41TTEE REVIEW: March 29, 1994 <br /> PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: April 12, 1994 <br /> BOCC REVIEW: May 2, 1994 <br />