Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-24-2008-6bORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 24, 2008 Action Agend~ a Item No. SUBJECT: Proposed Final Draft Eno Economic Development District (EDD) Area Small Area Plan DEPARTMENT: Planning Department PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) NO. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft May 19, 2008 Quarterly Public Hearing Minutes 2. Draft June 4, 2008 Planning Board Minutes 3. Staff Responses to Planning Board Comments 4. Proposed Final Draft of the Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan (Under Separate Cover) INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Benedict, Director, (919) 245-2592 Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator, (919) 245-2611 PURPOSE: To consider adoption of the Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan (SAP). BACKGROUND: At the May 19, 2008 Quarterly Public Hearing, the BOCC and Planning Board heard a staff presentation on the draft Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan. Two (2) area residents spoke at the public hearing and expressed concerns about possible future annexation by the City of Durham. This SAP will help initiate dialogue with the City of Durham regarding utility service and annexation policy. The BOCC moved to refer the Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan to the Planning Board for its review and comment to be returned no later than June 9, 2008 with the intent of placing the draft plan on the June 24, 2008 BOCC agenda for adoption consideration. An appointed citizen Task Force has been working with Orange County staff to develop a Small Area Plan for the Eno EDD Area since December 2005. The draft of the plan was completed in April 2008 and staff held an open-house style Public Information Meeting (PIM) on May 13, 2008 to provide residents with the opportunity to speak with staff about the plan in an informal setting. Thirteen (13) people attended the PIM and one additional person who could not attend the PIM met with staff the next day. Additionally, staff presented the draft plan to the Economic Development Commission at its regular meeting on May 8, 2008. The draft plan contains numerous recommendations in the following topic areas: Water and Sewer • Land Use and Zoning • Transportation • Housing • Parks, Recreation and Open Space • Communications • Intergovernmentallssues • Other Recommendations, including: o Potential Strategic Growth and Rural Conservation (SGRC Program o Plan Updates o Implementation An Executive Summary containing a synopsis of the most significant recommendations made in the plan is included in the draft plan immediately following the Table of Contents. While the Executive Summary gives a brief summary of the most significant recommendations, amore substantial understanding of the recommendations can be gained by reading the Recommendations section which begins on page 47 and concludes on page 57. The draft Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan has been made available to interested persons on Orange County's Planning Department website: (http://www.co.orange.nc.us/planning/admin Eno EDD SAP.asp) Implementation of many of the recommendations contained in this plan will require revisions to adopted County policies and regulations. Examples of these policies and regulations include, but are not limited to: o Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan o Text o Map • Subdivision Regulations ® Zoning Ordinance o Text o Map Amendments o Permitted Use Tables o Overlay/Design Guidelines • Water and Sewer Policy • Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement County departments and advisory boards other than the Planning Department and Planning Board have interests in or jurisdiction over some of the recommendation topics. These other departments and advisory boards will need to be part of the implementation process. In response to comments made by Commissioners at the Quarterly Public Hearing (QPH), staff has proposed several revisions to the plan. The most significant change from the QPH version is that the maps no longer show a "Reserve Area" for utility planning purposes and the Durham Urban Growth Area boundary has been added to all maps. Some text changes in regards to these deletions/additions were necessary. These revisions were included in the version of the plan the Planning Board considered at its meeting on June 4, 2008. No changes to the plan have been made since the Planning Board meeting. 3 FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact involved with adopting the plan. However, implementation of many of the recommendations contained in the plan will have costs associated with them. Before implementation is suggested, the fiscal impact of each recommendation will be analyzed and evaluated with the Manager's Office and Financial Services Department. The potential source of funds for implementing the recommendations have not been specifically identified at this point but is expected to include both public and private monies. Public monies could be in the form of Federal, State, or local funds. RECOMMENDATION: (Planning Board): At its meeting on June 4, 2008, the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan with the following comments for the BOCC to consider: 1. The Proposed Permitted Use Table included in Appendix A should be further reviewed, streamlined, and simplified to make it more compatible with existing Orange County Ordinances. 