AG19870216 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

m used successfully in Cabarrus County and the planning staff is currently working on regulations to achieve these purposes, in the interim ! would propose that many of these provisions be employed in this PDO to '-- ensure that it is compatible with the area and future development. (2} Relation to Major Road, Utilities and other Services - the applicant's property has 400 feet of frontage on a roadway (N.C. 24/27) designated as a major thoroughfare in the County Thoroughfare Plan. County water has also recently been extended to the front of the property. The Midland Volunteer Fire Department is within a mile and a half of the applicants property. (3) Evidence of Unified Control - applicant proposes to sell subject property to Pepsi Cola, Inc. Pepsi will own the entire tract and will therefore have control over the tracts development. No roadways, parks, utilities or other improvements are required for the development so no special agreements, contracts etc. are needed. Cabarrus County has the authority to enforce zoning provisions made as part of this PDO. Therefore adequate control to enforce PDO provisions exists. (4) Suitability of Plans - the applicant's and prospective buyer's representative and 1 have reviewed the plans for the property and have mouified them to include additional safeguard performance standards. I feel that the majority of these standards would be applicable to other similar industrial situations desiring to locate along major thoroughfares in the county. As such I see this PDD and the suggested performance standards as a test situation for the possible development of a thoroughfare overlay zone to protect and better utilize the county's thoroughfares. The proposed PDO and concomitant standards also achieve the intent of the PDD District as stated in Section 3.9-15. (5) Adherence to or ~lodification of PDD Requirements - the applicant's representative has agreed to the PDD performance standards. I recon~end imposing the site design standards contained in the follo~vinq reoort recommendation rather than'outlined in Section 3.9-13(8). The p)'oposed design standards are more restrictive. I do not see any additional requirements that may need to be imposed. Ho~veve~-, the Planning Board and County Commissioners are f~'ee to suggest any modifications they feel appropriate. Recon~endation After careful review of the proposed use I recommend approval of the ~elch I-1 (PDD-I) subject to the following conditions and performance standards: (1) Permitted Uses: All uses permitted in the underlying I-1 District which also meet the following requirement: Industrial uses of land and building for administration, research, manufacturing, processing, fabrication, assembly, freight handling, storage, distribution, and similar operations. (2) Required Lot Area: A six acre minimum lot size is required. Only one principal use shall be allowed per lot or tract. Average lot width shall not be less than 4OD feet.