My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
AG 2002 08 19 (Regular)
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Agendas
>
BOC
>
2002
>
AG 2002 08 19 (Regular)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/2/2006 5:01:40 PM
Creation date
11/27/2017 11:43:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Agenda
Meeting Minutes - Date
8/19/2002
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.
/
352
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
483 <br /> <br />other projects have brought to the area and the need to update the Western Area <br />Plan. He advised that additional buffering was considered; however, the <br />petitioners declined such. <br /> <br /> Chai~nan Casper asked that those persons addressfng the Board limit their <br />comments to two minutes. <br /> <br /> Hr. Maurice Ewing, President of the Economic Development Corporation, <br /> introduced the presentation in support of the rezoning. He discussed the need for <br /> additional industrial land in Cabarrus County, specifically along the 1-85 <br /> corridor. Mr. Ewing cited the loss of 1,400 industrial acres in King's Grant and <br /> pointed out tha% only 250 industrial acres remain available in the ~nternational <br /> Business Park. Further, he stated that many of the industrial acres across the <br /> county are not marketable as industrial property. Mr. Ewing .advised that the <br /> proposed industrial development Schedule would spread the infrastructure over a <br /> ten-year period while residential deveiopment would occur much faster. In <br /> conclusion, he stated the real issue is revenue or expense. <br /> <br /> Mr. Alex Rankin of Concord Engineerin'g and Surveying presented the new <br />concept plan for the development of approximately 500 acres with eight property <br />owners. Stating the site is a desirable project for a high quality development <br />comparable to the International Business Park, he listed the following factors <br />in support of the rezoning: 'proximity to 1-85 and the Concord Regional Airport; <br />accessibility to ~-77 by Highway 73; direct accessibility, to 1-485 when it is <br />constructed; available water service from Derita Road; and current construction <br />of sewer along Rocky River. Mr. Rankin reviewed the proposed buffers, including <br />the use of Rocky River as a buffer and the lO0-foot land buffer that would <br />protect the adjacent property owners to the north. In response to concerns <br />raised at the Planning and Zoning Co~ission meet'lng, he advised that the <br />petitioners had made several modifications to the concept plan. Although the <br />proposed development will not be the sole cause of increased traffic in' the area, <br />the petitioners have agreed to-reserve 50 feet from the center line of Derita <br />Road and Poplar Tent Road for future road improvements. Further, the potiti6ners. <br />will limit future driveway connections to one connection for parcels of 50 acres <br />or less, two for parcels of 100. to 150 acres and three for parcels over 150 <br />acres. Also, Mr. Rankin stated the con6ept plan had been changed to an open plan <br />to accommodate quality large scale industrial users. If the propert~ remains <br />residential, Hr. Rankin pointed out that 1,024 lots could be developed under <br />current density regulations. In conclusion, he Stated the property owners had <br />agreed, to exclude the following uses: Asphalt and concrete plants; <br />foundries/iron, steel mills; railroad station and storage yard; sawmill; <br />slaughterhouse/meat packaging; truck stop/truck terminal; communications tower - <br />stand alone cellular tower; salvage yard; airport, commercial; airstrip; coliseum <br />and stadium} extraction of earth products; landfill, demolition - more .than one <br />acre; landfill/sanitary; race tracks/animal and mechanical; .and tir~ recapping. <br /> <br /> Chairman Casper asked the petitioners if they were in agreement to the <br />excluded uses as listed by Mr. Rankin. They answered in the affiz~native. <br /> <br /> Mr. David Holland supported the rezoning, stating the flight pattern for the <br />Concord Regional Airport is over the property. He presented photographs of <br />residential areas near the airport in Charlotte and expressed concern about the <br />negative impact of airport expansions and traffic increases on residential <br />developments. <br /> <br /> Mr. Jerry Ne~on, spokesman for several adjoining property owners, spoke in <br />opposition to the rezoning. He referenced material that was included in the <br />agenda packet, including information presenhed at the Planning and Zoning <br />Commission and the petition from residents of Beech Bluff in oppositio~ to the <br />rezoning. Mr.. NeaP:on outlined the following objections to the re=oning: (1) <br />Availability of other industrial sites in the county, including property at <br />King's Grant and a site less than one-eighth of a mile from the proposed project; <br />(2) Rezoning violates the spirit and intent of the Western Area Plan; (3) Present <br />zoning does not deny the property owners a reasonable use of their land; (4) <br />Traffic will overload Derita Road having a carrying capacity of 7,000 to i0,000 <br />trips per day with projections for the development at 50,000 trips per day; (5) <br />Proposed development is too large, too intrusive and too intensive for the area; <br />(6) Petitioners seek approval of uses that should not be included, i.e. volatile <br />materials w~rehouse; (7) Proposed rezoning does not meet the intent of' the Zoning <br />Ordinance nor the General Industrial zoning district; (B) Applicants have <br />withdrawn previously submitted concept plan with the residents havi~g no <br />opportunity to review the new plan presented at this meeting; (9) Petitioners are <br />not willing to dedicate land for road improvements; (10) All public facilities, <br />specifically road service, are not in place; and (11) the Plan provides only_ <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.