2. The proposed. definition for the proposed new land use category of "Eno Mixed Use" (page 49) should be further reviewed to define appropriate proportions of uses. 3. The plan should say that the requirements of the EDD Design manual apply to properties zoned Economic Development. 4: An Implementation Focus Group comprised of interested Task Force members and additional property owners should be appointed. 5. Bicycle lanes and sidewalks along Old NC 10 and Highway 70 should be provided, not just evaluated for feasibility (page 52). 6. Properties should be evaluated for historical significance. Staff has made comments and recommendations in Attachment 3 on the Planning Board comments. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the Board: 1. Give Staff direction, if any, regarding Planning Board comments; 2. Adopt the Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan (incorporating any BOCC-directed revisions); and 3. Continue dialogue with City of Durham officials in the near future regarding an Interlocal Agreement as recommended in the plan. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 EXCERPT from DRAFT MIl~TUTES - 1 /7t~c~w~~r~~ ,,.L., ~,, May 19, 2008 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA MAY 19, 2008 7:30 P.M. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Eno Small Area Plan: An appointed citizen Task Force has been working with Orange County Staff to develop a Small Area Plan for the Eno EDD (Economic Development District) Area since June 2006. The draft of the plan is now complete and contains Recommendations in the following topic areas: • Water and Sewer • Land Use and Zoning • Transportation . • Housing • Parks, Recreation and Open Space • Communications • Intergovernmentallssues • Other Recommendations, including: o Potential Strategic Growth and Rural Conservation (SGRC Program) o Plan Updates o Implementation The draft Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan is available on the Orange County Panning Department website at http://www.co.orange.nc.us/planning/index.htm. Purpose: To receive public comment on the data, assumptions, and recommendations contained in the Draft Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan and receive direction from the Board of Commissioners as to subsequent steps. Planner Perdita Holtz introduced this item. This planning effort began in late 2005 and the task force is made up of eight citizens, a City of Durham representative, and a BOCC liaison (Commissioner Foushee). The small area plan boundary is in the eastern portion of the County around I-85 and US 70. The focus area boundary was designated as the Eno Economic Development District and the commercial node that exists off of that district. The reserve area (red outline) was added late last year for future utility planning purposes only. There are not any recommendations made for this area other than for future water and sewer purposes. Most of the area is within the Orange County primary service area of the Water and Sewer Management Planning Boundary Agreement. The small area plan contains four sections and two appendices. The current major issues are on pages 48-58. The synopsis of recommendations is in the Executive Summary. The task force spent the most time talking about water and sewer issues and land use and zoning issues. She said that the implementation measures that would implement the small area plan would be brought forth after adoption of the plan. Water and Sewer: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 EXCERPT from DRAFT MINUTES - 2 May 19, 2008 The most important aspect of the plan is water and sewer, as an infrastructure is needed if the area is to develop more intensely. One of the most important recommendations is the negotiation of the interlocal agreement with the City of Durham to serve the area with public water and sewer. This agreement would be the first thing to be done if the plan is adopted. This would involve elected officials and municipal representatives. Land Use and Zoning: Regarding land use and zoning, the recommendation is to change the existing future land use classifications from Economic Development and Commercial Node to Economic Development north of US 70 and to Eno Mixed Use. She made reference to the map and said that the darker purple would remain as an Economic Development designation and the lighter purple would become Eno Mixed Use. The darker purple would have more intense land uses such as manufacturing, industrial, and warehousing uses. The lighter purple would include retail/ofFice/service and some residential. It is recommended to revise the Zoning Ordinance text to be consistent with the construct outlined in Appendix A (pp. 59-60). Smaller scale projects would be permitted through a staff administrative review and larger scale projects would require a special use permit. The current designations of Economic Development District Primary and Secondary would no longer be used, and properties would remain zoned as they are currently, and those properties zoned Economic Development would look to the land use classifications to determine the permitted uses and approval procedures. There would likely be some sort of annexation agreement reached with Durham. Coordination with the City of Durham would be necessary for the zoning text changes. Transportation: There is a recommendation to approve an access management plan for the area. The concept is on page 54. Any future implementation measures and approvals need to recognize the anticipated redesign of the I-85 and US 70 interchange, which is in the State TIP but is not funded yet. Housing: The plan is to make sure that future zoning text changes do not make existing conforming residential uses in the EDD area non-conforming. In