Laserfiche WebLink
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes <br />April 16, 1992 <br /> <br />Paqe 7 <br /> <br />had, all concurred, they are not opposed to commercial <br />or industrial growth in Midland, they favor <br />industrial/commercial growth in Midland and when asked <br />where that should be, they'said it should be along the <br />24/27 corridor. She said she understands Mr. Shultz' <br />point, but in this sense she thinks this is a reasonable <br />rezoning. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartgen said it needs to be said very clearly that <br />the board is not going to let this happen for every other <br />parcel just because the board has taken action on this <br />particular one that seems reasonable. <br /> <br />Chairperson Randall closed the public hearing on Petition 92-05. <br /> <br />There being no further comments, Mr. Olio-Mills MOTIONED, <br />seconded by Mr. Allison to approve Petition 92-05 zoning <br />atlas amendment. The vote was unanimous. <br /> <br />Chairperson Randall introduced the seventh item on the Agenda, <br />Zoning Atlas Amendment, Petition 92-06. <br /> <br />Applicant: Foil B. Carriker <br />Request: Rezoninq of Property from C-4 to C-2 <br /> <br />This was a request to the Cabarrus County Planning and <br />Zoning Commission from Mr. Foil B. Carriker to have his <br />property off N.C. 24/27 rezoned from C-4 to C-2, to <br />subdivide attached commercial establishments. <br /> <br />Mr. Marshall, Staff Member, presented Petition 92-06 and <br />Staff Analysis to the board stating it was the staff's <br />opinion that this rezoning was rather unique and that it <br />was essentially a request from one commercial to another <br />for the purpose of dividing those businesses. The <br />analysis therefore looked at which was more appropriate <br />in this area, neighborhood commercial, or the highway <br />business district. The Staff did not feel it meets the <br />intent of the highway business district. It was felt <br />that these commercial establishments were currently <br />attached as the C-2 obviously promotes with the lack of <br />a side yard. And also that they were neighborhood type <br />establishments serving the immediate community. The staff <br />recommends approval with the provision that it be shown <br />that the home that is also located on this property could <br />be divided onto a separate one acre parcel which is a <br />requirement of the C-2 zoning based on the surrounding <br />ARR zoning. <br /> <br /> <br />