Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />3 <br />Development area would have more intense land uses such as manufacturing, industrial, and <br />warehousing uses. The Eno Mixed Use area would include retail /office /service and some <br />residential. It is recommended to revise the Zoning Ordinance text to be consistent with the <br />construct outlined in Appendix A (pp. 59 -60). Smaller scale projects would be permitted through <br />a staff administrative review and larger scale projects would require a special use permit. The <br />current designations of Economic Development District Primary and Secondary would no longer <br />be used, and properties would remain zoned as they are currently. Those properties zoned <br />Economic Development (new designation) would look to the land use classifications to <br />determine the permitted uses and approval procedures. <br />There would likely be some sort of annexation agreement reached with Durham. <br />Coordination with the City of Durham would be necessary for the zoning text changes. <br />Transportation: <br />There is a recommendation to approve an access management plan for the area. The <br />concept is on page 54. Any future implementation measures and approvals need to recognize <br />the anticipated redesign of the 1 -85 and US 70 interchange, which is in the State TIP but is not <br />funded yet. <br />Housing: <br />The plan is to make sure that future zoning text changes do not make existing <br />conforming residential uses in the EDD area non - conforming. In the mixed use, there would be <br />greater density as the distance from existing single - family houses or uses increase. The intent <br />of the mixed use area is for some residential, but mostly non - residential. The recommendation <br />in the plan is that future implementation measures should limit the amount of residential in that <br />mixed use area. <br />Perdita Holtz said that last Tuesday there was an open house style public information <br />meeting and 13 people attended. The recommendation is for the plan to go to the regular <br />Planning Board meeting on June 4"' for review and comment to be brought back to the regular <br />Board of County Commissioners' meeting on June 24"' for adoption consideration. She read <br />the Manager's recommendation. <br />Chair Jacobs asked if Durham's Urban Growth area conformed to the reserve area. <br />Perdita Holtz said that the reserve area is much larger than.Durham's Urban Growth Boundary <br />within Orange County, except that the Urban Growth Boundary extends a little bit further west <br />than where the Eno EDD line and small area plan line was drawn. The map is on page 45. <br />Renee Price asked how much the County was going to continue offering to other <br />counties. She said that it seems that this is giving away potential tax base. <br />Chair Jacobs said that the simple answer is that it is still in Orange County, so the taxes <br />are still captured. <br />Michelle Kempinski asked about Durham's Urban Growth Boundary and the intention of <br />Durham to extend into Orange County. She asked if there was any interlocal agreement <br />between Orange County and Durham. Perdita Holtz said that there is not an agreement for that <br />issue yet, but there is a Courtesy Review Agreement for projects within this area. One of the <br />recommendations of the plan is to establish an interlocal agreement. <br />Public Comment: <br />