HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-01-1994 - VII-A 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 1, 1994
Action Agenda
Item # V(f_-A
SUBJECT: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS PROPOSAL - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:
*LAND USE ELEMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE,INCLUDING DESIGN MANUAL"
DEPARTMENT: Planning& Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: —X—Yes No
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
Planning Director X2592
NOTE: Refer to "Attachment List" immediately
following"Recommendation" (p.6) for list of TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
attachments in order of presentation. Hillsborough 732-8181
Please refer to Design Manual as well. Durham 688.7331
Mebane 227-2031
Chapel Hill 968-4501
PURPOSE: To consider or000sed amendments to the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance
establishing Economic Development Districts, including a arovosed Design Manual
containing performance standards and design criteria applicable within the proposed
districts.
BACKGROUND: At its December 21, 1993 meeting, the Board of Commissioners considered Economic
Development District proposals for decision. Several concerns were expressed about the
Design Manual, including the following.
1. The Table of Permitted Uses in Section 2.2 should be revised to eliminate water
storage tanks, radio and TV towers, transmission lines, motor freight terminals,
storage and distribution of petroleum products, and freestanding restaurants,
service stations,and retail stores as permitted or special uses. The Table should
also permit churches and clubs or lodges.
2. Section 3.5, Service and Storage, should be revised to address noise originating
from rooftop air conditioning equipment,to refer to trash areas and dumpsters as
solid waste containers and recycling bins,and to provide a sketch which not shows
screening techniques for solid waste containers but recycling bins as well.
3. Section 3.2, Landscape Design, should be revised to require a 100-foot setback
along Old N.C.86,an arterial street,in addition to dedicating an additional 20 feet
right-of-way. Where collector roads intersect with Old N.C. 86, a setback of 100
feet applied in the first 100 feet from the intersection, 75 feet in the next 100
feet, 50 feet in the next 100 feet, then 25 feet for the remainder of the frontage
along collector road The setback would apply to buildings, parking, loading, and
storage arena.
4. Section 3.3, Circulation and Parking, should be revised to change all references
to"should" to"must" or"shall".
4
2
In addition to the changes to the Design Manual, the Board of Commissioners also felt
that another public hearing should be held on the Manual and the Table of Permitted
Uses (included in the Manual). The Board set the public hearing for January 18, 1994.
However, due to the lack of a quorum of Planning Board members, the public hearing was
opened then continued to the February 1 Commissioners' meeting. Citizens present at
that meeting were permitted to present their comments for inclusion in the official public
hearing record at this meeting. Minutes of the January 18, 1994 meeting as well as
written comments provided at that meeting have been included as part of the "official"
public hearing record (conducted on February 1).
Following the December 21, 1993 meeting, Staff revised the Design Manual to reflect the
Board's concerns. Insofar as the requirement of a 100-foot setback along Old N.C. 86 is
concerned, a"sliding scale" solution was developed to address small lots fronting on that
thoroughfare(see Section 3.1 -Architectural Design).Application of a 100-foot setback in
addition to a right-of-way dedication of 20 feet may have resulted in "taking" situations.
The scale requires a setback of 15%of the lot depth for buildings and structures(not less
than 25 nor more than 100 feet), and 5% of the lot depth for vehicular use and storage
areas (not less than 10 nor more than 100 feet). As illustrated in the"case study" in the
Design Manual, the scale allows smaller, existing lots to be developed. Larger lots with
greater depth would have to meet the greater setback requirements.
The Design Manual was also the subject of discussion at a work session held on January
10, 1994.At that session,the Board identified additional concerns,including the following.
1. The Table of Permitted Uses in Section 2.2 should be revised further to identifv
specific types of manufacturing uses which would be allowed as permitted uses in
each district.
2. Thresholds should be identified for "low water usage" so that prospective uses
which exceeded those thresholds would require approval by the Board as a Special
Use. In addition, the location of existing water/sewer lines, the cost of extending
major service lines to the Economic Development Districts, and the capacity of
treatment plants should be identified
Staff revised the Design Manual to address the Board's concerns. Provided as an
attachment is a summary of the evolution of the Permitted Use Table in Section 2.2.
The principal concerns voiced at the February 1 public hearing are listed below. Staff'
comments regarding the concerns are provided in italics type.
1. Rationale for the permitted use table and the difference in the three districts.
Using the 1.40 101d N.C.86 district as a starting point, the range of permitted
industrial uses is the most limited in this district The list is based on a review
of those types of industries which would provide the"best fie in view of the
location of the district, surrounding uses, and the desire to "match up" with
similar types of uses in the Research Triangle Park (RTP) area. Wholesale
(distribution), office, and service uses were included on the list to provide for an
appropriate mix of uses normally associated with business parks. Retail uses
were limited to those which would locate in service courts or multi-use buildings
to discourage convenience shores and fast food restaurants, e.g., the strip.
Insofar as the I-85/Buckhorn Road district is concerned, a broader range of
industrial uses is permitted because of the proximity of the district to Mebane's
industrially zoned and developed jurisdiction.Wholesale uses are also permitted,
3
but retail,office,and service establishments are classified as"special uses"to give
more emphasis to the "light industrial-distribution"focus of the district.
In the case of the I-851U.S. 70 district, the full array of industrial, distribution,
retail, office, and service uses is allowed,principally because of the character of
existing development both within the area and across the county line in Durham.
To address a concern about the specific types of industrial uses permitted, the
Economic Development Director has provided a listing of the types of uses
permitted under each industry group listed in the permitted use table.He has also
provided examples of existing industries in the county which fall into each
category. This information is provided as an attachment to the abstract.
2. Potential for the Town of Hillsborough to incorporate the Economic Development
Districts and undo the County's plans.
One means of addressing such concerns is to amend the Cooperative Planning
Agreement to include a new land use designation entitled"Economic Developmen t
District". Associated with this change would be an amendment to the text of the
Agreement to indicate that the I-40 101d N.C.86 district would remain within the
jurisdiction of the County.Such an amendment would assure that annexation of
the district could not take place without the approval of the County.It would also
reduce the administrative/enforcement responsibilities of the Town associated
with plan approvals but still provide opportunities for review/comment on specific
pytects.
3. Desire for minimum lot size and impervious surface (or building coverage) limits
comparable to those of RTP.
Provided as an attachment is a comparison of the proposed EDD standards with
those of Durham's "business park"and"research applications"zoning districts.
The"research"district standards are based on similar standards included in the
restrictive covenants of RTP.
To determine how the"reseamh"district compared with the EDD standards, the
15% building coverage limit was used as a starting point. Applied to an 8-acre
lot,a w&story'office"building could be no more than 52,300 sq.fl. in area. Staff
determined that a lot of 10.3 acres in sin would actually be needed to meet
building coverage and setback standards, and still provide sufficient area for the
building and required off-strut parking.
Staff then went through the same exercise for the same building size and
determined that in Durham's"business park"district,a lot sire of 4.2 acres would
be required, even though the minimum lot an requirement was only three acres.
The influencing factor in this case was the impervious surface limit of 60%.
Staff then applied the EDD standards to the 52,300 sq.fir building and found that
for of j'ice, retail, distribution, and industrial uses, results similar to those of the
Durham "business park" standards were achieved. Staff also found through
further analysis that reductions in lot sin resulted in reduced building size but
the landscape, building, site, and impervious surface ratios remained the same.
The controlling factor was found to be the site volume ratio.
Finally, staff varied the site volume ratios to see which ratio would come closest
to providing a 60% impervious surface limit. Staff'found that no change was
4
necessary for distribution and industrial uses (from previous analysis) but that
retail and office standards needed to be changed to the following:
Use Current SVR Revised SVR
Retail 1.000 1.500
office 2.000 2.500
With these changes, all uses will provide approximately 60% impervious surface
or 40% open space. This standard is consistent with pending open space
strategies of preserving approximately 40% open space in the "Open Space Area"
surrounding Hillsborough. This approach is preferable to establishing minimum
lot sizes, etc., since it provides design flexibility while retaining consistent
landscape, building, site, and impervious surface ratios regardless of lot size.
One other change recommended by staff involves the number of large and small
trees per acre of unobstructed open space for industrial uses. The analysis
conducted by staff revealed a distortion caused by significant amounts of natural
vegetation being retained on site. Staff recommends that the tree standard for
industrial uses be increased fwn 6 to 20 large bores per acne. The standard for
small bees would be reduced slightly from 11 to 10 bmes per acre(see page 3.2.17
of Design Manual).
Rather than refer the matter to the Planning Board at its February 1 meeting,
the Board of Commissioners chose to continue discussion of the district proposals
at its February 15 meeting.In addition to comment from one citizen, most of the
discussion centered around questions raised by Commissioners Gordon and
Willhoit. Rather than expect answers to all of the questions, the Commissioners
asked that they be referred to the Planning Board for review and
recommendation at its February 21 meeting. Staff has provided copies of the
question sheets as well as responses (see minutes and staff memorandum). Since
some of the questions involve Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments,
staff has provided copies of those proposals.
Planning; Board Rommmendation: At its February 21, 1994 meeting, the
Planning Board considered the questions referred to it by the Board of
Canrmiseioners, as well as the evidence received at the February 1, 1994 public
hearing and subsequent meetings, and recommended approval of the proposed
text and map amendments to the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance,
including the Design Manual, as revised, and the establishment of all three
districts, with the following changes:
1. That the bee standard for industrial uses in all districts be increased
from 6 to 20 large trees per acre and that the standard for small trees be
reduced from 11 to 10 trees per acre.
2. That the Site Volume Ratios for retail and office uses in the I-40 101d
N.C. 86 district be changed as follows:
LLK Current SVR Revised SVR
Retail 1.000 1.500
Office 2.000 2.500
5
3. That residential uses be eliminated from the list of permitted uses
allowed in Secondary Development Areas in the I-40 101d N.C. 86
Economic Development District.
4. That Section 2.4, subsection entitled"Water Supply & Sewage Disposal",
be revised to include a statement encouraFine the installation of"dry"
sewer lines, at the time of site development, where septic systems are
used. Work with utility providers to establish incentives for installation
of such lines, including a waiver of tap-on fees.
5. That Section 2.1, subsection entitled "Schematic Plans", be revised to
include a statement that property owners and/or developers,particularly
those with large tracts of land, are encouraged to prepare plans which
reflect market forces while providing a coordinated"theme"or"blend" of
compatible uses. In addition, encourage the Economic Development
Commission to continue its efforts to involve/communicate with all
landowners in accomplishing the same goal.
6. That the Economic Development Districts be monitored for at least 2-3
years as suggested by the Commissioners to identify the following
impacts.
a. What will be the fiscal impact; i.e., impact on the County's
operating budget and tax base,of non-residential development in
the Economic Development Districts?
b. What additional residential growth will be generated as a result
of the Economic Development Districts?
(1) How many of the employees working at businesses in the
Economic Development Districts live in Orange County?
(2) How many of the jobs will be filled by new vs. existing
residents?
(3) What will be the fiscal impact of new residential growth
attributable to the Economic Development Districts?
C. What wages will be paid lane being paid by businesses which
locate in the Economic Development Districts?
The Planning Board recognized that confidentiality and/or legal
limitations may limit the availability of some data
7. That all references to"special use"approval be clarified to mean approval
of a special use permit through the planned development process.
The vote of the Planning Board was unanimous (11-0). Copies of the draft
Planning Board minutes are attached which detail the discussion of the
Planning Board on all issues referred to them by the Board of
Commissioners.
6
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed text and map
amendments to the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance, including the
Design Manual, as revised, and the establishment of all three districts, per the
Planning Board recommendation.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachments, in order of appearance, include the following:
1. Proposed land use plan teat amendments (pp.7-12)
2. Proposed zoning ordinance text amendments (pp.13.16)
3. BOCC February 1, 1994 Draft Minutes (pp.17.18)
a. Staff'analysis of evolution of permitted use table (pp.19-22)
b. Staff comparison of dimensional requirements in I-40/01d N.C. 86 district with Durham Business
Park and Research Applications districts (p.23)
C. Permitted use table (pp.24-29)
4. BOCC February 15, 1994 Draft Minutes (pp.30-32)
a. Staff'comparisons of minimum lot size standards - Application of Durham Business Park and
Research Applications districts vs. EDD standards (pp.33-34)
b. Roth better submitted at February 15, 1994 meeting(p.35)
C. Economic Development Director memorandum of February 15, 1994 (pp.36-43)
d. Commissioner Gordon memorandum of February 11,1994(see BOCC 2/15/94 and PB 2/21/92 draft
minutes for responses (pp.44-47)
e. Planning Director response to Commissioner Gordon's FAX of February 3, 1994 (pp.48-50)
5. Planning Board February 21, 1994 Draft Minutes (pp.51-65)
a. Commissioner Willhoit's questions, including Planning Director responses and Planning Board
comments (pp.66.69)
b. Summary Sheet - "Considerations Concerning Cost-Benefit Analysis" (pp.70.71)
C. February 21, 1994 Letter to Planning Board submitted by Robert Ayers and Harold Harris(p.72)
NOTE Additional reference materials distributed previously may also be found in the
foHoowing agenda packets:
1. February 22, 1993 public hearing,
2. May 24, 1993 public hearing;
3. December 6, 1993 regular meeting;
4. December 21, 1993 regular meeting,
5. January 4, 1994 work session packet
6. January 18, 1994 regular meeting/public hearing,
7. February 1, 1994 regular meeting/public hearing; and
8. February 15, 1994 regular meetiag/public hearing.
7
PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH
ESTABLISHMENT
OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
1. Amend Section 3.3 - Land Use Plan Categories by changing the table of basic and detailed land
use categories to read as follows:
BASIC CATEGORY ORANGE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN CATEGORIES
DEVELOPED Urban
Existing Urban Activity Node
Proposed Urban Activity Node
TRANSITION 10-Year Transition
20-Year Transition
Commercial Transition Activity Node
Commercial-Industrial Transition
Activity Node
E onomic Development(Transition)
Activity Node
COMMUNITY Rural Community Activity Node
RURAL Rural Buffer
Rural Residential
Agricultural-Residential
Rural Neighborhood Activity Node
Rural Industrial Activity Node
Agricultural Areas
CONSERVATION Public Interest Area
Water Supply Watershed
Wager Quality Critical Area
Resource Protection Area
New Hope Creek Corridor Open Space
In addition, amend the table of Land Use Plan Category Descriptions to include a new category
entitled"Economic Development Activity Node" to read as follows:
BOOKOWMOMLOPIOWTACTEEMNOD&Land in Transition areas of the County which has
been specifically targeted for economic development activity consisting of light industrial,distribution,
GMM service/retail uses, and flex space (Typically one-story buildings designed constructed, and
marketed as suitable for use as offices but able to accommodate other uses;e.g.,warehouse,showroom,
manufacturing assembly or similar operations.). Such areas are located adjacent to interstate and
mgior arterial highways, and subject to special design criteria and performance standards.
2. Amend Section 3.4 - Locational Criteria by adding criteria by which to evaluate the location of
Economic Development Activity Nodes [Transition].
PLAN CATEGORY-ECONO1fUIC DBVFI.OPIcNT ACTIVlTYNODES
[TRANSMOlV AREASI
Luria Skm Located in areas with slopes of less than 15%grade. Where slopes of 15%or greater are
Present,protection can be provided through proper site design and construction practices.
8
Hydroloer:Located outside of areas where 100year flood prone areas and wetlands are present. Where
flood prone areas and wetlands exist, protection can be provided through proper site design and
construction practices.
Flora and Fauna: Located in areas where detrimental development impacts on local, State or
federally-acknowledged unique or endangered species, and wildlife habitats and corridors can be
protected through proper site design and construction practices.
Soil Conditiona:Located in areas where general soil conditions are suitable for development because
of good drainage characteristics and load-bearing capacity for development.
Public Savioes/Utilities:Located generally in areas which are or could be reasonably and effectively
served by public services and facilities. When located in areas where such services and facilities are
not present or planned,general soil conditions must be suitable for on-site sewage disposal systems.