the mixed use, there would be greater density as the distance from existing single-family houses or uses increase. The intent of the mixed use area is for some residential, but mostly non-residential. The recommendation in the plan is that future implementation measures should limit the amount of residential in that mixed use area. Perdita Holtz said that last Tuesday there was an open house style public information meeting and 13 people attended. The recommendation is for the plan to go to the regular Planning Board meeting on June 4t" for review and comment to be brought back to the regular Board of County Commissioners' meeting on June 24th for adoption consideration. She read the Manager's recommendation. Chair Jacobs asked if Durham's Urban Growth area conformed to the reserve area. Perdita Holtz said that the reserve area is much larger than Durham's Urban Growth Boundary within Orange County, except that the Urban Growth Boundary extends a little bit further west than where the Eno EDD line and small area plan line was drawn. The map is on page 45. Renee Price asked how much the County was going to continue offering to other counties: She said that it seems that this is giving away potential tax base. D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 EXCERPT from DRAFT MINUTES - May 19, 2008 Chair Jacobs said that the simple answer is that it is still in Orange County, so the taxes are still captured. Michelle Kempinski asked about Durham's Urban Growth Boundary and the intention of Durham to extend into Orange County. She asked if there was any interlocal agreement between Orange County and Durham. Perdita Holtz said that there is not an agreement for that issue yet, but there is a Courtesy..., Review Agreement for projects within this area. One of the recommendations of the plan is to establish an interlocal agreement. Public Comment: Joe Griffin has lived in Eno Township all of his life. He is really concerned about the annexation into Durham. He said that it seems like this has been set up to be annexed in this process. He said that in the legislature this year, there is supposed to be a proposal to limit municipalities' ability to annex. He asked the County Commissioners to support this legislation. David Wolberg lives in Whispering Pines subdivision. He said that he appreciates the attention that has been given to Whispering Pines and preserving this. as a residential neighborhood. He also appreciates that the land use plan keeps the commercial development north of US 70 and has mixed use south of US 70. He is concerned that, given that much of the land south of US 70 is already zoned commercial and is going to remain zoned commercial, and given that annexation by Durham is likely, he is not convinced that the land use plan has much in the way of teeth. Also, given what exists on Hillsborough Road/US 70 into Durham, he is not really impressed with this kind of development continuing out into his backyard. He has nothing against Durham, but he chose to buy land in Orange County. He has backyard poultry and this would not be permitted under Durham ordinances. He sees an extra layer of government and higher taxes if this is annexed. He has no objection to land being developed in this area, but he is not in favor of annexation. Chair Jacobs requested that staff provide a plain, simple map of the Durham Urban Growth Boundary, the Eno EDD with the reserve area, the roads,.and the streams. Chair Jacobs commended the staff, citizens, and Commissioner Foushee for working on this plan. When this began in December 2005, people who owned property in the Eno EDD expressed their frustration that Orange County had done nothing for years. It is an achievement that the plan has come this far. Regarding Durham's annexation policy, he said that there should be something clearly written about this in the table of contents so that someone could turn right to it. He suggested that the Board of County Commissioners sit down with the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, the new Manager, and the Planning Director of the City of Durham to discuss the annexation policy, water and sewer boundary interlocal agreement, etc. He said that it is a fact that, since the County does not provide water and sewer, the municipalities that do provide water and sewer have their own rules about how they provide it, and Orange County will have to abide by those rules. It is a concern in looking at the rates, but it needs to be discussed. Chair Jacobs made reference to the mixed use and asked if someone could come in with a very large retail space with residential upstairs for the dark purple portion. Perdita Holtz said that the recommendation is that no new residential would be permitted in that area and that retail/trade would require a Planned Development. Planning Director Craig Benedict said that in the light purple area, the mixed use area would allow retail/office/service and residential. Chair Jacobs said that there are very few areas within Orange County's planning jurisdiction where there can be high-density residential. Chair Jacobs made reference to page 53 and the improvements to I-85. He said that there are recommendations every year in the TIP about how Orange County wants this 0 EXCERPT from DRAFT MINUTES - 4 May 19, 2008 0 1 improvement to take place in regard to an underpass on New Hope Creek. He thinks that those 2 improvements that are requested every year should be incorporated in this document. Also, on 3 page 56, under item E-1 and the second bullet, and suggested taking out the word "small." 