AG 2001 05 21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4. The professional staffs of Cabarrus County, the City of Concord, the City .of Kannapolis, the ToWn of Harrisburg and the Town of Mount Pleasant will monitor and evaluate the implementation of the Unified Development ordinance for the purpose of preparing the reports, including co~unications with the local building and development industry; and 5. The elected officials of Cabarr~s County, the City of Concord, the City of ~annapolis, the Town of Harrisburg and the Town of Mount Pleasant further agree that future amendment of the Unified Development Ordinance will be conducted as follows: a. At such time that an amendment is prepared for consideration by one of the local jurisdictions, the manager and planning director of each of the other jurisdictions will be provided a copy of the proposed amendment, not less than 30 days prior to any public hearing on the proposed amen~ent, for review and comment; b. Co~u~ents received from any of the other four jurisdictions, as well as failnre to comment on the part of any Jurisdictions, shall be reported to the plar~ning hoard and elected officials of the Jurisdiction proposing the amendment and incorporated into the record of any public hearing or other public meeting at which such amendment- is to be considered; c. ~ae proposing jurisdiction shall accept cor~nents from the other jurisdictions as information, but shall not be bound by the comments to either approve or deny approval for the proposed amendment; and d. Upon adopting an ordinance to amend the Unified Development Ordinance, each Jurisdiction adopting the amendment shall provide the manager and planning director of each of the other four jurisdictions a signed copy of the amendment within 30 days of adoption. ~ON MOTION of Chairman Fennel, seconded by Commissioner Privette and unanimously carried, the Board directed staff to come back to the Board on a quarterly basis for approval Of any recommended changes pr-lot to incorporating any additional items into the draft Unified Development ordinance. Rezonin~ Petition C01-SI(R) by Ronnie Hinson to Rezone property on Flowes Store Road from Medium Density Residential to Office/Limited C~ercial, Zoning Atlas Amendment Petition C01-01(R). Applicant Ronnie L. ginson. PIN Number 5538- 99-77624 Property is approximately 1.47 acres located on the west side of F/owes Store Road near Highway 601 intersection. Request is to rezone property from MDR (Medium Density Residential) to O/LC (SU} (Office/Limited Commercial, Special Use). Mr. Rodger Lents, Senior Planner, introduced Petition C01-01(R) by Ronnie a super majority of the Planning Board membership, the petition was forwarded to the County Commission. Mr. Lents pointed out the petition was a Special Use rezoning and would require sworn testimony. The Clerk affirmed the following persons who indicated they wished to address the Board regarding ~etition C01-01(R): Rodger Lentz, Ronnie Hinson, Brian Joyner and Cecil Marlin. Prior to addressing the Board, each speaker confirmed that he had been affirmed/sworn. Mr. Lents presented the Petition and staff report, stating the Petitioner had requested the rezoning for the purpose of locating his heating and air conditioning contracting company on the property. In addition, the petitioner s~mitted a list of other uses he would like permitted on the area around the property is zoned F~R; however, there are some co~mercial uses and home occupations in the area. The property is near the Flowes Store Road and Highway 601 intersection where a vacant gas station, Allen Fire Station and secondhand/grocery store are located. The A. T. Allen Elementary School is located on Hiphway 601 near the intersection. Mr. Lentz ex~lained the intent of the Office/Limited Com~eroial zone is to provide a transition between cormmercial type business and ~esidential areas. Be stated it was staff's recommendation that the rezonin~ be approved; however, he stated the Planning and Zoning Com/~ission had discussed concerns about the traffic and the impact on residential property values in the area. Finally, Mr. Lentz reviewed the following proposed ~findings of fact" both for and against the rezoning. For Petition C01-01(R}: 1. The proposed limited commercial uses are consistent with the existing land uses to the north and east of this property, which include home based construction operations, the Allen Fire Station and a secondhand/grocery store. 2. The prohibition of outdoor storage will protect adjacent residential property values. 3. With proper landscape screening, the proposed uses will not have an adverse i~act on adjacent residential properties.