1'r+avisaortatiori System: Located in areas adjacent to interstate and mgjor arterial highways,
particularly those with the potential for providing access to public transit facilities.
Ener" Use:Located within 10 minutes commuting time from an Urban area and designed so that
business uses provided within developments limit the number of short distance commutes for goods
and services.
Fadedw Land Usc Located in designated Ten or Twenty-Year Transition Areas.
Aatricultnne and Fm+esb%. Located away from areas where development would have a detrimental
impact upon productive agricultural uses and managed forest land, and/or where the existing
landscape character can be maintained through proper site design and construction practices.
Aamladm Dbuitr- Located in areas with, or planned for, moderate to high population densities.
Historic and Cnitnrnl:Located in areas where detrimental development impacts on local, State or
federally-acknowledged historic, cultural and/or archaeological sites, or County-designated Public
InterestAreas does not exist or can be mitigated through proper site design and construction practices.
3. Amend Section 3.5 - Land Use Goals and Draft Policies, Goal Si:, to include the following:
611 The following Economic Development (Transition) Activity Nodes have been designated:
I.40101d NC 86(HB-5),I.85 1Buckhom (CK-A and I-85 1US 70(ENO-2).
And revise the fallowing (wording to be deleted shown is etrAe-Oweeg* new wording shown in
boldface):
67 The following areas in the County are identified as appropriate for industrial uses and have
been designated as Commercial-Industrial Nodes:Etland Center(CK-1);Miles North(CK-2);
Miles South (CK-3. go@ W" and Harmon Young (HB-4).
6.9 The following Rural Neighborhood Activity Nodes have been designated-Toler's Store(CG-3);
Villine's Store (LR-3,k Walnut Grove (CG-5); Underwood's Store (LR-3); Fairfield (CK-4);
Coleman Loop(HB-1);Law's Store(ENO-1), Adam and Eve(BH-1); Oak Grove(BH-3); and
Calvander WmW 6) and Blackwood Station WJaT,l as pmt of die Orange County-Chapel
Hig-Carrbory Jdnt Planning Area Land Use Plan.
9
4. Amend Section 3.8 - Cheeks Township Plan by increasing the number of activity nodes from four to
five and adding a description of the new activity node, CK-5, to read as follows:
REFERENCE: CK-5(I-85/Buckhorn)
LOCATION--I-85 and I-40, Buckhorn Road(SR 1114), and U.S. 70
PLAN CATEGORY Economic Development(Transition)Activity Node
ANALYSISAND EVALUATION.•This node is located at the intersection of an interstate highway and
collector road.Access is also available from a major arterial road. Mgior non-residential land uses
in the area include Hancor Products and the Orange-Alamance Water System office and water tank.
Scattered residential development is also present,particularly along Buckhorn Road and just south
of the Southern Railroad. The tract includes the Southern Railroad and is crossed by a gas pipeline
as well as a Duke Power Transmission line.
The area is on the western edge of the Upper Eno River watershed and contains gently rolling
topography. Intermittent streams which cross the property flow south to join Seuenmile Creek. Soils
not suitable for development are found along the streams.
The area is presently served by a central water system (Orange Alamance), and future sewer line
extensions are possible from the Efland sewer system. Since the area is located in a water supply
watershed, new development will have the option of limiting the amount of impervious surface
(buildings,parking, etc.)or installing wet detention basins for stormwater control.New development
must also comply with performance standards established specifically for Economic Development
Activity Nodes.
Access to the site is best provided by-way-of a service road extending from Buckhorn Road to Redman
Road (SR 1311). The western portion of the area nearest to Buckhorn Road is best suited for
servicelretail land uses, while the remainder is appropriate for a mix of light industrial,distribution,
flex space, and office uses.
5. Amend Section 3.9-Hillsborough Township Plan by increasing the number of activity nodes from four
to five and adding a description of the new activity node, HB-5, to read as follows:
REFERENEI-HB-5(I.40101d N.C. 86)
LOCATION. I,40 101d N.C. 86(South Churton Street Extension)
PLAN CATEGORY Economic Development(Transition)Activity Node
ANALYSMANDZVALUAITONN.-This node is located at the intersection of an interstate highway and
a mina' arterial road which serves as a mayor entranceway to Hillsborough. The node extends
southwest from the Southern Railroad and includes the Interstate-40101d 86 interchange.
In the area along Old 86 and 1,40, there are some moderate to steep slopes and soils which may
restrict but not prohibit development. Most of the area includes slopes over 7.5 percent. Slopes over
15 percent are generally found along drainageways. Soils unsuitable for development are fairly
common throughout the southwestern portion of the area Some soil categories are restricted due to
slope, while others present limitations due to wetness or low strength.
Cates Creek and its tributaries flow through the site southwest to northeast. The floodplain along
Cates Creek could sere to separate uses but should not be a considerable restriction on development.
A significant area of bonamlavnd forest has also been identified in proximity to Cates Creek in the
Inventory of the Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County(Site E07).Another significant
cultural resource to be recognized and protected during development is the remains of the"New Chapel
Hill Road, as shown on a survey by Geroge Tate in 1891. These areas should be preserved as open
space or buffer areas through proper site design and construction practices.
10
With the exception of a low-density subdivision, Stagecoach Run, accessed from N.C. 86, there would
be no significant disruption of areas with a residential character. Additional development has been
planned,however,to avoid adverse impacts on neighboring residential communities.Moderate-density
residential and low intensity office development has been located and/or natural vegetative buffers
retained to "screen" existing neighborhoods from more intensive uses. Because the I-40 101d N.C. 86
interchange serves as a major access point to Hillsborough, the retention of vegetative buffers along
Old N.C. 86 could also preserve the character of that entranceway.
Without improvement, the ability of Old N.C. 86 to handle additional traffic may hinder some
development. Furthermore, the potential for vehicular access to Old N.C. 86 is limited from within
the site. Nevertheless, the existence of nearby public water and sewer services, and direct access to the
interstate system makes the node desirable for new development, including light industrial,
distribution, flex space, office, and service/retail uses. The existence of the interstate system and rail
service also adds to the potential of the node as part of a regional transit system.
6. Amend Section 3.10 -Eno Township Plan by revising the description of activity node ENO-2 to read
as follows:
REFERENCE:ENO-2(Eno) (7.85 1U.S. 70)
LOCATION. 1-85 and U.S. 70
PLAN CATEGORY
Economic Development(Transition)Activity Node
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION-•This node is located at the intersection of an interstate highway and
a mg1or arterial road, and includes a two-mile stretch along U.S. Highway 70. The area is also
serviced by a spur of the Southern Railroad.
The entire area is located in the Lower Eno River watershed,with Rhodes Creek and other tributaries
flowing north through the area toward the Eno River. Floodplains on Rhodes Creek could be a
somewhat restrictive for development. Soils unsuitable for development are located primarily along
the streams.
Slopes between 7.5 and 15 percent are scattered throughout the area,however, the mgjority of the area
slopes are less than 7.5 percent. Slopes over 15 percent are concentrated along the drainageways.
Existing land uses range from ai#acent mobile home parks to a variety of service and commercial
uses• Therefore, appropriate infill development is projected for this area. New commercial and
industrial uses should be generally confined to the areas south of U.S. 70 and 1.85 in order to reduce
negative impacts an the Eno River State Park. Access along U.S. 70 may be difficult in areas of
moderate or steep slopes,however,the widening of 1-85 and the associated redesign of the interchange
will provid4 greater weess to adjoining properties. Moderate-density residential and low intensity
office development has been located and/or natural vegetative buffers retained to "screen" existing
neighborhoods from more intensive uses.
7. Amend Section 3.12 - Chapel Hill Township Plan by revising the last paragraph in the subsection,
Distribution of Land Use Plan Categories, to read as follows:
There are no activity nodes in Chapel Hill Township north of the JPA An mere
Economic Development(Transition)Activity Nodes,
&,W ww in Hillsborough Township (HB-5), however, extends me for eeeiA so slightly beyond the
Chapel Hill Township line.
*#he•are& The node in Hillsborough Township crosses the Duke Power transmission line north of
Davis Road and is ac(jacent to 1.40 east of Old N.C. 86 in the northwestern corner of Chapel Hill
Township.
11
8. Amend Section 4.1 - Overview of Implementation Strategies by adding an "Economic Development
Activity Node" row to the "Land Use Element Categories-Zoning District Matrix". The subsection,
"Zoning Ordinance", would also be amended (as follows) to add a description of the "Economic
Development Activity Node" category.
ECONOAICDEVELOPM&1VTAC7IVI7YNODE.Identifies areas in Transition areas of the County
which have been specifically targeted for economic development activity consisting of light industrial,
distribution,flex space,office,and service/retail uses.Such areas are located adjacent to interstate and
mgior arterial highways, and subject to special design criteria and performance standards. The
applied zoning district is ED (Economic Development).
The subsection,"Economic Development Plan", is also proposed for revision and would read as follows
(wording to be deleted shown in st.rihe Owe new wording shown in boldface):
&a wmic Dawkpment Plane
The physical land use planning activity cannot be separated from economic considerations. In
determining the appropriate pattern of land use for the County an assumption is implicitly made
regarding the type of growth favored and the response of the economy to such growth. Conscious
efforts to broaden and diversify the economic base of the area and promote certain forms of economic
development should complement physical planning considerations affecting land use patterns,
particularly as they impact on the maximization of opportunities for County residents for housing and
work, and the protection of the environment.
dedelep, lem pameme
. The Orange County Industrial Facilities and Pollution Control
Authority was created by the Board of County Commissioners on October 23, 1978, and formally
organized on March 5, 1979, io Ow body poinerily peops"bk fsp own agg to work toward the
establishment and acpansion of manufacturing companies within Orange County. Creation of this
Authority made it possible for manufacturing companies to be eligible for Industrial Revenue Bonds.
In December 1982,the Orange County Economic Development Commission(EDC)was established and
charged with carrying out an economic development program for all portions of the County and its
constituent municipalities. The EDC's purpose is to increase economic development through clear,
effective strategies avid policies which stimulate balanced development at appropriate rates in suitable
locations.
One of the mayor accomplishments of the EDC has been the preparation of a Sb-ategic Plan for
Orange County's Economic Development. The Plan was adopted on March 8, 1989, including a goal
4W
'...insure the desired quality of life...by encouraging economic development through investment in
human resources, the expansion of existing businesses, and the creation of diversified and
environmentally safe businesses...to provide jobs for county residents and to increase the
non-residential tans base...'.
As one means of implementing the Plane, a resolution was adopted in October, 1990 by the Planning
Board and the Economic Development Commission establishing procedures to address comprehensive
planning and economic development matters of mutual interest.
6U � I I i ' • 1 i I ! i ! i
= I I I I I � I l i i i f • I •
I = 1 j I I I l �ti I I I I I • � •
` j I { i l � 1 1 1 • I I i • '
N � v
•� C,.jiIIII �� � 1111 • iIl •
N V �
h G
e <
•_ 1 r V • • •
M • I I • � � I I I
� v
•.J.. ec aK I • _ I I
P.r lu
ail - I I �y .A I I I I I I
�I I • � O I I � 1 I
s
m
v o z z
< c Z 5 Z u
tv
MEN�• � ee
_, u
Lul
� Z R � � C � � a •v � � = � - -
�' C < w U U U ? U U
13
PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH
ESTABLISHMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
1. Amend Article 4.2.19 - District Statements of Intent and Application Criteria [Economic Development (ED)
District] by revising it to read as follows (wording to be deleted shown in ; new wording shown
in boldface):
Economic Development(ED)District
a. Intent
The purpose of the Economic Development (ED) District is to provide locations for a wide range of
low inteft ei#y light industrial, inetiou4sis e�l, distribution,/lac space, office, and research service/retail
uses Floc space typically includes
one-story buildings designed c0nsblucAed and marketed as suitable for use as offices but able to
aoeornmodo�e other user e.g.,warehouse,showroom,manufacturing,assembly or similar operations.
way .Such areas have been targeted for economic duulapmait and are located
adjacent b intrntoate and mgjar ar*nal highways. They are subject to special design criteria and
performance standards used to minimise impacts beyond the space occupied by the use.
b. Application Criteria
This district will usually be applied when the following conditions exist:
1. Sib Thu district is located adjacent to a Federal Interstate Highway, with dipms seeege to
or a meow arterial road
2. The sine district is located outside of the Chapel Hill - Carrboro Rural Buffer area as
designated in the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
-2. -4-14 ku she"be . . �i 0 Gem, and OU I@#@ shoU have fmnsege eps she kiepesete e
3. AA@ "M 2U rite district shall not be located within a the critical area of a designated water
supply watershed
4. Urban services,such as water and sewer mains, are desirable, but not required if acceptable
alternatives are available.
2. Amend Article 4.3-Table of Permitted Uses by deleting the list of permitted uses and providing the following
notation in the ED row:
Refer to Ardck 6.29-Deuekpnnent Stmnda,ds for z= n k D uclgxneW(RD)Districts.
3. Amend Article 5.1.2 - Eatabliahnnent of Dimensional Requirements (Schedule for Non-Residential
Development) by deleting the existing standards and providing the following notation in the ED row:
Refer to Amick 6.29-Daxlopment Standads for Re mantic Development(BD)Districts.
14
4. Amend Article 6 by adding a new Article 6.29 - Development Standards for Economic Development (ED)
Districts to read as follows:
6.29 Development Standards for Economic Development(ED)Districts
629.1 Per a4t
(goal Six of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan is the promotion of economic
development which emphasizes local employment needs while preserving the character of
communities and protecting the natural environment. To that end, these provisions are
established to create review procedures and appropriate design standards for application
within portions of the county targeted for economic der gwsent activities; e.g., Economic
Development Districts.
6.292 Design Review Process
Be&v any new site development may be undertaken in an Economic Development District,
a site plan must be approved and a zoning compliance permit issued in accordance with the
protnuons of Arack 14 (Sine Plan Approval Procedures) of this Ordinance. Prior to
submission of an application for site plan approval,applicants will be required to meet with
representatives of the Planning and Inspections, and Economic Development Departments to
identify policin procedures, regulations, and fives applicable to de elapment proposals.
Plans for development proposals in an Economic Development District will be reviewed by the
Planning and Inspections Department staff for eompliamm with the standards contained in
flit follawirsg section.Such review,will also be carted out in accordance with the provisions
of Artiek 14.3(Site Plan J?mm)of this ordinance.
In adaldion to die submittal requirements contained in Amick 1424 a complete application
small also include
1. Building elevation drmoings for each proposed stractarG and
2. A minimum of two(2)drawings of sections through die site illustradM existing and
proposed grades, as well as the relationship of di fte ent site features.
Failure to moat the criteria for site plan approval listed in Article 14.3, to address agency
comments salieitad during the plan n vier process,and/or to adbee to dse design standards
applicable within Economic Diaelapmemt Districts will result in denial of a development
qW ica"L In such cases, the daeloprne nt plats will be ndurned to dse applicant with a
wn um aplanartim of dw reasons for denial and the changes required for the application to
be apps+ n d
An gwhcarnt slma ham the aptian of revising dw dankprrent plan to eornply with the site
plat and design cruna.As an alterna hm the applicant mad►also subunit the plan for the
review, and approval of the Planning Board and Board of County Cormrnissionus .in
aaaorrdance with Ilse prwsaistans of Amick 7-Planned Developmsent Districts.
6.29.3 D m&n Standards
The design standards applicable widsin Economic Development Districts ace shown an the
following pages and are divided into two categories,
GoWeNnee P *rmance Standards and Dra:gn Criteria. LmwP4k&&&mdiv The
Performnasee Standards amblish'land use inknsity ratios"an As 96FOO diff
or ratios of mat-made eonstrvcam to natural
features as well are standards to eliminam or midgatie nuisances and undesirable impacts on
15
the enuir+onmer;4 both natural and manmade. The Design 6+ai roes Criteria- - ke
establish standards for landscape and architectural features,parking and circulation,service
and storage, and signs and lighting;i.e., how the use'fits"the site and horn it relates to the
surrounding area.
