AG19870817 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REZO~ING REPORT 0-! (PDO/O~I) Petition 87-22 Background On May 18, 1987, Mr. Jack Orimhall filed a petition to rezone a five (5) acre tract of land west of U.S. Highway 601 on N.C. 24/27 from ARR to O-I. At the June 17, lg87 Planning 8oard meeting, property owners adjacent to Mr. §rimhall's property expressed concerns of the need for a buffer strip. Action on Mr. Brimhall's proposal was tabled until Mr. Brimhall and staff talked about the possibility of rezoning the property to O-! (PDO/O-I). Mr. Brimhall agreed to the PDO proposed, therefore, he wishes to proceed with this rezoning. Review Section 3.9-6(4) of the Cabarrus County Zoning Ordinance requires that the Planning Director review the proposed PDO in five (5) areas and then make a recon~endation for approval or denia!. The following review addresses these five areas. (1) Suitability of Proposal - The PDO planned is appropriate for the type of use (office) contemplated. The physical characteristics of the land are also condusive to the type of facility planned. The area around the subject property can best be termed rural agriculture with mixed low density development along N.C. 24/27. Future development for the area will probably remain rural in nature except for N.C. 24/27 which is scheduled to be four-lanes within the next ten (10) years. In addition, County water has recently been extended along major sections of N.C. 24/27 including the applicant's property. These improvements will create pressure to strip develop this highway. {2) Relation to Major Road, Utilities and other Services - The applicant's property has three hundred and twenty (320) feet of road frontage on ~.C. Z4/~7 designated as a major thoroughfare in the County Thoroughfare Plan. The applicant is aware of the recently adopted Thoroughfare Overlay Zone {TOZ).. County water has also recently been extended to the front of the prbperty and the Midland Volunteer Fire Department is approximately two (~) miles from the subject property. (3) Evidence of Unified Control - The applicant owns the entire tract and will have control over the development. No roadways, parks, utilities or other improvements are required for the development so no special agreements, contracts, etc. are needed. (4) Suitability of Plans - The applicant, his agent and I have reviewed the plans for the property, to assure safeguards of the surrounding property owners. The proposed PDD and concon~nitment Standards also achieve the intent of the PDO Oistrict as stated in Section 3.9-14.