My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
AG 2006 02 20
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Agendas
>
BOC
>
2006
>
AG 2006 02 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/16/2006 9:20:15 AM
Creation date
11/27/2017 11:32:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Agenda
Meeting Minutes - Date
2/20/2006
Board
Board of Commissioners
Meeting Type
Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
304
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes <br />November 17, 2005 <br /> <br />33 <br /> <br />The Chair said some of the area south of73 that whole area is totally different. <br /> <br />Mr. Lentz said there are some decisions being made with annexations and stuff that are <br />driving that <br /> <br />The chair said there is already lot of higher density things approved out there. <br /> <br />Mr. Lentz said for example in this area at one point of the intersection we already have <br />Cabarrus Crossing. He said it does not fit with the plan because of its design but it has a <br />little bit more density thl\I1 obviously is going to be allowed. He just wanted bring this <br />out to illustrate that you have this natural wide flood plain area and buffer that will <br />essentially separate the activities that would happen in this area from the more rural areas <br />that we set aside as being the CR zoning. He thinks you have a good natural break that if <br />we continue to protect that area from the activities that we have here so they do not spill <br />over. <br /> <br />Ms. Daugherty said you mentioned in terms of Cabarrus Crossing not meeting the plans <br />requirements, do you think there is an issue of proximity there in terms of making this a <br />viable options? <br /> <br />Mr. Lentz said the market is already putting stuff out that he thinks is in conformance <br />with the plan, like the Northeast Medical building. He said the market is responding in a <br />positive way. <br /> <br />Ms. Daugherty asked if they are looking at doing architectural design and review in terms <br />of this type plan. <br /> <br />The Chair said he thinks by putting this into the process at some point in the future you <br />are going to be forced to,deal.with those realities and will have to make what ever <br />adjustments that is necessary. <br /> <br />Mr. Shoemaker said he ~nks this is the right thing and the right time to do this before it <br />gets too over developed ,out there, where lots of low density homes out there and you did <br />not factor in, then 73 beoomes more of a quagmire than it already is and we do not create <br />some alternate routes around it. He said that is one thing conceptually and <br />philosophically he agrees with is that the plan was to create alternate routes off of 73 that <br />allowed people access tq the hinter lands off that area and keep you away from the main <br />traffic area. He said we ido not know when the state is going to come and help us with <br />funding that widening ofthat highway. <br /> <br />The Chair asked what did Senator Bassknight say; that our 12 year road plan has turned <br />into 37 year road plan and 73 is not in it. <br /> <br />Mr. Shoemaker said he rest his case, we have to control our own destiny and some of the <br />ways that we do it. He $aid ",hen you look at the history of greenbelt design and things <br />like that many cities ha\1e done this and done it well. He said it is a little different then <br /> <br />E-:).J <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.