(The wording highlighted in "stAke-Owe> " format has been revised to reflect the revised
organization and content of the Design Manual.)
5. Amend Article 7 by revising Article 7.2.1 to include the PD-ED Planned Development-Economic Development
District as a permitted Planned Development District as follows:
7.2.1 Establishment of the Planned Development Districts
Planned Development districts that correspond to the following districts authorized in Article
4 are hereby created.•
R-13 - PD-H-R-13
R-8 - PD-H-R-8
R-5 - PD-H-R-5
R-4 - PD-H-R-4
R-2 - PD-H-R-2
R-1 - PD-H-R-I
RB - PD-H-RB
LC-1 - PD-C-LC-1
NC-2- PD-C-NC-2
CC-3 - PD-C- CC-3
GC-4 - PD-C- GC-4
0I.1 - PD - 0I.1
I-1 - PD -I-1
I.2 - PD -I-2
I.3 - PD -I-3
ED - PD-ED
PW-I- PD -PW-I
PD -MU
PD -R
PD -MHP
8. Amend Article 7 by adding a new Article 7.21-PD-ED Planned Development-Economic Development District
to read as follows:
721 PD-ED PLANNED D 0TjQ.Ph[SNT-BCONOWC DRVELONEU4T DISTRICT
The f hllaraiW regulations mhd rsgrdranaats apply so PD-ED Plmuud Daxlopmau-Economic
DareAWnwht Districts.
7211 PD-ED District Ddnidm and Intent
PD-ED distriess nW be eatfisbed in acaordmace with the gaheral procedures and
regw wnents art forth in Articles 71 through 7.9 and with the intvaadn and in locations in
accordance With the(.rara:prr/aahaue Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and Alas.
The purpose of this district is to provide for propv*locarped and pla med non-residendal
davloprnaat eormis nt with Ormhge County's Sbrotrgic Plan for Bconomic DemkVnieu
Specifically, this district is intended to provuk an apportranio fir damkpnent Plans,
submitted w u rr tae provisions of Article 629 lDaxloprnent Standards for E.conanic
16
Development(ED)Districts]of this ordinance, to be considered for approval when such plans
do not:
1. Meet the criteria for site plan approval listed in Article 14.3;
1 Address agency comments solicited during the site plan review process and/or
3. Adhere to the design standards applicable within Economic Development Districts as
set forth in Article 629 of this ordinance;
and which propose a design solution which is equal to or better than could be obtained
throagh the application of the criteria and standards contained in the Design Manual.
(The last sentence beginning"and which..." was added following discussions with the County
Attorney to clarify that failure to adhere to criteria and standards, and/or address agency
comments is not sufficient grounds alone for application acceptance and consideration.)
In such cases, application for and approval of a Planned Development District shall be
governed by the general and specific standards and procedures for the issuance of a Planned
Development Permit as set forth in this Article.
6. Amend Article 22 - Definitions by adding a definition of "Economic Development Activity Node" to read as
follows:
B�comanuc Diwelonrment Activii�► Node - Land in Transit= areas of the County which has been
spedfrcally targeted iw a mmie deuelaPnwnt activi& Ong of light industrial,
dWtbibudan, Roc spas, office, and serviceln*d uses. Such areas are located adjacent to
imterstate and mWor ar* ial h;ghuigM and sukmd to special design criteria and performance
&%nndards. Floc spade typically includes one-story buildings vie:igmed constructed and
marketed as suitable for use as offim but able to accommodate other uses;e-g., warehouse,
showroom, manuAwturing assembly or similar opvoliorrs.
NHEREAf, despite thesa eantributions and many more, the role of Mrican-
Aaarieans in history has been consistently overlooked and
undervalued in the literature, teaehinq and study of American
history;
Now, THEREFORE, do w, the Commissioners of Orange County proclaim the month
of lebrv.& y, 1994 as
BLACK HISTORY MONTH`
and commend this observance to Orange County citizens.
VOTE: UNANUOUS
V1• - NONE
VII.
lC4 ZC DZP DISTRICTS DESIGN SLIM
This item was presented by Marvin Collins for the purpose of
reeeivinq citizen c==ent on a proposed Design Manual containing performance
standards and design criteria applicable within proposed Economic Development
Districts (EDDs) . The agenda abstract list the. concerns expressed at the
December 21, 1993 and the January la, 1994 meeting and the changes to the
Design Manual in response to these concerns. All comments from the last
Public Hearinq will be incorporated into the record of this meatinq. Ted
Abernathy showed an an aerial photograph the location and size of each node.
I' :-�. P�zC a:unrs eo�oc�rs
Roy Ruth spoke in support of the changes that have been made. He made
reference to the I-40JOld NC Mode and indicated he cannot make recommendations
concerning *permitted uses" until a rationale is set which defines or
categorizes permitted uses. No noted that criteria required in the zoning
provisions for the Research Triangle Park include a minimum building lot size
of eight (s) acres with no more than 15= of the :total area of a tract being
covered by buildings. ltr. Roth�s complete statement is in the Permanent
Agenda Fil* in the Clerk's office.
Dolly Hunter spoke in support of the LDDs. : She noted that the Economic
Development Commission and its citizen subcommittees and the Planninq Board
have worked vary hard to fulfill the goal of the- County Commissioners and be
consistent with the. band Use Plan. She feels the buffer and landscape
requirements in the design manual are too restrictive. she suggested a
parallel access road along Old NCE4 saying that DOT will never allow multiple
turnouts onto this higbvay.
Ann Joyner reiterated that members sarvin4 on the Economic Development
Commission and the Planning Board have spent such time on this project. She
feels that ZDDs will broaden the tax base and maintain the quality of life.
She urged the Board to approve the design standards. She foals that different
design standards are needed for different locations.
Billy Smith spoke for citizens who ii!vo on Oak Dale Drive and
Cornwallis Kills saying that they need the opportunity to be able to sell
their land. He is unhappy about the Quickie Bart in front of his house. He
asked how long it will take for someone to act fcr them. Marvin Collins
explained that it will be Kay 23 before their petition will be '-card at public
hearing.
John Link Dade reference to the turn lane in front of Mr. Smith's house
and said that the turn lane will use the right-of-way on both the west and
east sides of the road. He recommended that Chair Carey writs a letter to the
Division Engineer and ask for a written response on how the decision was made
and what their plans are for this area.
Lindsey Efland, Chair of the Econcmic Development Commission, stated
that the tills to act is as soon as possib+e. The Board gave this protect to
a Task Force, and have received their recommendation. He asked that the Board
please decide on the proposal because many other issues are awaiting an answer
on this one.
Carl Waters indicated that this could be another Meadowlands. There
are not many complaints about Meadowlands. This could be a good thing for the
community.
A action was sad* by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner
Gordon to include the consents made at the January 18, 1994 meeting an the
design standards for the EDDs in the minutes of this meeting. They are
included by reference.
VOTS: VXAKIXM
After a brief discussion, the Board decided to put this item on the
next aqenda for receipt of limited public comment and for Board discussion.
The Board will .call xarvin Collins with any specific concerns they have about
the design standards.
A notion was made, by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner
Halkictis to continue the public hearing to February 15, 1994.
VOTE: UXANIMUS
VIII. jamb
A notion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner
Gordon to approve those items on the Consent Agenda as stated r_low:
AIL am[ aama�c�r
The Board approved an agreement with the City of Durham
establishinq a mechanism for the transfer of Federal transportation planning
plans and authorised the County Manager to sign the agreement.
ALI. DMUM I= cmrr - V 1 xR=XYQ
The board approved and authorized th* Chair to sign the renewal of
a contract with Durham Tech for administrative support for fire training
classes held in Orange County for emergency management personnel.
ria BID A=2 - POLICS VIZTCLas This item was removed from Consent
Agenda and considered at the and of the Consent Agenda.
jts 1 = T8! COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
The Board approved to change the name of the Coordinated Agency
Transportation program to this Coordinated Area Transportation program. This
19
EVOLUTION OF PERMITTED USE TABLE
PROPOSED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
Since the first public hearing on the proposed Economic Development Districts on February 22, 1993,
numerous changes have been made to the Table of Permitted Uses in response to concerns voiced at
neighborhood/township meetings, work sessions, and/or public hearings. Listed below is a summary of
evolution of the Table of Permitted Uses contained in Section 2.2 of the Design Manual.
MEETING PERMITTED USE SUMMARY COMMENT
February 22, 1993 Original Proposal Original proposal
Public Hearing Uses by right - 58 revised as result of
Special uses - 13 public information
All uses - 71 meetings prior to public
Revised Proposal hearing, 15 uses by
Uses by right - 34 right deleted, 9 uses by
Special uses - 23 right changed to SUP,
All uses - 57 and 1 new SUP added.
May 24, 1993 Uses by Right EDD proposal revised to
Public Hearing Primary area - 41 eliminate Bingham
Secondary area- 22 districts and divide
Special Uses remaining districts into
Primary area - 9 Primary and Secondary
Secondary area- 7 Development Areas.
All Uses
Primary area 50
Secondary area- 29
20
MEETING PERMITTED USE SUMMARY COMMENT
December 11, 1993 I-40/OLD NC 86 DISTRICT EDD proposal revised to
BOCC Goal Setting Retreat Uses by Right provide Table of
Primary area - 57 Permitted Uses for each
Secondary area- 24 district; uses divided by
Special Uses industry group,
Primary area - 14 resulting in greater
Secondary area- 7 number of uses (e.g.;
All Uses manufacturing and
Primary area - 71 processing operations
Secondary area- 31 broken down into 19
separate uses);
US 70BUCHHORN DISTRICT distinction made
Uses by Right between retail uses in
Primary area - 31 freestanding vs.
Secondary area- 24 multiple use building in
Special Uses response to concern
Primary area - 14 about strip
Secondary area- 7 development.
All Uses
Primary area 45
Secondary area- 31
I.851US 70 DISTRICT
Uses by Right
Primary area - 61
Secondary area-24
Special Uses
Primary area - 10
Secondary area- 7
All Uses
Primary area - 71
Secondary area- 31
21
MEETING PERMITTED USE SUMMARY COMMENT
December 21, 1993 I.40/OLD NC 86 DISTRICT Permitted use table
Commissioners Meeting Uses by Right reformatted; uses
Primary area - 54 revised to address
Secondary area- 25 concerns about water
Special Uses storage tanks, radio/TV
Primary area - 8 towers, transmission
Secondary area- 7 lines, motor freight
All Uses terminals, and storage
Primary area - 62 and distribution of
Secondary area- 32 petroleum products;
uses also revised to
US 70BUCHHORN DISTRICT permit churches, and
Uses by Right clubs and lodges.
Primary area - 32
Secondary area- 10
Special Uses
Primary area - 41
Secondary area- 22
All Uses
Primary area - 73
Secondary area- 32
I-851US 70 DISTRICT
Uses by Riaht
Primary area 63
Secondary area- 25
Special Uses
Primary area - 11
Secondary area- 8
All Uses
Primary area - 74
Secondary area- 33
22
MEETING PERMITTED USE SUMMARY COMMENT
January 10, 1994 I-40/OLD NC 86 DISTRICT Permitted use table
Work Session Uses by Right revised to provide more
Primary area - 74 specificity regarding
Secondary area- 27 types of manufacturing
Special Uses uses permitted and on
Primary area - 10 what basis (e.g.;
Secondary area- 8 manufacturing uses
All Uses expanded from 19 to
Primary area - 84 45); also reflects final
Secondary area- 35 Planning/ DC staff
review of concerns
US 70/BUCHHORN DISTRICT identified to date.
Uses by Right
Primary area - 74
Secondary area- 12
Special Uses
Primary area - 42
Secondary area- 22
All Uses
Primary area - 116
Secondary area- 34
I-8&US 70 DISTRICT
Uses by Right
Primary area - 105
Secondary area- 27
Special Uses
Primary area 12
Secondary area- 8
All Uses
Primary area - 117
Secondary area- 35
COMPARISON OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS — I-40/OLD NC 86 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMEN
DISTRICT AND DURHAM BUSINESS PARK AND RESEARCH ZONING DISTRICTS
Within the Durham Business Park and Rsearch Applications zoning districts, the following provisions apply. The provisions
applicable within the Research Applications zoning district are modeled after similar provisions contained in the
restrictive covenants for the Reasearch Triangle Park.The provisions of both Durham districts are compared to those
proposed for the I-40/Old NC 86 Economic Development District.
Dimensional I-40/Old NC 86 Economic Durham City/ un Zoning District
Requirement Development District Business Park Research Applications
None required — lot size Eight (8)acres,and each lot
Minimum determined by needs of use At least 25 acres with 50—foot must be at least 400 feet in
Tract Size and application of design perimeter buffer width
criteria
None required — lot size
Minimum determined by needs of use Eight(8)acres,and each tot
Lot Size and application of design At least three (3)acres must be at least 400 feet m
criteria width
None required— lot coverage Impervious surface of no more Building coverage of no more
I.ot Coverage determined by application of than sixty percent(60%) than fifteen percent(15%)
design criteria
Limit of 45 feet,eacept height
may be increased one foot for
Building Height each additional two feet of Limit of 50 feet No limit
building setback provided
Fifteen percent(15%)of lot
Building Setback depth,but not im than 25 35 feet if< 10 acres 150 feet+ one(1)foot for
filet nor mote than 100 feet 60 feet if> 10 acres each acre
I
Me percent(5%)of lot
Parking/Storage depth,but not leas than 10 15 feet if< 10 acres 150 feet+one(1)foot for
Setback feet nor more than 100 feet 35 feet if> 10 acres each acre
J1
PERMITTED USE TABLE — ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
MOTE:Where an"X"appears in the column,the use is allowed,and development plans will be reviewed and approved by
County staff.If the letter"A"or"B"appears in the column. the use is allowed,but only after a public hearing has
been conducted,and a Special Use Permit appoved for the use by either the Board of County Commissioners (A)
or the Board of Adjustment(B).Where the use is not listed or the column is vacant,the use is not allowed.
1-85Buckhorn Road I-40/01d NC 86 I-85NS Highway 70
Land Use Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
Area Area Area Area Area Area
RESIDENTIAL
Dwelling,sin e—famil Only in designated X X X
Dwelling,two—family locadbas and subject X X X
Dwelling,multi—family to des&standards X X X
Dwelling,mobile home (For replacement of X X X
existut mobile home)
Temporary mobile home For custodial care B B B B B B
Temporary mobile home (For occupancy during
construction of permanent residendel unit and for X X X
30 days after issuance of Certfimte of Occupancy)
AGRICULTURE,FORESTRY dt FL%M4G
Animal hospital/veterinarian B X X
class I kennel B B X
Class II kennel B B B
CONSTRUcnON
Building contractors X X
Plumbing,heating,electrical,and similar trade X X
contractors
MANUFACTURIPI(3,ASSEMBLY,AND PROCESSIM
Food Products see listing below
—
Dairy X X X
—
Bakery X X X
—
Bottling plans X X X
— Miscellaneous food preparation;e{.,coffee X X X
roasting,condiments,confectionary proclucts,etc. j
Paper Products see listing below
— Converted paper and papaboard pndum X X X
— Paperboard cons dom and boats X X X
Furniture and Fbttura see lbtkl below
— Household and office furniture X X
— Miscellaneous furniture and lbttto<es X X
Printing and Publishing Establishmens X X X
Pharmaceutical Products X X X
Rubber and Plastic Products see listing below
— Rubber and plastic footwear X X
— Rubber and plastic hose and belting X X
— Miscellaneous plastic products;e.g.,plastic pipe, X X
packaging materials,etc.
Economic Development Dittric s Design Manual Page 2.2-3
C�
PERMITTED USE TABLE — ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
NOTE:Where an"X"appears in the column,the use is allowed,and development plans will be reviewed and approved by
County staff. If the letter"A"or"B"appears in the column,the use is allowed,but only after a public hearing has
been conducted,and a Special Use Permit appoved for the use by either the Board of County Commissioners (A)
or the Board of Adjustment(B). Where the use is not listed or the column is vacant, the use is not allowed.