4 He made reference to Appendix A and the uses and asked where he would find an 5 asphalt plant. Perdita Holtz said that this table was not complete and this exact table would not 6 be adopted. 7 Commissioner Foushee said that for those persons involved in the permitted use table, 8 most of the efforts were geared to ensuring that what was permitted now would not become 9 non-conforming if the City of Durham were to annex the area. Also, the focus was economic 10 development and not necessarily residential development. 11 Chair Jacobs made reference to page 66 and asked why amusement parks and arcades 12 were not allowed. He said that there is a golf driving range right up the road. He asked if there 13 .was some reason why people did not want this. Commissioner Foushee did not recall this 14 conversation. Craig Benedict said that Durham's code does not allow this, so the 15 recommendation was consistent with Durham's code. Staff will research this. 16 Perdita Holtz made reference to the currently adopted future land use map and the area 17 south of US 70, which has some economic development district parcels. This would be in a 18 mixed use area, so it would allow residential. 19 Michelle Kempinski requested that for the June 4`" Planning Board meeting, she would 20 like to invite any of the task force members and the community members. She would also like 21 for staff to provide a short summary of how this new plan would interact with the existing EDD 22 Design Manual. 23 Renee Price asked about the industrial uses that are anticipated. Perdita Holtz said that 24 zoning would govern the specific uses in that industrial area. There is no specific zoning 25 amendment at this time, but the chart on pp. 61-67 shows the uses that the task force was 26 anticipating. 27 Commissioner Nelson asked at what point the County would take the necessary step to 28 create an Economic Development plan. For example, there could be a focus here on IT or 29 research, such as a spin-off of RTP. He said that these conversations should have already 30 taken place. 31 Commissioner Gordon agreed with Commissioner Nelson's point and said that it is 32 imperative that a list of target industries be developed.. 33 Commissioner Nelson said that this conversation can begin now that there is a new 34 Economic Development Director. 35 Economic Development Director Brad Broadwell started work for Orange County today. 36 He said that he read through the plan today and he has a good feel for the intention of the 37 County and the intention of the people involved in these serious issues. He said that, from an 38 economic development standpoint, the County has assets, and one of them is the Research 39 Triangle Park. He said that this EDD is a natural extension of RTP. He said that this location 40 should be marketed to those tenants in RTP. He does envision a technology base here. 41 Jay Bryan said that he hoped that those involved in the task force would be able to 42 participate in the next step. 43 A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to 44 acknowledge that the public hearing will remain open until the Planning Board review and 45 comment at which time the public hearing is closed; refer the item to the Planning Board for 46 review and comment to be returned no later than June 9, 2008; and direct staff to place the draft 47 plan on the June 24, 2008 BOCC regular meeting agenda for adoption consideration. 48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 49 50 Attachment 2 /1 Excerpt of Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan ~~~i'' DRAFT MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JUNE 4, 2008 REGULAR MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Chair); Craufurd Goodwin, Hillsborough Representative; Michelle Kempinski, Cedar Grove Township At-Large; Larry Wright, Cedar Grove Township At-Large; Renee A. Price, Hillsborough Township At-Large (Vice Chair); .Judith Wegner, Bingham Township At-Large MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Crawford, Eno Township At-Large; Joel Forrest Knight, Little River Representative; Bernadette Pelissier, Bingham Township; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township At-Large STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Michael Harvey, Planner II; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II, Perdita Holtz; Debra Graham; Kate Lowe (intern) OTHER ATTENDEES: Donald and Donna Easterlin; Jim Parker, Consultant AGENDA ITEM 10: ENO EDD AREA SMALL AREA PLAN To consider a recommendation to the BOCC regarding the draft Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan heard at the May 19, 2008 QPH Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator Perdita Holtz: Presented draft plan. Michelle Kempinski: How will the non-official permitted use table be handled? There was discussion at the public hearing about these being suggested uses based on the task force work. Perdita Holtz: .This is the construct that shows the committee's intent on the types of uses to consider during the implementation phase. We are not sure who will finish this. Michelle Kempinski: If this is a documentation providing recommendations, is that permitted use table going to remain in this document? Perdita Holtz: The one paragraph that preludes the appendix states that the table should be taken into account with future regulatory ordinances amendments brought forward. Whatever is officially adopted is what would be the law. Attachment 2 Excerpt of Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan Michelle Kempinski: It is not necessarily the law but the intention we are trying to establish. Also, you mentioned a community meeting a week before the public