BC 2006 09 05 RECESSED - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

September 5, 2006 (Recessed Meeting) Page 96 proj ect is three different income producing retail or service type uses. From a planning standpoint, she said a mixed-use development normally includes a residential element. This proposal, she said is a mixed use because, not only does it includes multiple income producers, it also has a residential element that serves as a transitional buffer between the districts. She said the Land Use Plan calls for mixed use in this area and this proj ect would be considered a mixed-use proj ect. She said a plan has been provided that has multiple uses in it; it is a phased project and meets the criteria for the mixed-use designation in the Land Use Plan. Mr. Day reported there is a reference to the current Land Use Plan, which is very inconsistent with the zoning that was instituted last year and more emphasis has been placed on the future Land Use Plan which is in draft from at this point. He said the future Land Use Plan does not necessarily correspond to the existing zoning and the existing zoning is what people deal wi th now. He said it is intended to provide a strategy for achieving the future Land Use Plan and there are a number of factors that lead to that: growth, population, economic development, the provision of infrastructure, etc. When staff reports that the project is consistent with the future Land Use Plan, that is true; it is completely consistent with what is envisioned for that area in the future. He said the question the Chairman raises is, if you look at it right now, the project does not seem to be consistent with what the County is doing or the action the Board took over a year ago in the rezoning. He said that was the intent of describing the intent statement and rationale for each of the zoning districts and explaining how they relate to this location now, rather than in the future. He said it is not an easy question to answer because every time you take an action, it has an immediate impact and a future impact as well on governing how development will occur over time. Ms. Zakraisek reported the OI zoning does not allow a residential component. If you were truly looking for a mixed-use residential product with residential, retail, office and institutional components, she said that is not possible under the current OI zoning classification. It would have to be rezoned to something different that would allow a residential component. If you consider a mixed-use project to be something with different types of uses, maybe retail maybe office, she said it may meet that definition of a mixed use project. Chairman Carruth asked Ms. Zakraisek to address any inconsistencies that may have arisen during the public comment period. She addressed the issue of presenting an incomplete application. She reported the application is considered to be complete and the applicant had the materials needed. With regard to the specificity of the plan, she said a maximum amount of square footage was provided for parcels without a building footprint. Even though a building elevation was not provided, the applicant has placed a condition on himself that limits the parcel to a specific maximum size. When the plan arrives, she said there are established square footage requirements for the parcel, which cannot be exceeded. In this case for the parcels that do not have specific building footprints, she said the applicant will have to return with specific footprints, but will have to go through the architectural review and an additional site plan review as well. She said the applicant would be able to have the plan reviewed administrati vely. She said every parcel of this proj ect will get the final stamp of approval from the Cabarrus Planning and Zoning Board, which is an extra step the applicant will be required to take because they did not have specific plans for some of the parcels. She said the other item that needs clarification is that Cabarrus County does have commercial design guidelines in place. These guidelines have been adopted and no project in Cabarrus County that is commercial or an office type project can go through an administrati ve review any more. After staff has reviewed the site plan and completed an architectural review, she said the plan must be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for final approval. Commissioner Carpenter asked if this project could be annexed by the City of Kannapolis as a satellite annexation. Ms. Zakraisek reported this site limitations for voluntary annexation and approved by the County. is probably outside the 3-mile Kannapolis would honor the plan Commissioner Carpenter directed her question to the County Attorney. Richard M. Koch, County Attorney, reported the property is not subject to annexation by the City of Kannapolis.