Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
11 <br /> Cy Stober said that the FLUM described in slide #16 was based on surveys with the <br /> community. <br /> Commissioner McKee said population was possibly not a consideration when creating the <br /> rural activity nodes. He said there is still very low population density in those nodes, and only one <br /> with any appreciable activity, which is Caldwell. He said as the population increases; you may get <br /> more activity in the nodes. He said in the case of Caldwell, it might not make sense for someone <br /> else to put in another store. He said there are some heavily traveled roads in the northern part of <br /> the county which may be appropriate for storage facilities. He said he thought it was important to <br /> keep the activity nodes for future use, but he did not see the possibility of changes in the short <br /> term. <br /> Commissioner Portie-Ascott noted that when she lived in the Carr area, they expected <br /> development and internet infrastructure to eventually come, but it never did. She asked when <br /> and if the Board would have a discussion on changing things so that more development can go <br /> into those nodes. <br /> Commissioner McKee said when thinking about expanding opportunities, a better choice <br /> for a node would have been the Efland-Cedar Grove Road/86 intersection where there is already <br /> a tire store. He said that Highway 86 is a high traffic flow area. He said that in 1981, these nodes <br /> were probably all equal at that time. He said that traffic flow would now support additional <br /> businesses there. <br /> Commissioner Carter said the proposed changes to the future land use map shows a node <br /> at the intersection referenced by Commissioner McKee. <br /> Vice-Chair Hamilton the way she understood the conception of the rural activity nodes, is <br /> that the decision makers at the time were leaving room for services to the community. She said <br /> the fact that something hasn't developed tells her that the economics aren't behind it. She said <br /> the one node that does concern her is the rural industrial activity node, because if what they are <br /> planning for is not compatible with the economics or other uses, then maybe the Board needs to <br /> decide that the node is not relevant anymore. <br /> Slide #17 <br /> Appendix r Use and Zoning Matrix <br /> ZDYLVG DISTRICTS <br /> Iaod T=r C aiRra.op N a qp — a p � <br /> Oced sdL <br /> Z V V' 47 4i7 - d L 9 OE Z <br /> C'bapel Hill Irapvtioa ac .t A.Iministratiuo b,11uo: paliti-odder the.. of the Joint Planning Agree.e <br /> C arrboro Iraositioo <br /> 10-Year ira ♦ ♦ <br /> 20-Year it ifiou <br /> C•m rrial 7raosttmp • <br /> Commerciallndurtnal <br /> - iraosiliou Acti.it. ♦ <br /> [+ Eca—k D-1.pment <br /> N <br /> Rural R.&e <br /> R-1 R.sMd ial <br /> _ AirirnlNral Reti .fid <br /> • Rural Commodity AeEvity <br /> Rural\.iebborbood <br /> Rural Ipdu H.l Ar Mr <br /> \ode <br /> Pub4c Interest Area <br /> • The Matrix links the County's zoning districts to the future land use classifications. <br /> • Note the similarities among the zoning districts that are compatible with RANs <br /> • Different only in the application of 1-1 and MPD-CD �1 <br /> ORANGE COUNTY <br /> NORTH CAROLINA <br />