hearing, were there comments? Perdita Holtz: There was one written comment. Basically, it was individuals coming in to talk with staff one on one. The comments were basically about annexation. There was definitely a mixed bag of individuals. Some were excited about the possibility of getting water and sewer services. One person left a comment which read, "I would like to emphasize planning for bike and pedestrian traffic for any new development plans. Also to be sure to protect existing Eno and Duke park lands." Michelle Kempinski: The revised draft we received in our package was different than the Public Hearing version. . Perdita Holtz: The reason it is smaller is I did not include the documentation in Appendix B. Any text referring to the reserve area was removed. Michelle Kempinski: I would like to review the actual document we are making recommendations on. Larry Wright: This seems to be very community driven. I would like to see that persistent in the Economic aspect. I would like the people to have a voice and a say in what is going on. There is an example of that on page 61, Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing of this. Renee Price: I am unconvinced about the amount of community input. Perdita Holtz: There was a task force that worked on this since late 2005 with a lot of meetings that were well attended. Planning was asked in January to step in and finish the work due to staff turnover in the Economic Development department. Craig Benedict: I did attend the Task Force meetings; they were some of the most highly attended community meetings. Craufurd Goodwin: I would like to know where this table came from. Do we want to go back to having a paper mill? Perdita Holtz: The planning department has concerns about the list as well. It was put together by former staff and we don't know the origins of the list. Durham staff has said it's not from their ordinances. Because the Task Force spent several months going over this list, we thought it was only fair that because there was much time and effort put into this that it be included as an appendix. Craufurd Goodwin: Can we express concern about this? Attachment 2 Excerpt of Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan ~~ Jay Bryan: Certainly. Is this part of the plan or just attached to the plan? Perdita Holtz: One of the recommendations is to revise the zoning ordinance and take into account this construct. Jay Bryan: We could approve the plan without approving the proposed uses. Michelle Kempinski: On page 54 on the revised draft discussed non-conforming uses. Will there be any uses in this plan that will be made non-conforming? Perdita Holtz: No. ~ Because the existing commercial and industrial uses are already conforming as are the residential uses that were developed under the secondary EDD classification. Michelle Kempinski: A strong suggestion would be that under D 2, "Mixed Use Area" that we further define what that means in terms of proportions of uses. Perdita Holtz: The Task Force recommends that a percentage limit for residential uses in the Mixed Use Area be defined when implementation measures are brought forward. It is not the intent that every parcel will have a mix of uses; the mix of uses is intended to occur throughout the entire district. Craig Benedict: Clarified that this was the intent of the Task Force. Judith Wegner: Is there a different term that can be used for mixed use. Renee Price: That is the terminology used in the planning profession. Jay Bryan: I recently received information from a county resident, Beverly Scarlett, who owns land adjoining the Eno EDD and whose parents own land within the District. She shared that she lives on property that has been in her family since 1878. Her great-grandfather was deeded the property in exchange for his involuntary servitude. Prior to that, the property was owned by extended family formed prior to the Civil War. Her great-great-grandmother, Bunsheba Scarlett, and her son, Levi Christmas Scarlett, served as slaves on this property. Immediately behind her house is the Fish Dam Road. Her information is that Fish Dam Road is significant because it' was one of the county's first roads, and that it served as an old Indian Trading Path prior .to becoming the only route between Hillsborough and Raleigh. Most important is the fact that Civil War soldiers traveled the Fish Dam Road to get to the Bennett Place. Fortunately, her home site has been excluded from the EDD due to the historical implications. But she is concerned about what will happen on her father's property where he lives. He lives just across Hwy 70 and uphill from her. She worries about the impact of heavy equipment use over time and industrial use that may lead to pollution or waste that will contaminate the Eno River. Attachment 2 Excerpt of Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan On the other side of the Fish Dam Road there is a tract of Eno River State Park property. That piece was once owned by her great-grandfather as well. This piece has river frontage. She informed me that this piece is also significant because there are two old grills there. One is made with an iron grate. The other is a chimney that has a section from an old wood stove. The old iron stove eyes are still there in place. These grills were made shortly after Duke Power purchased Southern Power Plant. That is where the residents of the Southern Power Plant Village held their company picnics shortly after the Duke purchase and prior to families leaving the village.. During later years, area African- American churches were allowed to have their church picnics there. I would ask, Judith, that