I-85/Bucithom Road 1-40/01d NC 86 I-85AJS Highway 70
Land Use Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
Area Area Area Area Area Area
MANUFACTURING,ASSEMBLY,AND PROCESSING Continncd
Stone,Glass,Clay,and Concrete Products
see listing below
— Flat glass X X
— Glass and glassware X X
— Pottery and related products X X
— Cut stone products X X
Fabricated Metal Products see listing below
— Metal cans and shipping containers X x
— Cutlery and hand tools X X
— Heating equipment,except electric and warm X x
air,and plumbing fnaure
— Fabricated structural metal products X X
— Nuts,bolts,screws,rivets,and washers X x
Industrial Machine see listing below
— Engines and turbines X x
— Farm/garden machinery and equipment X x
— Metalworiting machinery and equipment X x
— Special industrial machinery; e.g.,textile X x
machinery
— General industrial machinery and equipment; X x
e.g.,purification equipment,ball and roller
bearings,etc.
—
Office,computing,and accounting machines X X X
Electronic Equipment see listing bebw
— Electric transmission and distribution X X X
— Electrical industrial a toes X X X
— Household applianew X X X
— Electric lighting and wking equipment X X X
— Radio and television receMng equipment X X X
— Communications equipment X X X
— Electronic components and accessories X X X
Transportation Equipment see listing below
— Motorcycles,b' les,and parts X X X
— Miscellaneous transportation equipment;e.g., X X X
motor vehicle components
Instruments see listing below
— Measuring,analyzing, and controlling instruments X X X
Economic Dow1opment Districts Design Manual Page 22.4
PERMITTED USE TABLE — ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
NOTE:Where an"X'appears in the column,the use is allowed,and development plans will be reviewed and approved by
County staff.If the letter"A"or"B"appears in the column. the use is allowed,but only after a public hearing has
been conducted,and a Special Use Permit appoved for the use by either the Board of County Commissioners (A)
or the Board of Adjustment(B). Where the use is not listed or the column is vacant, the use is not allowed.
I-8S/Buckhorn Road I-40/01d NC 86 I-851US Hi;hway 70
Land Use Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
i
Area Area Area Area Area Area
MANUFACTURING, ASSEMBLY,AND PROCESSING Continued
Instruments Continued —see listing below)
— Photographic,medical,and optical goods X X X
— Watches and clocks X X X
Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries
(see listing below)
— Jewelry and silverware x )( X
— Musical instruments X X X
— Toys,sportmg, and athletic goods X X X
— Pen,pencils,office,and artist supplies X X X
— Miscellaneous manufacturing industries;e.g., X X X
costume jewelry,novelties,buttons,etc.
TRANSPORTATION,COMMUNICATIONS,AND UTILITIES
Railibus Passenger shelter X X X X X X
Bus terminate and garages X X
Surface and structure parking as principal use
(*ben associated with a local or regional X X x
Uanspoenaaan goal such as mass transit or
park—and—ride)
Public utility stations and sub—stations,switching A A A A A A
stations,and telephone ezhanges
Radio and television transmitting and receiving B B
towers
Elevated water storage tanks B B B
As accessory use without Special Use Hermit
Transmission lines B B B B B
Water and sanitary sever pumping statiom X X X X X X
Motor freight terminals X X
Postal and parcel deltvery services X X X
Storage and warchousft,inside building x x X
Storage of goods,outdoors (Acre miyoalyand X X X
subject to scree ti
WHOLESALE TRADE
Dumbie Goods LsSe lists below
— Automotive pans and supplies X X X
In as enclosed build'
— Furniture and home furuis " X X X
— Lumber and other construction materials X X X
— Electrical goods �—x X X
Economic Detelbpmeat Detak s Design Mantra/ Page 2.2S
PERMITTED USE TABLE — ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
NOTE:Where an"X"appears in the column,the use is allowed,and development plans will be reviewed and approved by
County staff.If the letter"A"or"B"appears in the column, the use is allowed,but only after a public hearing has
been conducted,and a Special Use Permit appoved for the use by either the Board of County Commissioners (A)
or the Board of Adjustment(B). Where the use is not listed or the column is vacant, the use is not allowed.
1-85Buckhorn Road 1-40/01d NC 86 1-85/US Highway 70
Land Use Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
Area Area Area Area Area I Area
WHOLESALE TRADE Continued
Durable Goods Continued— see listing below
— Sporting,recreational, photographic, X X X
and bobby goods;toys and supplies
— Hardware,plumbing, and heating equipment X X X
and supplies
— Machinery,equipment,and supplies X X X
Non—Durable Goods see listing below
— Paper and paper products X X X
— Pharmaceuticals and cosmetics X X X
Apparel and piece goods X X X
— Groceries and related products X X X
— Beer,wine,and distilled alcoholic beverages X X X
RETAIL TRADE
Storage and distribution of petroleum products
i
(Facibties for local dwnbution and gales only— A A
bufir terminals and tank farms rolubited
Farm equipment sales A X
Motor vehicles,new and used,sales and rental A X
Motor vehicle service station A X
Nightclubs,bars,and pubs (Only as accessory use X X X
to hotel,motel or restaurant
Restaurants(carry—out,drive—in,and general) A x
in a separate,free—standing building
Restaurants(carry—out,drive—in,and general)
when located in a service building,court or plaza, A X X
or enclosed mall co=JWng of multiple mea
Retail trade,sales and renal of durable and
convenience goods,merchandise,and equipment, A X
including mail order home,in a separate,free—
standing building
Retail trade,sales and rental of durable and
convenience goods,merchandise,and equipment, A X X
including mail order houses,when located in a
service building,court or plaza,or enclosed mall
consisting of multiple uses.
FINANCE, MURANM AND REAL ESTATE
Banks,savings and loans,and credit unions A A X X X X
Credit agencies and institutions A A X X X X
Economic Deselbpment Datrices Design Manual Page 11.6
PERMITTED USE TABLE — ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
NOTE:Where an"X"appears in the column,the use is allowed,and development plans will be reviewed and approved by
County staff.If the letter"A"or"B"appears in the column, the use is allowed,but only after a public hearing has
been conducted,and a Special Use Permit appoved for the use by either the Board of County Commissioners (A)
or the Board of Adjustment(B). Where the use is not listed or the column is vacant, the use is not allowed.
I-85Bucthorn Road 1-40/01d NC 86 1-95/US Highway 70
Land Use Primary Secondary Primary
Secondary Primary Secondary
Area Area Area Area Area Area
FINANCE, INSURANCE,AND REAL ESTATE Continued
Security and commodity brokers,and investment A A X X X X
offices
Insurance carriers and agents A A X X X X
Real estate agents and brokers A A X X X I X
SERVICES
Day care facility,including large day care home B B X X X i X
Hotels and motels A x X
Churches X X X X X X
Community center A A A A A A
Schools,elementary,middle,and high A X X
Schools,vocational A X X
Schools,dance,art,and music B X X X X
Beauty and barber shops B B X X X X
Clubs and lodges,and social,fraternal,and union A A A A A A
clubhouses
Indoor theaters A X X
Funeral homes A X X
Health services,including doctors and dentists A A X X X X
offices,and medical and dental laboratories
Laundry,dry cleaning,and shoe repair services B B X X X X
Libraries A A X X X X
Golf driving and practice ranges x
Art/photographic studios B B X X X X
Recreational facilities Non— fit A A A A A A
Recreadonal facilities Profit A A A A A A
Repair service,electronic and appliance A A X X X X
Research facility X X X
Assembly facili — lest than 300 person ca
Lacity A X X
Assembly facility— 300 or more person capacity A X X
Motor vehicle maintenance and re shop) A X
Other offices and personal services;e.g.,attorneys,
watch and jewelry repair,computer programming
and data processing,employment and travel A A X X X X
agencies,advertising agencies,and amounting,
engineering,architectural,and surveiing offices
E=wmic Z iMlgpment Districts Design Manua) Page 22.7
PERMITTED USE TABLE — ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
NOTE:Where an"X"appears in the column,the use is allowed,and development plans will be reviewed and approved by
County staff.If the letter"A"or"B"appears in the column, the use is allowed,but only after a public hearing has
been conducted,and a Special Use Permit appoved for the use by either the Board of County Commissioners (A)
or the Board of Adjustment(B). Where the use is not listed or the column is vacant, the use is not allowed.
I-85/Bacthorn Road I-40/01d NC 86 I-85/US Highway 70 1
Land Use Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary i
Area Area Area Area Area Area
GOVERNMENT
Governmental protective services j
(Police and Ire stations,rescue squads,and X X X X X X
volunteer fire departments)
Parks,public and non—profit X X X X X I X
Governmental facilities and office buildings X X X X X X
(Including solid waste collection centers)
OTHER USES
Accessory uses X X X X X X
Historic buildings for non—residential/mixed use A A A A A A
Emnomic Deselopment Ditak s Design Manual Page 2.2.8
r
DR rT KINOis VROK THE Pse117 t 15, 199 RRG=AR SOCC xLETING
&L ZC DM3Zop= DISTRICTS D&NIGN I UMAL
No presentation was made. The County Commissioners received as
part of their agenda a complete copy of the Design Manual for the Economic
Development Districts (EDDs) .
CITI M CCKNMTB
Avis Lloyd-Kimbell daughter of James Rippy, asked that all of her
father's property be included in the I-40 EDD node. The property is located
between the I-40 node and Cornwallis Hills. There are seven acres just west
of Cates Creek not included in the I-40 node. She noted that he has paid
taxes on this property for 52 years and has not been allowed to do anything
with this property.
somm0 DIS@QSExas
Commissioner Gordon made reference to her four page memo to the
Board of Commissioners and Manager dated February 11, 1994 which lists issues
for further discussion and consideration. She read the memo, explaining that
she would like the Planning Board to consider certain items when making their
recommendation. A copy of this memo is in the Permanent Agenda rile and made
a part of these minutes by reference.
Marvin Collins responded to Commissioner Gordon's comments about
the Design Manual being consistent with the Land Use Plan and noted that
there is a rY-92-93 goal which specifically talks about the EDDs and mentions
that it is the intent to change the Land Use Plan. In terms of location
criteria, he actually feels that the criteria proposed for the EDDs are better
than those currently existing for commercial-industrial activity nodes. The
proposed design standards provide examples of how particular criteria should
be applied. They also take into account areas planned for short or long
range utility services.
with regard to Commissioner Gordon's question about who will make
the judgments required to implement the design guidelines, Marvin Collins said
that he feels confident enough to make these judgments and also has staff he
feels can make these judgments. In terse of "fuzzy standards" he said that
these standards were based on design manuals received from across the country.
There is not an objective standard that will cover every situation. Every
piece of ground to be developed has different characteristics about it. There
first must be a site analysis and from that site analysis the designing
process. He emphasized that they will not need additional staff to implement
the design standards.
with regard to Commissioner Gordon's questions about water and
sewer costs, Commissioner willhoit said that his vision of the Buckhorn node
is that it will be connected to the Efland sewer system. It will provide some
economic viability to the County's sewer line so that it can be used to expand
services to other areas of Efland which have failed septic systems. He would
like for it to be stated that connections will not be allowed to be made to
the Alamance County line.
John Link, speaking from a Manager's perspective, noted that he
expects the private sector to pay for water and sewer extension except for
those monies which are included in the County's Capital Improvement Plan.
The Board discussed water and sewer service to the EDDs. The
existing sower system has a collection and pumpinq capacity of 500, 0oo gallons
per day, and the County has an agreement with the Town of Hillsborough for
them to treat up to 380r000 gallons of the County system's wastewater per day.
Chair Carey noted that although transportation is a concern, the
reality is that many citizens are leaving the county to work elsewhere. He
fools confident that transportation will be forthcoming from the Trianql•
Transit Authority.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to the cost benefit analysis and
asked that the Board direct staff to identify information they should be
collecting in the next two or three years to report back to the Board. she
asked the Planning Board and Staff to come up with some suggestions for the
Board's consideration. She suggested that the County Commissioners may want
to monitor such things as (1) do the jobs go to County residents, (2) are they
good paying jobs, (3) how much residential activity can be traced directly to
this nodes, etc.
Commissioner Insko made reference to page 3 . 3 . 10 in the Design
Manual and asked for clarification on the widening of old 86 and changing it
from five lanes. Marvin Collins indicated that this can be accomplished by
working with the Town of Hillsborough to change the proposed cross-sectio;,
design of old 86. He confirmed that two Hillsborough Town Commissioners have
indicated support for such a change.
Narvin Collins confirmed that right-of-way will be reserved and
used for bus transportation or light rail depending on the density.
Commissioner Insko said that it would help her to know when there
will be a change in the Land Use Plan as a result of the Design Manual. She
tools that if a district is good for Orange County it should be approved
because they now know what the changes in the Lased Use Plan are. One of her
concerns about the I-40/01d 86 node is how the Board will coordinate with
Hillsborough to sake sure there is not strip development all the way out
Churton Street to Old is to 1-40. Hillsborough recommended that there be a
joint process to look at this area and she is supportive of that process.
This node will impact on both the southern and northern part of Orange County.
Chair Carey suggested that all questions and comments be referred
to the Planning Board along with the entire proposal. It feels it will be
necessary for the Board to identify the elements they want to track over the
next few years. He expressed a concern about the need for additional staff
to do the tracking and everything else that will need to be done.
A action was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by
Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this matter to the Planninq Board, along with
Commissioner Gordon's memo, the consents as stated above, and the following
suggestions:
I. Consider removing permitted manufacturing uses from the ?-
40/Old 86 node, or at least making then special uses;
2. Consider adequacy of proposed ordinance modifications in
addressing access/driveway cuts onto Old 86, i.e. , property
fronting on Old 861
3. Consider phasing of implementation of prezoned areas to
coincide with the extension of sewer service. The character
of development without sewer may preempt the type of
development that is desired;
4. Residential uses in secondary area 1-40/86:
Consider making residential uses special uses
OCrC•uCm Comm 9116 c.. ��
J
consider reducinq permitted residential density such that
it is not more attractive (profitable) than business
development
Consider not zoninq residential areas until a to be
specified amount of the primary area has been developed
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
I I
� � ; is a Pb2 � � � � � � � aka � � � � ' �, �• ,�
'^ 6i C
z
QQQS;
Z Z �O �n �p Z •n �n v� �n 6i vi In vi o do
rr •. N .•+ M ...
Lrr A � N N
� p
7 to O �1 M fV .4 z
'fl
... Z a � Z � pa m
ca
_ Z a a o Ii
ar
uj CL Q Gy � � < "� Z
U
96 m
Sc
en N N N N v `? m � N N N N
p v�get
N W-i' fO Cr
w .r !!�� vVV�77 pppp
4 � CL h h h h N h �' N .••� N .•� l'r1 �+ M N N �c
qu m � I
x .� In a3 a3 a3 a3 u 3 v
9 -0
M N Q C eQrt Q Q vl "' Q Q Q h Q q Q Ci
N O ,,� M N O M N ^ O
G i G i i i i i i i i i
no i i t i a i i 7
aa �Ny
z
.r M M N N N
� , o
Z d
nn Q
�i w VR
I
A oy � S
U_ °U
w ag � 96
aN 8
� en V
mMM MMM
CONCERNING ECO`iOIIIC DEVELOP-MZE`'T DISTRICTS
Rov W. Roth
My r-.-.arks wig -.rimarly be concerned with`h e I-4ol'old Nc 86 EDD.
I wart:o say t= that I shay_your j j for this Economic Development District. I too would tike
:o see a "showcase" 9=1 into Orange County - or IEL'sborough - -om I-40 which presents a
r.<
business pa 3er a ing with controlled environment, and which will offer jobs .o Orange Count'
residents.. However, I am concerted with the execution of:his vision, as defined in ;arts of:re
Design Manual.
