Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
• <br /> tit 08G <br /> C/H TAC MINUTES PAGE 3 <br /> beginning with the Chapel Hill resolution which <br /> contained the following: <br /> 1 ) In the Star Point area, along 15-501 at the Chatham <br /> County line, no expansion of the existing <br /> commercial uses should be permitted. The area that <br /> is not now developed for commercial uses should be <br /> designated "suburban residential ." <br /> 2) Change all area north and east of 1-40 to Rural <br /> Buffer . <br /> 3) Make the following changes in the vicinity of the <br /> 1-40/NC 86 Interchange, to reflect the designations <br /> on the draft Chapel Hill Land Use Plan: <br /> a) Delete all light industrial ; make all areas <br /> "office" , with emphasis on mixed use. <br /> • <br /> b) Call for public acquisition of area between <br /> landfill sites (public/private open space) . <br /> c) Change small triangle of 0- I on south side <br /> of Eubanks Road, near railroad, to <br /> residential . <br /> 4) Change designation of area on Homestead Road, <br /> between school and railroad, and east of railroad, <br /> from urban residential to suburban residential . <br /> 5) Change designation of future landfill site to <br /> "Potential Landfill -- Pending Further Study." <br /> General discussion of the five points followed . in reference <br /> to point 2, the question was raised, "Would this do away with <br /> Blackwood Station as a neighborhood commercial area?" Bell <br /> stated that Blackwood Station would remain as a Rural Neigh- <br /> borhood Activity Node. He said that the expansion depicted <br /> in the January draft of the plan would not be permitted, that <br /> essentially, it would remain in its current form. <br /> Also in reference to point 2, Dr. Gordon expressed concern <br /> that she felt it was short-sighted not to allow suburban and <br /> urban residential development north of 1-40 in the Erwin Road <br /> area as shown on the January draft of the plan. She felt <br /> this was a good area for such development and felt that the <br /> large lot subdivisions to the north would limit further <br /> expansion of the higher density areas. In reference to point <br /> 2, Dr . Gordon made the following motion which was seconded by <br /> Dr. Bennett: <br /> For the area north of 1 -40, the area in the north- <br /> east ( nearer the Durham County line) should remain <br /> urban and suburban residential as shown on the map <br /> presented at the January public hearing, but that <br /> the area adjacent to Duke Forest be designated as <br />