you include in your Motion that such places of historical significance be identified and protected as the Eno EDD is developed. Jay Bryan: I would also ask you to include the following additional points in your Motion: 1. That the Task Force members for the Eno EDD Small Area Plan be reconstituted, along with additional interested members•of the public, to serve as a task force to oversee and participate in the implementation of the-Small Area Plan. 2. That Nos. 3~ and 4 of the Transportation section on page 52 of the Small Area Plan be changed as follows: a. Provide off road and/or on road bicycle lanes along Old N.C. 10. b. Provide sidewalks along Highway 70 as the area develops. MOTION: Judith Wegner made a motion to recommend approval with the following comments: 1) Appendix A Proposed Permitted Use Table be further reviewed, streamlined, and simplified to make it more consistent with existing Orange County ordinances and polices. 2) Language on page 49 about mixed use be further reviewed. 3) Language EDD Design Manual -say that the Manual applies to the area. 4) Task Force that put together plan and additional property owners. be appointed to an Implementation Task Force 5) Bicycle lanes and sidewalks along Old NC10 and Highway 70 be provided, not just evaluated 6) Review properties for historical significance. Michelle Kempinski: friendly amendment to #2 -define appropriate proportions. SECOND: Craufurd Goodwin. VOTE: Unanimous ~a ttachment 3 Following for BOCC consideration are Planning Staff comments regarding Planning Board comments of June 4t". Staff recommendations regarding each comment are in bold italic text: 1. The Proposed Permitted Use Table included in Appendix A should be further reviewed, streamlined, and simplified to make it more compatible with existing Orange County Ordinances. Staff Comment: Planning Staff also believes the Permitted Use Table included in Appendix A should be reformatted. The opening paragraph of the Appendix indicates that the table is to be taken into account when future implementation measures (i.e., zoning text changes) are written. Staff included the Table in the plan because the Task Force spent several meetings discussing the various uses included in the Table and where such uses should be permitted. This Table was provided by Staff of the Department that was previously responsible for this Small Area Plan. Planning Staff agrees that a future review of the Table should be undertaken during the implementation phase. Staff recommends that the BOCC direct staff to conduct additional work on the Permitted Use Table during the future implementation phase when regulations are proposed for amendment. 2. The proposed definition for the proposed new land use category of "Eno Mixed Use" (page 49) should be further reviewed to define appropriate proportions of uses. Staff Comment: The Note included at the end of the definition on page 49 indicates that a limit on residential uses should be determined during the implementation phase. (The intent of the Mixed Use area is to encourage the development of primarily non-residential uses within the overall district). Staff recommends that the BOCC direct staff to include proportions for uses during the future implementation phase when new definitions are brought forward for adoption consideration. 3. The plan should say that the requirements of the EDD Design manual apply to properties zoned Economic Development. Staff Comment: The Zoning Ordinance, of which the EDD Design Manual is included as Section 6.29.3, specifies that properties to be developed under the ED (Economic Development) zoning classification are subject to all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Planning Staff believes that to single out this particular aspect of County regulatory ordinances is unnecessary since all County Ordinances apply to actions taken in the County. Staff recommends that the Planning Board comment be acknowledged but does not recommend text changes to the draft plan in regards to this comment since the EDD Manual is still valid. 4. An Implementation Focus Group comprised of interested Task Force members and additional property owners should be appointed. .~.3 Attachment 3 Staff Comment: Planning Staff will develop a proposal for consideration by the BOCC. A future Implementation Focus Group could be appointed by the BOCC after an Interlocal Agreement regarding water, sewer, and annexation issues is reached with the City of Durham. Staff recommends that an Implementation Focus Group be appointed in the future after an Interlocal Agreement is reached. 5. Bicycle lanes and sidewalks along Old NC 10 and Highway 70 should be provided, not just evaluated'for feasibility (page 52). Staff Comment: Planning staff agrees with this idea but issues regarding NCDOT coordination, funding, and maintenance need to be addressed. Staff recommends that the Planning Board comment be acknowledged but does not recommend text changes to the draft plan in regards to this comment. 6. Properties should be evaluated for historical significance. Staff Comment: ERCD completed aCounty-wide historical significance survey in 2007 and the Historic Sites map included in the plan (page 24) shows known historic sites in the area. Often, citizens bring to Staff's attention knowledge of remnants or other historically significant sites and ERCD Staff meets with citizens about such sites and documents any findings. Staff recommends that the Planning Board comment be acknowledged but does not recommend text changes to the draft plan in regards to this comment. Planning staff will also forward the comment to ERCD for research.