I have been and still am concerned with the elimination some 4-500 acres of open space 4om the
Cooperative Land Use Plan, in the formation of this EDD. But I will accept that, if the vision can be
reached.
I am concerned, and have some confusion, with some sections of the Design Manual. (I do have :o
ask at this poim, are we each to king about the same Design Manual? I assume that there have been
no Bother changes since the Tau 18 Public Hearing.) Consider the Permitted Use :ables, for a
moment. I feel that some very positive steps were taken in the last draft, but I am confused with the
rationale used to dr.amane whew uses are to be permitted. I recognize that it is difficult to deter=* le
whether a permitted use should or should not be accepted in one of the EDDs. But, wiry should
household furniture mamficture be allowed in one district and nat another, while both have gaper
products mamAcyzine. Why should plastic products manufacture be permitted in one district and
not another, while both may have pbarmaceutical products manufacture? My pouts is, that the
rationale for accepting or rejecting a permitted use seems somewhat arbitrary.
Two weeks ago, W. Willhoit asked me for my recommendations concerning "permitted uses". rm
sorry that I can't do this unless - or untsff - a rationale is set which defines or categorizes permitted
uses. At this point, I don't know what this rationale is or should be.
Let's look at Research Triangle Park for a moment, an area which many hold up as a success:ul
model. Criteria required in the m®g provisions for the Research Triangle Park include a minimurn
building lot in of eight(8)acrek with no more than IS% of the total are of a tract being covered
by build:^vs. I did not no hey sim7ar wteris in the Design M. Anual. I may have missed it, but I could
and no minimum limitation on tract sae. I XWW that this type of limitation should be incorporated
into the maul.
My conclusion and rxom nendations?.The Planning Board and the EDC have come a long way.
There is a sbwW vision of bow the I-4WW NC E6 dist =should look. However, I do not think that
the Design Manual presently, completely implements this vision. On the one hand, the manual
excrucia&A•den h the type of wire that should be used to support a newly planted tree, while on
the other hand, I an tso won of lot size. I agree that this EDD should be planned so that
annexation by Msborough and strip development are avoided. My recommendation is to proceed
row with the other two dimrlct%but spend a Attie more time with the I-4010ld NC 86 planning. Let's
make sun that the vision is acheived.
MAeJtt-4,._,
I feb94 vE v 'ASS
INZ& r.7A k i
0 R A�N/G E C 0 U N`T�YJ
PRE SEAVA TION-PROGRESS-PE0P�6
Memorandum to: Board of County Commissioners
From: Ted Abernathy
Re: Standard Industr' al Classification (SIC) for
Economic Development Districts
Attached for your use is a summary of most of the manufacturing
uses that are proposed for the Economic Development Districts.
This is just to provide additional clarification about
definition and reflects no changes. Many whole categories of
manufacturing are proposed to not be allowed at I-40/01d NC 86.
These include Group 21 - Tobacco Products; Group 22 - Textile
Mill Products; Group 23 - Apparel; Group 24 - Lumber and Wood
Products; Group 28 - Chemical and Allied Products; Group 29 -
Petroleum Refining; Group 31 - Leather Products; and Group 33 -
Primary Metal Industries. In other cases, such as Food
Products and Paper Products, only selected subcategories are
proposed to be allowed.
The write-ups are take from the S.I.C. Manual which I will have
available at the February 15th meeting. Please call me with
any specific questions that you have.
ORANGE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
POST OFFICE BOX 1177 - HILLSBOROUGH.NORTH CAROLINA 27278
(919)732-8181 (919)968-4501 (919)688-7331 (919)227-2031 FAX(919)644-3008
37
MAJOR GROUP 20. - FOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS
This major group includes establishments manufacturing or
processing foods and beverages for human consumption, and
certain related products, such as manufactured ice, chewing
gum, vegetable and animal fats and oils, and prepared feeds for
animals and fowls. Products described as dietetic are
classified in the same manner as nondietetic products (e.g. , as
candy, canned fruit, cookies) . Local example - Simply
Delicious.
Subcatecories - Maior Groue 20
202 - Dairy Products
This industry group includes establishments primarily engaged
in: ( 1) manufacturing creamery butter; natural, processed, and
imitation cheese; dry, condensed, and evaporated milk; ice
cream and frozen dairy desserts; and special dairy products,
such as yogurt and malted milk; and (2 ) processing
(pasteurizing, homogenizing, vitaminizing, bottling) fluid milk
and cream for wholesale or retail distribution. Independently
operated milk receiving stations primarily engaged in the
assembly and reshipment of bulk milk for use in manufacturing
or processing plants are classified in Industry 5143.
205 - Bakery Products
2051 Bread and Other Bakery Products. Except Cookies and
Crackers
Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing fresh or
frozen bread and bread-type rolls and fresh cakes, pies,
pastries and other similar "perishable" bakery products.
Establishments primarily engaged in producing "dry" bakery
products, such as biscuits, crackers, and cookies are
classified in Industry 2052. Establishments primarily engaged
in manufacturing frozen bakery products, except bread and
bread-type rolls, are classified in Industry 2053.
Establishments producing bakery products primarily for direct
sale on the premises to household consumers are classified in
Retail Trade, Industry 5461.
209 Miscellaneous Food Preparations and Kindred Products
38
MAJOR GROUP 26. - PAPER AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
This major group includes establishments primarily engaged in
the manufacture of pulps from wood and other cellulose fibers,
and from rags; the manufacture of paper and paperboard; and
the manufacture of paper and paperboard into converted
products, such as paper coated off the paper machine, paper
bags, paper boxes, and envelopes. Also included are
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing bags of
plastics film and sheet. Certain types of converted paper
products are classified elsewhere, such as abrasive paper which
is in Industry 3291; carbon paper in Industry 3955; and
photosensitized and blueprint paper in Industry 3861. Local
example - Mebane Packaging.
Subcategories - Major Group 26
2657 Folding a e board Boxes, Including sanitary
Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing folding
paperboard boxes from purchased paperboard, including folding
sanitary food boxes or cartons except milk cartons. Local
example - Mebane Packaging.
267 Converted Pacer and Paperboard Products, Except Contai ers
and Boxes
2671 Packaginc Pacer and Plastics Film Coated and Laminated
Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing coated or
laminated flexible materials made of combinations of paper,
plastics film, metal foil, and similar materials (excluding
textiles) for packaging purposes. These are made from
purchased sheet materials or plastics resins and may be printed
in the same establishment. Establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing coated or laminated paper for other purposes are
classified in Industry 2672, including establishments
. manufacturing all gummed or pressure sensitive tape; those
manufacturing unsupported plastics film are classified in
Industry 3081; those manufacturing aluminum foil are classified
in Industry 3497; and those manufacturing paper from pulp are
classified in Industry 2621.
MAJOR GROUP 27. - PRIxTING pUBLISHIXG. AYD ALLIE I1iDUSTRIEB
This major group includes establishments engaged in printing by
one or more common processes, such as letterpress; lithography
(including offset) , gravure, or screen; and those
establishments which perform services for the printing trade,
�c
such as bookbinding and platemaking. This major group also
includes establishments engaged in publishing newspapers,
books, and periodicals, regardless of whether or not they do
their own printing. News syndicates are classified in
Services, Industry 7383. Establishments primarily engaged in
textile printing and finishing fabrics are classified in Major
Group 22, and those engaged in printing and stamping on fabric
articles are classified in Industry 2396. Establishments
manufacturing products that contain incidental printing, such
as advertising or instructions, are classified according to the
nature of the products - for example, as cartons, bags,
plastics film, or paper. Local example - The Village
Companies, The Daily Tar Hee .
MAJOR GROUP 30. - RUBBER AND MISCELLANEOUS PLASTICS PRODUCTS
This major group includes establishments manufacturing
products, not elsewhere classified, from plastics resins and
from natural, synthetic, or reclaimed rubber, gutta perch&,
balata, or gutta siak. Numerous products made from these
materials are included in other major groups, such as boats in
Major Group 37, and toys, buckles, and buttons in Major Group
39. This group includes establishments primarily manufacturing
tires, but establishments primarily recapping and retreading
automobile tires are classified in Services, Industry 7534 .
Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing synthetic
rubber and synthetic plastics resins are classified in Industry
Group 282.
Subcategories - Major Group 30
302 Rubber and Plastics Footwear
3021 Rubber and Plastics Footwear
Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing fabric upper
footwear having rubber or plastics soles vulcanized, injection
molded, or cemented to the uppers, and rubber and plastics
protective footwear. Establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing rubber, composition, and fiber heals, soles,
soling strips, and related shoe making and repairing materials
are classified in Industry 3069; those manufacturing plastics
soles and soling strips are classified in Industry 3089; and
those manufacturing other footwear of rubber or plastics are
classified in Industry Group 314.
3084 Plastics Pik
Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing plastics
40
pipe. Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing
plastics pipe fittings are classified in Industry 3089. Local
example - Hancor.
MAJOR GROUP 32. - STONE, CLAY, GLASS, AND CONCRETE PRODUCTS
This major group includes establishments engaged in
manufacturing flat glass and other glass products, cement,
structural clay products, pottery, concrete and gypsum
products, cut stone, abrasive and asbestos products, and other
products from materials taken principally from the earth in the
form of stone, clay, and sand. When separate reports are
available for mines and quarries operated by manufacturing
establishments classified in this major group, the mining and
quarrying activities are classified in Division B, Mining.
When separate reports are not available, the mining and
quarrying activities, other than those of Industry 3295, are
classified herein with the manufacturing operations.
If separate reports are not available for crushing, grinding,
and other preparation activities of Industry 3295, these
establishments are classified in Division B, Mining.
Subcategories - Major Group 32
321 Flat Glass
3211 Flat Glass
Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing flat glass.
This industry also produces laminated glass, but establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing laminated glass from
purchased flat glass are classified in Industry 3231.
322 Glass and Glassware. Pressed or Blown
This group includes establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing glass and glassware, pressed, blown, or shaped
from glass produced in the same establishment. Establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing glass products made from
purchased glass are classified in Industry 3231.
3229 Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware. Not elsewhere
Classified
Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing glass and
glassware, not elsewhere classified, pressed, blown, or shaped
from glass produced in the same establishment. Establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing textile glass fibers are
also included in this industry, but establishments primarily
engaged in manufacturing glass wool insulation products are
classified in Industry 3296. Establishments primarily engaged
in manufacturing fiber optic cables are classified in Industry
3357, and those manufacturing fiber optic medical devised are
classified in Industry Group 384 . Establishments primarily
engaged in the production of pressed lenses for vehicular
lighting, beacons, and lanterns are also included in this
industry, but establishments primarily engaged in the
production of optical lenses are classified in Industry 3827 .
Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing glass
containers are classified in Industry 3221, and those
manufacturing complete electric light bulbs are classified in
Industry 3641.
328 Cut Stone and Stone Products
3281 Cut Stone and Stone Products
Establishments primarily engaged in cutting, shaping, and
finishing granite, marble, limestone, slate, and other stone
for building and miscellaneous uses. Establishments primarily
engaged in buying or selling partially finished monuments and
tombstones, but performing no work on the stones other than
lettering, finishing or shaping to custom order, are classified
in Division F, Wholesale Trade or Division G, Retail Trade.
The cutting of grindstones, pulpstones, and whetstones at the
quarry are classified in Division B, Mining.
MAJOR GROUP 34. - TABRICATXD METAL PRODUCTS, EXCEPT MACHINERY
AND TRANSPORTATION EOUINCEXT
This major group includes establishments engaging in
fabricating ferrous and nonferrous metal products, such as
metal cans, tinware, handtools, cutlery, general hardware,
nonelectric heating apparatus, fabricated structural metal
products, metal forgings, metal stampings, ordnance (except
vehicles and guided missiles) , and a variety of metal and wire
products, not elsewhere classified. Certain important segments
of the metal fabricating industries are classified in other
major groups, such as machinery in Major Groups 35 and 36;
transportation equipment, including tanks, in Major Group 37;
professional scientific and controlling instruments, watches,
and clocks in Major Group 38; and jewelry and silverware in
Major Group 39. Establishments primarily engaged in producing
ferrous and nonferrous metals and their alloys are classified
in Major Group 33. Local example - W.S. Brady, Parker
Hannifin, Kamtec.
42
MAJOR GROUP 35. - INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL MACHINERY
AND COMPUTER EQUIPMENT
This major group includes establishments engage in
manufacturing industrial and commercial machinery and equipment
and computers. Included are the manufacture of engines and
turbines; farm and garden machinery; construction, mining, and
oil field machinery; elevators and conveying equipment; hoists,
cranes, monorails, and industrial trucks and tractors;
metalworking machinery; special industry machinery; general
industrial machinery; computer and peripheral equipment and
office machinery; and refrigeration and service industry
machinery. Machines powered by built-in or detachable motors
ordinarily are included in this major group with the exception
of electrical household appliances. Power-driven handtools are
included in this major group, whether electric or otherwise
driven. Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing
electrical equipment are classified in Major Group 36, and
those manufacturing handtools, except powered, are classified
in Major Group 34. Local example - Parker Hannifin, Triem.
MAJOR GROUP 36. - ELRCTRONIC AND OTHER RLRCTRICAL
EQUIPMMT AND CQWONENTS. EXCEPT COMPUTER RQUIPMRNT
This major group includes establishments engaged in
manufacturing machinery, apparatus, and supplies for the
generation, storage, transmission, transformation, and
utilization of electrical energy. Included are the
manufacturing of electricity distribution equipment; electrical
industrial apparatus; household appliances; electrical lighting
and wiring equipment; radio and television receiving equipment;
communications equipment; electronic components and
accessories; and other electrical equipment and supplies. The
manufacture of household appliances is included in this group,
but industrial machinery and equipment powered by built-in or
detachable electric motors is classified in Major Group 35.
Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing instruments
are classified in Major Group 38. Local example - General
Electric.
MAJOR ORM 38. - 10MURING, ANALYSING AND
CONTROLLING IN82RLMEM: PROTOGRAPSIC. MRDICAL AND
OPTICAL GOODS: MATCHES AND CLOCKS
This major group includes establishments engaged in
manufacturing instruments (including professional and
scientific) for measuring, testing, analyzing, and controlling,
and their associated sensors and accessories; optical
instruments and lenses; surveying and drafting instruments;
hydrological, hydrographic, metorological, and geophysical
equipment; search, detection, navigation, and guidance systems
and equipment, surgical, medical, and dental instruments,
equipment, and supplies; ophthalmic goods; photographic
equipment and supplies; and watches and clocks. Local example
Wilmore Elecronics, Data Spectrum.
MEMORANDUM
Tc: Qoard of Ccrnmissloners and Manager
From: Altca Garton $00
SubJect: Points to Ponder - Economic Cevelopment Districts (ECDs)
Data: =eervary 11, 1994
Included oelow is a list of points to pander while you ere considering :fie
proposal for the Economic Deyslapment Districts.
I. Lend Use Plan
According to the December 5 80CC agenda packet, 'the Board of
Commissioners asked that specific parcels be identified for prs-aonl,g
economic deyelopment purposes In a manner consistent with the
Orange County Land Use Plan.'
A. Existing Nodes. In the current Cramp County Lend Use Plan,
commercial - industrial nodes exist in the IWOUCkhem Road area and in
the 1115/U570 area. There is no existing node in the 140/01de6 area (anti
only a smell percentage of transition area), so the ED node in this area is
not consistent with our current Land Use Plan.
0. Criteria for Loestion of ACtivity Nodes. The "locational criteria'
for commercial- industrial transition activity nodes' and for *commercial
transition activity nodes' differ from the Tocational criteria for 'economic
development activity nodes (transition areasY in syatemottc ways. For
exempt 1, hers Is a comeari son using three of the criteria, namely, land
sloae, public services/utilities, and populetton density.
Land Slops
Carr Ind - 'Locatsd on lend with Slopes of less then 15X grade
21=22 D, ay� - 'Located on lend with slopes of l ass than 1511 grade.
