Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEDD Task Force agenda 081694 John Link , Jr . County Manager I - 40 / OLD N . C . 86 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WORK GROUP DATE . TUESDAY , AUGUST 16 , 1994 TIME : 7 : 30 P . M . LOCATION : GOVERNMENT SERVICES CENTER AGENDA I . Introductions - II . Approval of Minutes III . Interests Identified at : Organization Meeting of Work Group ( Attachment # I ) Board of Commissioners Retreat ( Attachment # II ) Public Hearings ( Attachment # III ) IV . Presentation on Proposed Service District Boundaries and the Ridge Lines V . Hillsborough ' s Service Plan VI . Report on Cary ' s Planned Development VII . List of permitted uses for Hillsborough ' s new commercial district and its entrance overlay district . MINUTES I - 40 / OLD N . C . 86 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WORK GROUP JULY 12 , 1994 The I - 40 / Old N . C . 86 Economic Development District Work Group met for its organizational meeting on Tuesday , July 12 , 1994 at 6 : 00 p . m . in the new Government Services Center , meeting room , 200 S . Cameron Street , Hillsborough , North Carolina . MEMBERS PRESENT : Orange County Planning Board Members Larry Reid and Bill Waddell , Orange County Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis and Verla Insko , Economic Development Commission members Steve Yuhasz and Stick Williams , and Hillsborough Planning Board Member Stuart Munson . STAFF PRESENT : County Manager John Link , Economic Development : Director Ted Abernathy and Development Specialist Oli DeVaud , ' Planning Director Marvin Collins , Planner Mary Willis and Intern- Jean Robbins and Hillsborough Planning Director Margaret Hauth . The meeting was convened by Commissioner Halkiotis and introductions were made . Commissioner Halkiotis requested that Ted Abernathy make a brief presentation on the history leading up to the formation of this work group . Ted Abernathy indicated that in 1975 a conference entitled Growth Options For Orange County was held . A recommendation that resulted from that conference was to allow for economic development on the fringes of urban areas . The Department of Regional Planning at UNC identified several issues and recommended the establishment of a development policy for commercial and industrial districts . The Economic Development Plan was developed and adopted in 1989 . At that time a citizens group began to work on identifying appropriate areas in the county . Those areas were identified and a proposal was presented to the Board of County Commissioners . That proposal included the suggestion that Economic Development Districts be established in Orange County . Marvin Collins mentioned that the Planning Board and Economic Development Commission formed a work group to research possible uses within Economic Development Districts . One outcome of that research was the land use intensity ratios . Each district within the county was thoroughly analyzed for possible inclusion in the Economic Development District plan . The original plan was refined to include two possible subdistricts within the Economic Development District plan . One of the subdistricts allows a full range of economic development while the other allows only office and residential . During the course of the Work Group meetings and public hearings it became apparent that there were land owners within Hillsborough ' s jurisdiction who wanted to be included in the Economic Development District plan . Hillsborough currently has a series of proposals to revamp the general business district . It needs to be determined how that revamping coincides with the Economic Development District concept . It also needs to be determined how far south the district would extend . Possible encroachment on the rural buffer also needs to be addressed . At the present time the potential uses below I - 40 are identical to those above I - 40 . The Permitted Use Table has been revised several times . He indicated that he could provide the latest draft . Many possible uses were disallowed in these revisions . Ted Abernathy read the following charge : " To develop a specific proposal for the I - 40 / Old N . C . 86 Economic Development District and the area east and west of Old N . C . 86 between I - 40 and I - 85 that will be responsive to the majority of interests listed in the Charge ; and to present the proposal to the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Town of Hillsborough no later than October 1 , 1994 . " The Charge in its entirety is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk ' s office . Commissioner Halkiotis indicated that this interchange needs ' to be protected from unsightly development . The property owners - living across from the new CITGO have voiced much dissatisfaction with that type of development . They need to be included in the planning . This intersection is different from the other Economic Development Districts in that it is not already surrounded by existing development . This is an opportunity for a positive experiment to occur . There are ample models to use . This is an opportunity to create an area of development which would offer opportunities for people to work in the community in which they live . Commissioner Insko mentioned that the issue of the exact location of the node and whether it should run all the way to I - 85 , in cooperation with Hillsborough , is important . She asked these questions . ( 1 ) is water and sewer going to be permitted to run under I - 40 , ( 2 ) could the south side of the node be more restrictive than the north and ( 3 ) how will the kind of development that is desired be encouraged ? The ground rules were discussed and clarification was given on several points . John Link mentioned the Regency Park development in Cary . This Park was obviously a planned development . He suggested contacting Cary and discussing the process they used to build this Park . Steve Yuhasz mentioned that it was important to remain focused . These Economic Development Districts were originally suggested so that business people with money to invest could do so in a way that would work for them while also maintaining a neighborhood that would be attractive to those who live nearby . Stick Williams stated that his interest is in attracting quality companies to our community . He mentioned that Cary had an intact vision of the type of community they wanted to build . Orange County need to strengthen its vision so that the highest quality development possible can be attracted . Commissioner Halkiotis feels that the issue of incentives needs to be discussed . Commissioner Insko indicated that the issue of annexation also needs to be put on the table for discussion . Ted Abernathy mentioned that annexation is not currently being planned by Hillsborough . Several of the property owners have become frustrated over the last several years . They are anxious to do something with their land and the only way that Hillsborough could help them was to annex . John Link suggested that a hybrid of the original proposal for this node might be considered . Commissioner Insko questioned if a desired result could be obtained using the current proposal orb would the probability be increased by using a different model . - Bill Waddell mentioned that having different uses in the southern and northern parts of the interchange could have a negative effect on prospective businesses . They need to know that they would be able to expand if their business grows . Commissioner Insko requested a presentation on proposed service district boundaries and the ridge lines . It was agreed by consensus that the following items will be on the agenda for discussion at the next meeting : 1 ) presentation on proposed service district boundaries and the ridge lines 2 ) Hillsborough ' s service plan 3 ) Report on Cary ' s Planned Development 4 ) List of Permitted Uses for Hillsborough ' s new commercial district and its entrance overlay district . It also needs to be discussed at sometime in the future whether an Economic Development District can exist on the south side of the interchange without sewer . There being no further business to discuss , the meeting was adjourned . The next meeting of the Work Group will be held on Tuesday , August 16 , 1994 at 7 : 30 p . m . in the Government Services Center , Cameron Street , Hillsborough , North Carolina . Respectfully submitted , Kathleen Baker , Deputy Clerk ATTACHMENT # 1 I - 40 / OLD N . C . 86 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WORK GROUP INTERESTS IDENTIFIED AT ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1 . This interchange needs to be protected from unsightly development . 2 . Creating an area of development which offers opportunities for people to work in the community in which they live . 3 . Determine the exact location of the node and decide whether - it should run all the way to I - 85 , in cooperation with Hillsborough . " Is water and sewer going to be permitted to run under I - 40 " Could south side of node be more restrictive than the north " how to encourage desirable development " Incentives need to be discussed 4 . Business people with money to invest are able to do so in a way that would work for them while maintaining a neighborhood that would be attractive to those who live nearby . Attracting quality companies to our community . ATTACHMENT # 2 GENERAL INTERESTS ( As identified at County Commissioner ' s Retreat ) 1 . Avoid urban sprawl ; 2 . preserving protected watersheds and groundwater supplies , 3 . Encouraging bicycle and mass transit transportation in and between urbanized areas , 4 . Protecting and preserving farmland and open space , 5 . Developing an appropriate mix of residential and non - residential development , including commercial ; 6 . Encouraging fiscally responsible development , 7 . Involving neighborhood residents in planning process , and 8 . Enhancing the revenue base of the Town and the County ATTACHMENT # 3 SPECIFIC INTERESTS ( As identified at Public Hearings / County Commissioners Meetings ) , 1 . Range of permitted uses , e . g . , appropriate mix of non - residential uses ; 2 . Character of development , e . g . , business parks vs . RTP atmosphere , 3 . Development standards , e . g . , minimum lot size and building coverage ; 4 . Annexation potential ; 5 . Relationship of Cooperative Planning Zone Agreement to the Economic Development District , 6 . Avoiding " strip " development ; e . g . convenience stores and - fast food restaurants ; 7 . What types of utility extensions will be incorporated into the EDD and how to address policies , plans , costs , usage , and capacities ; 8 . Entranceway character , e . g . , setbacks , ROW dedication , widening , and access points ; 9 . District boundaries , e . g . , how would the EDD boundaries be expanded from the current proposal , and what is the relationship between the area along the east and west sides of Old N . C . 