_ Nary
fi.ii 22 of 1 �X or glMetar era prawn prota tjan wow by - vided through
amer si is desi go and canet nicti cm mmet i cos
Public Services/Utilttiss
Cam Ind - 'Located in arses rich are or could be reasonably and
effectively served by cantrs)-Ird public servlcis and utilities.'
Ec Dey - 'Locatsd aen� ;n ones which ere or could be reasonably end
effectively served:by public services and facilities. )IC?R jggatsd in enss
gmersl scf i
cwdtti:ns must De su+tebt9 t Ir OM-2112% 96=1 disaosal •yst_sm_s.'
45
rcin:s tc Pcnaer - Gcrdcn
Population Density
Cam Ind - 'Located in areas with moderate to high population densities.'
EC Dev - 'Located in areas with, or olannea ter moderate to high
Population densities.
C. Comments/Questions/Recommendeti off s
I. Why wars these changes made in the existing land use pion?
It would have been helpful if such changes had been highlighted.
2. Note that the 140/01d Q8 proposed nods is in the Hfllaborough
Cooperative Planning tone. it is also close to the Rural Huffer, a part of
the Joint Planning Area with Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
3. It appears that no useful purposs is served by edding a new land
use plan category. We should continue to use the existing land use plan
category, 'commercial-industrial transition activity node.'
4. The 140/01d 56 node has more unaddressed issues then the other
two nodes.
11. Design Manuel
It appears that the Design Manual has sections where fuzzy standards are
utilized. For example, consider sections 3.1 'Architectual Design' and 3.2
'Landscape Design" (found in the version of the manual i have, which may
or may not be the latest vision):
A. 'Fuzzy• standards
It is hero to know whet 11 aacpeeted of a developer, given the way the
manual is written; For example, in section 3.1 concerning 'compatibility
with neighbors' we encounter this sentence:
'Unless this we overriding concsms or poorly deftned aspects,
a maw building must reflect the architectural character of
surrounding buildings in the following weys:o to list follows)
An U401141e in section 3.2 concerning "pr9servetion of existing features• is
found in the following sentence:
i
'Wheraver possible, access to views are to be preserved for
adjacent property owners and passing motorists.'
Also In section 3.2 is this guideline for landscaping pw*Ing areas:
"Whore practical, lowering the grade of the parking lot from
existing street elevations may aid In obscuring views of
automobiles while przmoting views of architectural elements
Of tPo structures beyond.'
Points to Pander - CcruQn
Throughout the manual, terms such as 4wheraver possiblad and 'where
Rroctical' meke the standards fuzzy and as a result there is a lot of staff
judgment involved in deciding whether or nct the standards have osen met.
S. Mixing of Objective Standards and 'Fuzzy' Standards
Objective standards ;a.g. setback requirements) and fuizV standards are
mixed together in a taxtbook-iiks format.
C. Comments/Quests Ono/RtcommondstIons
1. who will make the judgments required to implement the desigr,
guidelines? will additional staff be required? will they be trained as
architects?
2. How will the Design Manuel gat changed? Will the DaCC need to
approve changes? In other words, how doss the Design Manuel work in
relation to the Zoning Ordinance and any other land use regulations?
3. it would appear that the Design Manuel should be mods more
concise and Mors objscttvs. The fuzzy standards should be separated from
the objective standards, so that everyone can more easily ascertain what
is required.
111. Costs
Ons important question is wfwther the Economic Development Districts
will be of benef It.to the county financially. This on several aspects to
t;iis question.
A. Wetsr and Sower Ssrvies.
One important concern 1s who will provide the water and sewer infre-
4tructure for the economic development districts. What will the
provision of water end.sewer cost? Who will pay for it? Of particular
note is the statement that future tower tine extensions for the
legnuckhorn nods are ayssiols from the Eflend sewer system. (Sea the
Anelysis and Evaluation section for this node in the December 6 OOCC
Packet) What about connecting to the system in Alamonce County?
D. TransportatieA
As with water end sewer service, we need to know how transportation
facilities will be provided and who will pay for them. Will there be public
transportation facilities so that worksrs can get to their jobs without
relying exclusively on the automobile?
C. C48t/1148011t Anelysls
Evan if the @CCC will not require a cost/benefit analysis before eoproving
EconzmtC Development-DistMc*". we nerd to decide now what kind of
arelysts wilt be required later.
Points to Po^,csr - 3orccn
D. Comments/Questions/Recommendations
I. who w!11 provide water end sewer service and at what cost?
2. Who will provide transportation facillties and at what cost?
3. what elements doss the SOCC wish to have included in the
cost/benefit analysis?
IV. Criteria for Projects in All Economic Development Districts
The goals of the.Strategic Plan include the 'creation of diversified and
environmentally safe businesses ...to provide fobs for county residents and
to increase the non-residential tax base..." Of course the creation of
economic davelopment districts cannot accomplish all the goals of the
Strategic Plan, but the districts can be more directly targeted to achieve
the goals if overall criteria for davelopments were added to specific uses
allowed in the economic development districts.
The following are the overall criterie suggested for developments in
Economic Development Districts:
1. 1 ow water usage
2. little or no production of hazardous waste or pollutants
3. little or no heavy truck traffic, tow noise levels
Staff has already done some work on the low water usage criterion, but
the BOCC needs toy consider the following questions:
I. Should developments which violets the criteria be allowed, even
with a special use permit?
2. How would each criterion be defined?
3. Should there be other criteria, such as an assurance that the Jobs
would be for county residents or a certain level of wages would be paid?
i
V. Pilot Projects
Since the approval of Economic Development Districts has an unknown
outcome, should some kind of pilot project approach.be utilized?
Here are some questions to consider:
1. Should the uses in each district be further differentistsd and
some comparisons; in outcome mods later?
2. Should there be a period during which the BOCC has some role in
the approval of major development projects?
3. Would it be prudent to allow additional uses to be permitted
through a planted development procsss?
4. Thers is other information described on theta pages which could
be gathered. The general question is whet aspects of the M does the
BOCC wish to monitor. would a two or three year period be appropriate?
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD 48
HILLSBOROUGH, :NORTH CAROLINA 27278
u!.
FAX MEMORANDUM
TO: Commissioner Alice Gordon
FAX NO: (919) 9677-�-31823.
FROM: Marvin lanning�Director
FAX NO: (919) 644-3002
SUBJECT: Economic Development Districts
NUMBER OF PAGES: 3
DATE: February 14, 1994
COPIES: Board of County Commissioners
John Link, County Manager
Geoffrey Gledhill, County Attorney
Ted Abernathy, Economic Development Director
Provided below are answers to your February 3, 1994 FAX
A. I-85Buckhorn Road Economic Development District
1. LAND USE
a. Does any of the proposed Economic Development node lie outside the current Commercial-
Industrial node?YES.What is the designation for the current node?CH-2,MILES NORTH.
b. If the answer to a.above is"yes",then what is the current land use designation of that"extra"
area? 10-YEAR TRANSITION.
C. If the answer to a.above is"m", then is any land currently in the node to be excluded from
the new E¢anamic Development node?ALTHOUGH THE ANSWER TO a.IS"NO",NONE
OF THE REMAINING LAND IN THE COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL NODE IS
PROPOSED FOR CHANGE IN TERMS OF LAND USE DESIGNATION.
2. ZONING
a. What are the current zoning designations of the land within the current Commercial-Industrial
node? R-1 RESIDENTIAL,OFFICE is INSTITUTIONAL,EXISTING COMMERCIAL
b, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL-3, AND INDUSTRIAL-1. THE OVERLAY
DISTRICTS OF MTC (MAJOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AND U-ENO-PW
(UPPER ENO PROTECTED WATERSHED ALSO APPLY.
b. If the new Economic Development node includes more land than the current node, what are
the current zoning categories for that extra land? THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT DOES NOT INCLUDE MORE LAND THAN THE CURRENT NODE.FOR
THE LAND IN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WHICH LIES
OUTSIDE THE CURRENT NODE,THE CURRENT ZONING IS R-1 RESIDENTIAL.
49
C. If the new Economic Development node will contain less land than the current node, what will
be the new zoning categories for that land?NONE OF THE LAND IN THE REMAINING
PORTION OF THE CURRENT NODE; E.G., OUTSIDE THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, WILL CHANGE IN TERMS OF ZONING
DESIGNATION.
B. I.85/U.S.Highwav 70 Economic Development District
1. LAND USE
a. Does any of the proposed Economic Development node lie outside the current Commercial-
Industrial node?NO.What is the designation for the current node?E-WENO), U.S. 70 AND
I-85; AND E-3 (DUKE FOREST), U.S. 70, N.C. 751,AND OLD N.C. 10.
b. If the answer to a.above is"yes",then what is the current land use designation of that "extra"
area? NOT APPLICABLE.
C. If the answer to a. above is "no", then is any land currently in the node to be excluded from
the new Economic Development node?YES,PROPERTIES FRONTING ON OR HAVING
ACCESS VIA OLD N.C. 10 HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED IN RESPONSE TO CITIZEN
COMMENT RECEIVED AT PUBLIC HEARINGS.
2. ZONING
a. Wbat are the current zoning designations of the land within the current Commercial-Industrial
node? R-1 RESIDENTIAL, PD-H-R-4 (STONEGATE MEP) GENERAL
COMMERCIAL.-4, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL-3, AND INDUSTRIAL-1. THE
OVERLAY DISTRICTS OF MTC (MAJOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AND
L-ENO-PW(LOWER ENO PROTECTED WATERSHED ALSO APPLY.
b. If the new Economic Development node includes more land than the current node, what are
the current zoning categories for that extra land?NOT APPLICABLE.
C. If the new Economic Development node will contain less land than the current node, what will
be the new zoning categories for that land?NONE OF THE LAND IN THE REMAINING
PORTION OF THE CURRENT NODE; E.G., OUTSIDE THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, WILL CHANGE IN TERMS OF ZONING
DESIGsNATION.
C. I.40101d N.C. Hlahwav 88 Economic Development District
1. LAND USE
What are the current land use categories in the area proposed for the new Economic Development
node?What are the approximate percentages of land area for each?
CURRENT LAND USE CATEGORIES AND THE APPROXIMATE PERCENTAGES OF
LAND AREA FOR EACH ARE AS FOLLOWS:
10-YEAR TRANSITION 1%
80-YEAR.TRANSITION 15%
RURAL RESIDENTIAL 84%
50
2. ZONING
What are the current zoning categories in the area proposed for the new Economic Development node?
What are the ai mroximate percentages of land area for each?
CURRENT ZONING CATEGORIES AND THE APPROXIMATE PERCENTAGES OF LAND
AREA FOR EACH ARE AS FOLLOWS:
AGRICULTURAL-RESIDENTIAL 41%
R-1 RESIDENTIAL 59%
51
DRAFT
EXCERPT FROM PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 21, 1994
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Waddell (Chair) , Karen Barrows, Virginia
Boland, Clint Burklin, Carol Cantrell (7:45) , Betty
Eidenier (9:00) , Jean Hamilton, Paul Hoecke, Joan
Jobsis, Larry Reid ( 7 :50) , Elizabeth Walters.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kent Scott (excused) .
STAFF PRESENT: Marvin Collins, Mary Willis, Joanna Bradshaw.
AGENDA ITEM #10: PLANNING BOARD ITEMS
a. Economic Development Districts Proposal
Presentation by Marvin Collins.
(The abstract is an attachment to these minutes on
pages . The complete abstract and attachments
are on file in the Planning Department. )
Collins began by noting that, at its February 1
meeting, the Board of Commissioners referred a
number of items to the Planning Board for its
consideration. He indicated he would go through the
list of considerations after answering any general
questions or concerns that the Planning Board may
have.
Cantrell suggested that, in the future, revisions to
the Design Manual be number in order to assure
proper insertion into individual's copies. Collins
responded that any revision sheets from this point
forward will be numbered and dated. He continued
that the next revision should be the finished copy.
Waddell suggested that a complete and correct copy
be provided for the Planning Board and Board of
Commissioners.
Reid asked about changes once the document was
completed noting that some questions asked by
Commissioners seemed to indicate it was felt the
document would be "set in stone" , particularly those
items listed in the Permitted Use Table. Collins
52
responded that all of the objectionable uses that
have been identified at various meetings have been
deleted from the list of permitted uses. The most
up-to-date version of the Permitted Use Table is a
part of the abstract attachments in this agenda
packet. Collins explained the breakdown of uses
contained in the table noting that I-40/Old NC 86 is
the most restrictive, I-85/Buckhorn is a step-down,
and, the one with the widest range of permitted uses
is I-85/US 70. The attempt was to include uses that
would not be objectionable, but consistent with uses
already in the County or within this region,
particularly the Research Triangle Area/Park. For
I-4/Old NC 86, the attempt was to model it somewhat
after the research applications district that is
contained in the Durham City/County Ordinance.
Reid asked about the possibility of amendments.
Collins responded referring to Commissioner Gordon's
suggestion regarding monitoring for two or three
years. He indicated continuous monitoring would
take place to be sure the results are those desired
by the County. If that is not the case, then
changes could be proposed.
Barrows referred to the letter from Roy Roth and his
comment that "the rationale for accepting or
rejecting a permitted use seems somewhat arbitrary" .
She asked how Collins would respond to that comment.
Collins responded that the manufacturing uses had
been reviewed again and the thought was to be at
least restrictive as the research applications
district in the Durham City/County Ordinance but,
recognize that there are other uses which could go
into the node which have no adverse impact.
Collins continued that the other types of uses,
office, distribution, retail were reviewed. The
only concern with office and distribution seemed to
be a specific concern with things like truck
traffic. For retail, the concern that was voiced was
"we don't want another strip" . The way this was
addressed was through allowing those uses on a
Special Use Permit basis.
Collins noted that in reviewing the I-85/Buckhorn
district, Ted Abernathy, EDC, had indicated that one
of the things that has to be considered is what is
right next door, which, in that case is Mebane's
manufacturing zone. In looking at the range of
permitted uses in that zone, the decision was made
to allow a wider range of manufacturing uses and
distribution and put other uses in a Special Use
Permit category.
53
Collins noted again that I-85/US 70 District has the
widest range of uses principally because of two
factors. The way it has developed historically and
the uses that are already in place.
Collins continued his presentation by addressing the
considerations referred by Commissioner Willhoit,
noting that all of his questions or considerations
pertain to the I-40/Old NC 86 Economic Development
District. The first question from Commissioner
Willhoit was whether to consider permitted
manufacturing uses from the I-40/Old NC 86 node, or
at least making them special uses. Collins referred
to a listing of manufacturing uses permitted (an
attachment to these minutes on page ) and
indicated those permitted in comparable Durham
Zoning Districts. Wherever the word "Yes" is used,
that reflects the effort to model this district
after the research application or RTP restrictive
covenants. Generally, when the word "No" is used,
that is to reflect uses that exist in the County.
One example of that is paperboard container boxes,
Mebane Packaging, which is in Mebane's jurisdiction
but, is actually in Orange County. Collins noted
that comments heard about Mebane Packaging did not
indicate reasons why it would be objectionable for
such a use in this district.
Collins referred to the miscellaneous permitted uses
noting that while they do not already exist in
Orange County, staff discussion indicated they felt
there would be no opposition to those uses. It was
felt that they would not generate any real adverse
impacts either in terms of byproducts or lots of
truck traffic or a large number of employees.
Collins asked that the Board remember that any
reference to Special Use means a Planned Development
approval process; rezoning, special use and site
plan all in one process. When "Special Use" is
-written out, it is always in the Planned Development
application context.
The decision that confronts the Planning Board is
whether you feel this list of permitted uses is
acceptable. If the desire is to limit the I-40/Old
NC 86 district to an office/distribution center with
limited retail, either eliminating manufacturing
uses or requiring them to obtain a special use
permit through the "planned development" is an
option. If there is a concern that the range of
possible uses is still too open and requires closer
scrutiny, approval through the "planned development"
54
process is an option. However, the staff feels that
the performance standards and design criteria in the
Design Manual will adequately address concerns about
specific uses. The "monitoring' process recommended
by Commissioner Gordon will also provide information
as to whether more control is required.
Waddell commented that he felt the Planning Staff
had made efforts to address concerns of the public
as well and make the permitted uses more viable.
Collins responded that he and Ted Abernathy, EDC
director, agree that if the uses are "pruned"
further, the real question becomes, even if they are
adopted, will anyone use them. It is the same
situation that resulted when Chapel Hill created a
mixed use district near I-40 and Airport Road. They
made the restrictions so tight and the list of uses
so limited, that it was never used. They are now in
the process of trying to get a small area plan for
the area.
Joan Jobsis stated that she had been a part of the
economic development process for about four years.
The original intent was to develop an economically
prezoned area that could promote development in the
county. After a great deal of deliberation, these
sites were selected as the most probable places
where development could occur. This would allow
designed development that would not infringe on
surrounding areas but would not be scattered all
over the county. These are areas that will be
developed in one way or another. If we become
terribly restrictive, it will overthrow the whole
intent which was to help economic development in the
county which meant industry as well as commercial
and office space. She continued that she did not
want to become so restrictive that all of
manufacturing is outlawed. She expressed the
concern that it has already become too restrictive
and it is made very difficult for anyone to come in
and develop industry in our county. If we want
industry, which was the intent of all the years of
_work on this, we have to promote some zoning that
allows industry.
Cantrell asked if Collins wanted the Planning Board
to prepare comments to insert after each
question/consideration. Collins responded that if
the Board would like to have a consensus or a formal
vote after each question, the responses could be
filled in using the format (copy attached) as
included in the agenda materials.
Waddell asked if the Board would like to respond
individually to the questions. It was the consensus
55
of the Board to provide comments and explanations
and a motion after each question.
Walters expressed concern that too many restrictions
would keep those in the area "on hold" and continue
to allow them no use of their land.
Waddell stated that each issue could be addressed
individually and, hopefully, provide Commissioner
Willhoit with answers to his concerns.
Jobsis asked if it is possible to recommend that
Planning Board does not promote removing permitted
manufacturing from the I-40/Old NC 86 district. She
noted that she felt it should not be limited
further. Waddell responded that perhaps each issue
should be voted on and verbalize feelings on both
sides and give a rationale for those feelings.
Burklin stated that he was pleased with the slate of
permitted uses and the sites and the Design Manual.
He indicated he felt the manual makes the permitted
uses acceptable. He expressed concern regarding
problems that might occur if some of these uses are
placed adjacent to each other. He felt some of the
uses would not be compatible with each other. He
suggested that the EDC, after this is in place, very
actively work to develop a vision for each of these
that is based on market analysis and tries to work
toward promoting, not restricting, compatible uses.
He suggested that EDC work collectively with the
individual landowners to find compatible uses. He
felt a continual promotional effort would help
toward finding such uses.
Jobsis noted that the original work with EDC was
very much along the same lines as the comments made
by Burklin. The step-down idea of uses that would
be blocked together was a part of the discussion.
Collins agreed. One of the things that the Work
Group focused on was looking at what the
distribution might be in terms of the different
uses. They reviewed several plans of how they might
be located within each node. There was some
discussion of doing some grouping as suggested by
Burklin. The decision was made by the Work Group
that it should be more flexible. It felt that those
kinds of arrangements would be determined by the
market place. EDC is already involved in such
discussions.
Burklin noted that he felt if a vision and a
commitment to a vision is developed and gets
publicized, some of the remaining concerns might be
56
mitigated. With all the different uses, a vision
doesn't look apparent, but, it is understandable
that the flexibility is needed to move with and
access the market. He indicated he felt the
Planning Board could not access the market that EDC
can. He reiterated his suggestion to follow through
on a vision and an active process with the
landowners. Jobsis responded that she felt EDC is
already working on this. Burklin noted that he felt
this is not stated.
Waddell asked that comments be addressed to the
questions/considerations of Commissioner Willhoit as
listed. He asked what was the general sense of the
Board regarding the staff comment to the first
consideration of removing permitted manufacturing
uses.
Jobsis stated that her feeling was the statements
and comments indicated the Board agreed with the
staff comment with the addition that EDC work toward
some sense of design within the districts. Waddell
responded that, if anything, the Planning Board
might want to augment staff comment and recognize
that the EDC is working towards developing a common
focus for each of the areas. Jobsis noted that she
had not heard comments that were against the staff
position.
With no opposition indicated, Waddell stated that
the Planning Board supported the staff position.
Waddell continued with the second consideration
which was to consider adequacy of proposed ordinance
modifications in addressing access/driveway cuts
onto Old NC 86; i.e. , property fronting on Old NC
86. He stated that the language of unless justified
and wherever possible speaks to the concern.
Barrows noted that Dolly Hunter, at the
Commissioners, meeting in Efland had suggested the
idea of a parallel access road. She indicated she
felt that idea may have some merit. Waddell
responded that not knowing how the land was going to
develop, it becomes problematic to know that there
is to be an access road.
Collins commented that language could be included
which encouraged developers to install marginal
access roads, particularly on a larger tract.
With no opposition indicated, Waddell stated that
the Planning Board supported the staff position.
57
Consideration #3 :
Consider phasing of implementation of prezoned areas
to coincide with the extension of sewer service. The
character of development without sewer may preempt
the type of development that we desire.
Collins used a colored map to indicate the location
of sewer lines as described in the staff comment
(copy an attachment to these minutes on page ) .
He also reviewed the options as indicated in the
staff comment.
Collins continued that there is a practice that some
jurisdictions use called "installation of dry
sewers" . These would not be used until major sewer
lines were extended and connection could be made.
Jobsis asked if there would be problems installing
sewer lines under I-40. Ted Abernathy, EDC
director, stated that the problem would be the cost.
It can be done, but is very costly. Jobsis
continued that was the reason the Work Group did not
select a section south of I-85 to Buckhorn.
Collins continued with the point made by
Commissioner that Willhoit that development that
relies on septic tanks may preempt the type of
development character that is desired. The response
to that consideration is that there is one design
manual with standards that apply to all development,
whether served by public sewer or septic. One
result could be that there would be more open space
with septic tanks since more lot area is required
for septic fields.
Waddell noted that economic impact is such that we
could not expect the southernmost areas to install
septic lines under the interstate until the time the
nitrification fields cost more than public sewer
lines. Abernathy agreed.
Jobsis commented that it seemed if that area was to
develop at all, it would have to be allowed to
develop with something other than public sewer
lines. That would likely be the situation for at
least the next twenty years.
Waddell continued noting that there would be no
reason that a business going in with a nitrification
field, switching to public sewer when it becomes
available. The nitrification fields could be
replaced with another building as long as all the
conditions were met. Collins agreed.
58
Cantrell noted support for the installation of dry
sewer system. She felt it could be done in the
initial stages at a fairly moderate cost and would
not implicate the County or the present or future
landowner to tear up something already there to
install lines.
Waddell stated that he felt the language should be
such to encourage, as opposed to a requirement,
because it will be an economic decision. Cantrell
responded that she would be more on the side of
requiring because it is going to be extra expense.
It's a forward motion.
Jobsis stated that subcommittees had discussed the
issue of dry lines. The group had concerns that the
original owner may not be the owner twenty years
into the future and uses could change. There are a
lot of things that cannot be totally controlled.
She did not feel that the added expense of
installing dry sewer lines could be required, but,
rather agreed with the term encourage.
Cantrell stated agreement in the same manner in
which road standards have been done with "an eye
with what is coming down the road next" ; not trying
to necessarily maintain a viable general outlook.
She felt if it was not required, no one would do it.
Waddell noted that if zoning was not implemented
until sewer lines were in place, and that might not
occur for some time, then zoning would be delayed.
He felt that was not in line with the sense of the
Board. He felt the Board was in agreement with the
staff comments and the alternative of dry sewers.
He felt the Board would like to allow for
development in all the areas and not pre-zone
piecemeal.
Cantrell suggested a show of hands to determine
whether the term encourage or require should be used
in terms of dry sewer systems. Waddell agreed.
Hoecke stated that he felt that the intent was to
prezone all of the areas at the same time.
It was the consensus of the Board to encourage
rather than require the installation of dry sewer
lines.
Consideration #4:
Consider making residential uses special uses.
59
Consider reducing permitted residential density such
that it is not more attractive (profitable) than
business development.
Consider not zoning residential areas until a
specified amount of the Primary Area has been
developed.
It was noted that staff comment should read:
Residential densities are limited to no more than
four (4 ) dwelling units per acre . . . (A copy of the
Staff comment is an attachment on page ) .
Collins that he felt one of Commissioner Willhoit's
concerns was that he would prefer offices in the
area (indicated on map) and concerned with
apartments being built so near the proposed
development area. One means of addressing that
could be reducing the residential densities in the
Design Manual. Leaving proposed areas in an R-1
zoning category until a specified amount of the
Primary Area has been developed may result low-
density development at the fringes of the district
instead of a "step-down" from more intensive to
existing residential development. In addition,
leaving the residential option in the Secondary
Development Areas open provides more opportunity for
properly planned development where non-residential
and residential uses are considered as part of a
single project.
Burklin asked why have residential at all? He felt
R-2 was not any better.
Abernathy stated that he did not favor any
residential in the Secondary Development Area.
Cantrell noted that without public sewer there could
not be dense residential. Collins agreed.
Waddell asked if the Board agreed with staff
comments.
Jobsis stated that logically, if it is to be an
economic development area, there should not be
residential development.
Collins indicated on the map, that most of the areas
adjacent to the Secondary Development Area are parts
of very large lots.
Eidenier commented that two or three years ago it
was discussed to have residential development next
to commercial/industrial so that people could walk
to work. Waddell noted that had not been mentioned.
60
Reid stated that with all the previous discussion
about buffering commercial/industrial from
residential areas, he felt residential development
should not be allowed in the Secondary Development
Area. He also felt the required buffers would be
enough for developers to deal with and there would
be a different type of traffic that a residential
area would not like or need to deal with. It was
the consensus of the Board that residential
development not be allowed in the Secondary
Development Area.
Burklin stated that he did not see this node as
different from the other two. In fact, the other
two have some reasonable high density neighborhoods
next to them already. Reid agreed.
Collins asked for clarification regarding permitted
uses in the Secondary Development Area. The
response was all permitted uses with the exception
of residential.
Collins noted that I-85/US 70 was the only other
area that had a Secondary Development Area. It was
designed specifically to account for the mobile home
parks already in existence and the desire not to
create non-conforming uses.
The following Planning Board comments were presented
by Cantrell and voted on individually to match with
the questions/considerations of Commissioner
Willhoit.
1. We concur with staff comments. The intent of the
process has been to create viable Economic
Development Districts. We believe the permitted
uses are now severely restrictive and would not
support restricting them further. We would
encourage Economic Development Commission to
continue its efforts and involve/communicate with
all landowners in the districts to work with
market forces to produce/coordinate "theme" or
compatible uses.
VOTE: Unanimous.
2. We join/support staff comment.
VOTE: Unanimous.
3. We support prezoning to allow development in all
areas regardless of sewer extension, and
encourage the laying of dry sewer lines for
61
future tap-ons where septic systems are used.
VOTE: Unanimous.
4 . We believe any residential development within the
Economic Development Districts will further
constrict and complicate the planning of Economic
Development. We oppose any residential
development within the Economic Development
Districts. Needed residential development can
occur outside but contiguous to the Economic
Development District if the market supports it.
There is land available.
VOTE: 10 in favor.
1 opposed (Waddell - felt it should be
allowed, although it probably would not be
used often) .
Collins began review of questions/concerns of
Commissioner Gordon (copy of these concerns is an
attachment to these minutes on pages ) .
The first group of concerns relate to the Land Use
Plan. Collins noted that Commissioner Gordon raised
the issue as to whether or not the I-40/01d 86 node
is consistent with the Land Use Plan. The basic
answer is no, it is not. That is the reason for the
proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan to create
the District category and to denote this on the Land
Use Plan as one of the three districts.
Another question was about the locational criteria
for commercial/industrial nodes and commercial
activity nodes and the fact that they differ from
those proposed for economic development activity
nodes. Collins noted that one point he had made at
the Board of Commissioners, meeting was that one
reason for changing these locational criteria was to
provide a linkage between the Design Manual, Zoning
- Ordinance and Land Use Plan. The items underlined
by Commissioner Gordon are addressed in the Design
Manual. The basic response was the standards for
economic development districts are better than the
ones for the commercial activity nodes.
The second group of concerns involve the Design
Manual and, specifically, the mixing of fuzzy
standards and objective standards. Collins noted
that the developer must do his/her homework if plans
are to be accepted for review. Furthermore, pre-
submission meetings are to be held with the
developer and the Planning and EDC staffs. The
intent of such meetings is to insure that the
62
developer understands the intent of the Design
Manual and prepares plans which adhere to all
standards.
Collins explained that a plan, once accepted, was
then sent out for agency review and comment. He said
that the approval process was not easy, was not
intended to be, and once responses were received,
staff would be insuring that agency comments were
addressed.
Collins then responded to specific questions of
Commissioner Gordon. In response to the question,
would additional staff be required, the answer was
no. In response to the question, would the staff
need to be trained as architects, the answer was no.
The standards are basic design criteria that
planners deal with on a daily basis. The staff feels
very comfortable in being able to make the judgments
necessary to determine compliance.
The next series of questions concerned amendments to
the Design Manual and its relationship to other
plans and ordinances. Collins indicated that the
Design Manual is a part of the Zoning Ordinance and
would be changed or amended through the same public
hearing process that Zoning Ordinance amendments are
made.
In terms of the Manual being made more concise and
objective, Collins indicated that there was no way
to draft design standards which covered every
conceivable situation. The use of terms such as
"where practical" and "wherever possible" were
deliberate. He cited an example of a site where no
scenic views existed. He noted that there was no
need to require that "access to views be preserved"
when none existed. He explained that the reason for
the site analysis was to determine what features
existed and needed to be addressed. That analysis
provided the developer as well as the staff guidance
in terms of which standards applied and where.
The next series of questions pertained to "costs. "
Collins noted that in terms of water and sewer
service cost, the developer pays for the cost of
installation in accordance with the policies of the
utility provider. The only exception might be where
the developer applies to the County under the terms
of the Water & Sewer Policy for financial assistance
in installation cost. In such situations, the
decision to participate in funding would be that of
the Board of Commissioners. In terms of who would
serve the Buckhorn node, the Commissioners made it
63
clear that development would be connected to the
Efland sewer system.
Insofar as transportation is concerned, Collins said
that standards had been provided which required
sites to be transit compatible. The developer pays
for such site improvements, but the public pays for
the transit system. Individual businesses that are
large enough could provide van pools to park-and-
ride lots or between the node and municipalities.
The difficulty for the Triangle Transit Authority in
terms of planning for and providing transit service
to the nodes is that there is "nothing on the
ground" in terms of actual development or zoning
categories. Such service may ultimately be provided
through rail and/or bus service, but the long term
cost may well be by the public initially with
capital and operating costs recouped through rider
fares.
Collins handed out a one-page summary which provided
basic information about cost-benefit analysis. (A
copy of the handout is included as an attachment to
these minutes on pages -_. ) Collins noted impacts
that the Commissioners had identified and stated
that either through Planning or EDC data, it would
be possible to provide most, if not all, of the
desired information. The only exception would be
where confidentiality or legal constraints existed.
Ted Abernathy indicated that he felt that the
districts would have no impact on residential
growth. Abernathy noted situations that might occur
where a building is constructed but no tenants have
been located in the facility. While tax revenues
would be received, until the space is actually
occupied, there would be no employment data to
collect. The other situation noted by Abernathy was
that employees come and go. Capturing the
information may be no problem, but six months from
. the date of the survey, the responses may have
changed completely. Abernathy concluded by saying
that clarification is needed on some terms, such as
"new" residents, but that could be worked out before
data collection begins. He indicated that two years
from now, there would probably be no development in
either of the districts, so the time frame of 2-3
years would probably need to be expanded.