86 and the EDD ; 10 . Hillsborough development standards / proposed amendments , 11 . Approval process , and 12 . Review of Land Use Plan locational criteria in the context of rural vs . urban EDD ' s . Perndtted Uses in MC Agricultural Sales &, Service Sehools-ali varieties Animal Hospital StoragdWwhousing Appliance/tmde Sales & Service Veterinarians Assembly Facility W/S pump stations Assembly/packaging/distribution facility Wholesale, sales Banks & Financial Institution Vewle Restoration Barkr/B► eauty shop Botanical Garden Bus Shelter With CUP ; Bus Tenninal/Garagc Adult Us0s , Cemetery for profit, Drive-ins , Chunuh Crt�ain/FeePd Mill, Nightclub/bar, Major public Clubhouse/I l,ge works (trr ismission lines, towers, etc, ) Community CCnter Conveme.nce Store w/fuel Convenience Storc w/o fuel Day Care Farm Equipment Sales & Service Funaral Homes Claliary/m►useum - Goveramacnt facilities & Building$ Government Protective Services Ownhouses Health Cam Hcalth/f"itneas tenter/club Hospital HotcUmotcl Laundry/Dry Clean Library Manufacturing/Processing (no neg itap beyond lot line) Motor Vehicle Repair/Service Motor Vehicle sales Offiersonal Services A,B Parks Parking printing/Lithogmphy Recreation facilities Research Residential (SF) Restaurant A , B ,C Retail sales AX Permitted Uses in GC Appliance/trade Sales & Services Banks & Financial Institutions B w ber/Baauty shop Botanical Gar&n Bus Shelter Church ClubhouseA,odge Community Center Convenience store w/o fuel Day Cain Funeral Domes Gallery/museum Government Facilities & Buildings Government Protective Services Health care Ilealth/fitness ntcr/club Laundry/Dry Clean Library Offices/Personal Services A( 10, sf) Parks Printing/Lithography - Rec facilities Residential ( SF) Restaurant A (no drivcAhru, 100 seats) Retail sales A ( 10,000 sf) schoolswall varieties Veterinarians WIS pump stations Assembly/packagin&istribution conter Convenience Store w/fuel 2 . 13 Entranceway Overlay Dutrict a) Intent The purpose of this overlay district is to protect the visual attractiveness of the roadways leading into I� hborough , The standards for this district wi(1 improve and unify design , reduce impacts on neighborhoods and streets , and restrict high traffic apses. b) Application Criteria This district will usually be applied where both of the following conditions exist : 1 ) T'hree hundred feet from either edge of the existing nght" of- way of a street classified as collector or greater ontoring the . Hillsborough . Planning Area. 2) The propoity is or has the potential of being zoned for non -residential uses , 5 . 23 Additional Requirements in Entranceway Ova lay Distdeb m&w 'Ile requirements of this section apply to all non- residential development in the overlay district, 519/a in addition to the other standards of this ordinance . If a conflict krises among standards, the more strict shall apply . 'obese standards do not apply to residentially zoned property or property M residential use . 5 . 23 . 1 Permitted Uses The uses permitted In the underlying �,oning district shall be permitted as shown in Section 3 .4 (permitted Use Table) . The following uses are expressly prohibited , regardless of the underlying . zoning due to high "ffic volumes and/,or large parking requirements , a) Convenience Store with or without fucl servio b) Motor vehicle. sales *ntal or maintenance , re0air, service station c) Restaurants B and C d ) Elementa y, Middle , Secondary, and Vocational Schools e) Day cam , unless as an attached accessory ccessory use w an employment center 5 . 23 . 2 Streets and Driveways a) Direct access to the primary road, shall be prohibited to individual lots , unless such aces Is eai ting on the adoption of this section , b) Access , frontage , or service roads shall be csoostructed for individual lot cess, o) Access frmm service roads to the primary roa4 shall not be less than loop' , d) In the median between the primary road and the service road , landscaping equivalent to one small tree or large shrub is required for every 30 Variations am permitted if the median is too rocky, wet, steep , eta: . to ac comodate trees and to allow grouping of trees if preferred by the developer. 5 . 23 . 3 Dimwnsional Requirements F font setback for structures shall be measured from tote right- of--way edge for the service road. That setback shall be one half the requirement of the underlying zoning district. All other setbacks shall be governed by the underlying zoning district. Building height shall be limited to 2 1/2 above ground stories or 30' , whichever is le$S. 5 . 23 .4 Freestanding Signs Freestanding signs shall be gcvund mounted only with a maximum height of 10 . Minimum setback is 10' from the edge of the service road right- of4ay . Section S shall govern all other requirements.