Collins indicated that the last set of comments
concerned criteria for development such as low water
usage, little or no production of hazardous waste,
and little or no truck traffic and low noise levels.
Collins stated that hazardous waste was controlled
64
through the State Building Code; i.e. ; the Fire
Prevention Code, and changes from the Code
requirements would have to be approved by the
Building Code Council. In terms of low truck
traffic, standards could be set, but they would vary
from person to person. The standards in the Manual
address related issues such as location of loading
docks, buffer requirements, and noise thresholds.
Burklin asked if information was required concerning
trip generation and improvements to thoroughfares.
Collins noted that as long as the capacity of a road
is not exceeded, as determined by an impact
analysis, dedication of additional right-of-way
would be required but not improvements. When the
capacity of the road to carry the traffic was
exceeded, improvements would be required of the
developer.
Collins then turned to the final set of questions,
with the general concern being whether some kind of
pilot project should be utilized. He indicated that
further differentiation of uses in districts would
only make the districts more restrictive and less
likely to be implemented. With the involvement of
the Commissioners in the approval of major
development projects, the intent of districts would
not be carried out; i.e. , staff approval based on
design and performance standards, with Commissioner
approval where projects failed to meet criteria.
Before proceeding further, Waddell asked if the
Planning Board members agreed with Collins'
responses to Commissioner Gordon's questions.
Waddell noted that, in looking around the table,
there was unanimous consent with Collins' comments
and asked Collins to continue.
Collins noted that he wanted to highlight some
changes appearing on pages 29-30 that staff was
recommending. First, the Site Volume Ratios for
office and retail uses in the I-40/Old NC 86
district are recommended for change as follows:
Use Current SVR Revised SVR
Retail 1.000 1.500
Office 2.000 2.500
Collins then noted that the number of trees per acre
of unobstructed open space for industrial uses (in
all districts) needed to be changed from 6 to 20
large trees and from 11 to 10 small trees to correct
a distortion in the original analysis.
65
Waddell asked about an apparent discrepancy
appearing on page 61 of the agenda (permitted use
table) . He asked why nightclubs, bars, and pubs,
accessory to hotels and motels, are shown as being
permitted by right when hotels and motels require a
special use permit.
Collins indicated that for a nightclub, bar or pub
to be allowed, it would have to be located in a
hotel or motel, and the hotel or motel must first be
approved as a special use. Otherwise, no nightclub,
bar or pub would be permitted.
Waddell then noted that on page 37, fourth line from
the bottom, the last "as" in "as far south as"
should be crossed out. On the last line, the
sentence should read, "in the northwest corner of
the Chapel Hill Township" , with "Chapel Hill" being
added. On page 41, under 1.d. 1, after the wording
"major arterial road" , there should be a period to
end the sentence.
Waddell asked if there were any other comments by
any of the other members. There being none, Waddell
indicated that he would like to get a motion
concerning the proposal, as revised, including the
Zoning and Land Use Plan amendments (maps and text) .
XOTIOM: Jobsis moved approval of the amendments to the Land
Use Element and Zoning Ordinance, as revised,
including the Design Manual, and including the
current amendments that were proposed in the
document. Seconded by Cantrell.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Burklin indicated that while he approved of the
Plans and Manual, he wanted to share his concern
with the Commissioners that there should be
compatible uses, but feels that should be done
within the goals, visions, and plans of the EDC
instead of through the process of restricting the
permitted use table because that takes too much
flexibility out of the plans. Waddell indicated his
agreement with Burklin's statement being reflected
in the minutes.
66
CONSIDERATIONS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING BOARD
BY COMMISSIONER DON WILLHOIT
AT THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FEBRUARY 15, 1994 MEETING
NOTK-All questions or considerations pertain to the I-40 101d N.C.86 Economic Development District.
I. Consider removing permitted manufacturing uses from the I-40/Old 86 node, or at least making
them special uses.
Staff Comment: Proposed permitted manufacturing uses in the "Primary Development Area" include
those listed on the following page. Also provided is a comparison of the list of
permitted manufacturing uses in comparable Durham zoning districts; i.e., BP -
Business Park and RA- Research Applications.
Staff has revised the "manufacturing and processing operations' designation in the
current Zoning Ordinance to be more specific;i.e.,designation by Standard Industrial
Classification(SIC)code.This breakdown is consistent with that used by both Durham
City/County and Wake County in incorporating Research Triangle Park standards/uses
into their zoning ordinances.
If the desire is to limit the I-40/Old N.C. 86 district to an office/distribution center
with limited retail,either eliminating manufacturing uses or requiring them to obtain
a special use permit through the"planned development"process is an option. If there
is a concern that the range of possible uses is still to open and requires each use
requires closer scrutiny, approval through the "planned development" process is an
option.However,staff feels that the performance standards and design criteria in the
Design Manual will adequately address concerns about specific uses.The"monitoring,
process recommended by Commissioner Gordon will also provide information as to
whether more control is required.
Planning Board We concur with the staff comment inasmuch as the intent of the process has
Comment: been to create viable Economic Development Districts. In addition, we believe the
permitted uses are now severely restrictve and would not support restricting them
further. Finally, we would encourage the Economic Development Commission to
continue its efforts and involve/communicate with all landowners in the district to
work with market forces to produce a coordinated"theme" of compatible uses.
(VOTE: Unanimous, 11-0.)
2. Consider adequacy of proposed ordinance modifications in addressing access/driveway cuts onto
Old N.C.ft i.e.,property fronting on Old N.C.86.
Staff Comment: On Page 3.3.10 of the Design Manual, the proposed cross-section for Old N.C. 86 is
shown.The four-lane road will eliminate turning movements by providing a landscape
median instead of a center turn lane.Turn lanes would be available only at designated
mane points as shown on the schematic plan for the district on page 2.1.8 of the
manual
On page 3.3.3,entrances and erits are limited to no more than one per street frontage
unless iustified by site configuration, trip generation, and traffic conditions. In
addition, entrances and erits must be restricted to side streets wherever possible
rather than providing direct access to arterial and collector streets. Finally, common
driveways are identified and encouraged as a means of reducing the number of access
Points-
67
PERMITTED IN COMPARABLE DURHAM
ZONING DISTRICTS
MANUFACTURING USES PERMITTED IN I-40/OLD
N.C. 86 ECONOWC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Business Research
Park Application
Dairy NO NO
Bakery NO NO
Food Bottling plant NO NO
Products
Miscellaneous NO NO
Converted paper & paperboard NO NO
Paper products
Products
Paperboard containers boxes NO NO
Printing& publishing establishments NO NO
Pharmaceutical products YES YES
Industrial Office & computing equipment
machinery YES YES
Electric transmission& distribution YES YES
Electrical industrial apparatus YES YES
Household appliances YES YES
Electric lighting& wiring equipment YES YES
Electronic
Equipment Radio & TV receiving equipment YES YES
Communisations equipment YES YES
Electronic components &accessories YES YES
Motorcycles, bicycles & parts NO NO
Transportation
Equipment Miscellaneous NO NO
Measuring& analyzing instruments YES YES
Instruments Paphic, medical& opt goods YES YES
Watches& clocks YES YES
Jewelry& silverware NO NO
Musical instruments NO NO
Miscellaneous Toys+ sporting& athletic goods NO NO
Pena, pencils, office& artist supplies NO NO
Miscellaneous NO NO
68
The above standards were deliberately worded to be flexible to protect the carrying
capacity of the street and limit the number of access points from each lot. This
flexibility is needed because of existing lots which currently front on Old N.C. 86,
some which have no other means of access because of floodplains and other
environmental constraints; i.e., steep slopes adjacent to the street right-of-way.
Planning Board We join/support the staff'comment.
Comment: (VOTE: Unanimous, 11-0.)
3. Consider phasing of implementation of prezoned areas to coincide with the extension of sewer
service.The character of development without sewer may preempt the type of development that
we desire.
Staff Comment: On pages 2.4.22, 2.4.23, and 2.4.25, a map and teat describe the availability of sewer
to the I.40/Old N.C.86 district. A proposed 12-inch sewer line is to be completed by
the end of 1994 which would terminate (via a stub-out) where Cates Creek crosses I-
85. Service to the I-40/Old N.C. 86 district can be provided by extension of this line.
Phasing of the development of the district to coincide with the availability of this
sewer line would mean that the northeast quadrant of the interchange would occur
first,followed(in order) by the northwest quadrant,the southwest quadrant, and the
southeast quadrant.If property owners have no other means of developing their land
until sewer service is available, this would mean that some areas would not be
developed for 20-30 years.
One alternative is to use pump stations and force mains as an interim solution until
the major gravity line along Cates Creek is extended. In lieu of this approach,
property owners could be allowed to develop with septic tanks. In terms of such
development pre-empting the types of development desired,,the criteria in the Design
Manual insure that all development, whether served by septic tanks or public sewer,
are subject to the same standards. One result,however, will be that businesses using
septic tanks will be required to provide greater land area for nitrification fields.
One consideration might be to require that property owners design septic systems so
that connection to public sewer would be possible once extended. In the case of large
lots to be subdivided,it could mean installing"dry sewer"or sewer lines in the streets
or easements which would not be used until major sewer lines were extended and
connection could be made.For alternative systems,they could either be prohibited or
approved only under the"planned development"process.
Planning Hoard We support prezoning to allow development in all areas regardless of sewer
Comment extension and encourage the laying of"dry"sewer lines for future connection to major
trunk lines,at the time of site development,where septic systems are used.Incentives
from utility providers, such as the waiver of tap-on fees or assessments, should be
used to promote the installation of dry sewer lines.
(VOTE: Unanimous, 11-0.)
4. Residential uses in Secondary Area of I-40 10ld N.C.86.
a. Consider malting residential uses special uses.
Staff Comment See "b" below.
s
69
b. Consider reducing permitted residential density such that it is not more attractive
(profitable) than business development.
Staff Comment: Residential densities are limited to more than four (4) dwelling units per acre
by the Design Manual (page 2.1.2). If density is a concern, the range of
densities could be reduced similar to the approach taken with respect to land
adjoining Stagecoach Run Subdivision. In that location, residential densities
cannot exceed two (2) units per acre (page 2.1.6).
If the type of residential unit permitted is a concern; i.e., single-family,
condominium, apartment or mobile home, specific types of residential units
could be allowed. For example, single-family attached and detached units at
densities of not more than two units per acre might be allowed. If higher
densities (not to exceed four units per acre) were desired, the developer
would have to secure approval through the "planned development" process.
C. Consider not zoning residential areas until a specified amount of the Primary Area has
been developed.
Staff Comment: heaving proposed areas in an R-1 zoning category until a specified amount of
the Primary Area has been developed may result in low-density development
at the fringes of the district instead of a"step-down" from more intensive to
existing residential development.In addition,leaving the residential option in
the Secondary Development Areas open provides more opportunity for
properly planned development where non-residential and residential uses are
considered as part of a single project.
Planning Board We believe any residential development within the I-40/O1d N.C.86 Economic
Comment: Development District will further constrict and complicate the planning of the
district. Thus, we oppose any residential development within the district.
Needed residential development can occur outside but contiguous to the
district if the market supports it. There is land available.
NOTE: 10-1, with Waddell dissenting because he felt that residential
development should be left in as an option even though it may not be used
fiw1ientlyj
a
70
CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
The following comments are taken from A Primer for Policy Analysis, by Edith Stokey and
Richard Zeckhauser,and are intended to provide a basic understanding of what cost-benefit
analysis encompasses.
"Benefit-cost analysis is the principle analytical framework used to evaluate public expenditure decisions.
This approach requires systematic enumeration of all benefits and all costs, tangible and intangible,
whether readily quantifiable or difficult to measure, that will accrue to all members of society if a
particular project is adopted."
"Benefit-cost analysis is ex an it attempts to evaluate a project before it is undertaken to decide in what
form and at what scale it should be undertaken, and indeed whether it should be undertaken at all."
"The rationale for benefit-cost analysis is economic efficiency; it aims to ensure that resources are put to
their most valuable use, including the significant possibility of leaving them in private hands. As a
practical matter, benefit-cost analysis is most helpful in assessing well-defined projects. It would be of
great assistance in choosing among alternative pollution-control systems for a particular river system, or
in deciding whether mad repairs in a community should be made with a new, more weather-resistant
asphalt. For wide-ranging programs, such as the War on Poverty of the 1960s, benefit-cost analysis is
most useful as a paradigm."
"But it would be unfair to praise the merits of preject evaluation techniques without identifying their
liabilities as well...The techniques are potentially dangerous to the extent that they convey an aura of
precision and objectivity.Logically they can be no more precise than the assumptions and valuations that
they employ...."
"In principle, the procedure followed in a benefit-cost analysis consists of five steps.
1. The project or prgfeets to be analyzed are identifiable.
2. All the impacts, both favorable and unfavorable, present and future, on all society are
determined
3. Values, usually in dollars, are assigned to these impacts. Favorable impacts will be
registered as benefits, unfavorable ones as costs.
4. The net benefit(total benefit minus total cost)is calculated.
5. The choice is made."
"All benefit-cost analyses hinge on the Fundamental Rul :In any choice situation, select the alternative
that produces the greatest net benefit."
At the CommiedoneW February 1, 1994 meeting, the following items were suggested for
Inclusion in a cost-benefit analysis:
1. What will be the fiscal impact;i.e.,impact on the County's operating budget and tax base, of non-
residential development in the Economic Development Districts?
2. What additional residential growth will be generated as a result of the Economic Development
Districts?
a. How many of the employees working at businesses in the Economic Development Districts
live in Orange County?
t •
a
71
b. How many of the jobs will be filled by new us. existing residents?
C. What will be the fiscal impact of new residential growth attributable to the Economic
Development Districts?
3. What wages will be paid lane being paid by businesses which locate in the Economic Development
Districts?
Discussions with the Economic Development Director have indicated that most, if not all, of the above
mentioned information could be collected,either by the Planning Department through its building permit
process or by the Economic Development Commission stag'as part of its activities. The only limitation is
determining those situations where,because of confidentially or legal reasons, such information cannot be
obtained. Examples are such situations include the place of residence of employees and their wages.
r ,
Znapel h : _ _ , NZ 6
( 919 ; 942-7906
February 2.1 , 1994
:o : =he Orange County Board of Commissioners
Re : :-40/01d 86 Economic Development District
Lacies and Gentlemen of the Board :
For the past three years we have waited patiently through the long
process of meetings and public hea_ings for the Economic Development
Di-st�-i-ct -tt tnt:-40/.0ld- 86 area, hoping.- to s.ee o-ur property become
an asset to the County - and our families . Throughout the past year ,
we have had our hopes raised, along with other land owners in the
area, that our currently un-marketable lands would _finally be approved
by the Board and that our tax burden of the past few years would be
lifted by the ability to market the property to interested investors ,
or through development .of. our own .
We support the- County ' s desire to see this area properly developed :
We support a list of permitted uses that would prevent un-sightly cr
environmentally damsging use of the area. We cannot , however, take
the risk of .another extended period of months- or years while the
Board "fine tunes" this list of uses .
in recent . conv.ersations with the neighboring land owners , we have
been advised, that many of- those owners now believe that the County
Will continue to stall• on the E.D.D. for 1-40,/Old 86 , and that the
list of uses will become so restrictive that -no lending agency will
=und development within the district .
These owners are preparing to apply to the Town of Hillsboroagh -for
annexation of their lands, if the Board of County Commissioners does-
not pass the E .D .D. in Karch.
.Although w.e .are under considerable financial pressure , due to our
tax burden , to join this growing movement towards annexation, we
still believe that the area would be best served by being under th-e
County ' s jurisdictica .
We urge t-he Board to pass the I-40/01d 86 E .D.D. when they meet in
March . ire bel,iev.e that.. a failure to do so will be detrimental to
the best interests. of the citizens of Orange County, and will
certainly lead to yet another annexation request to Hillsborough .
Thank y u.
� .
Robert J. Ayers
:Harold M. Harris