Laserfiche WebLink
306 <br /> <br /> Chairman Barnhart pointed out the two different opinions of fact as stated <br />by himself and Commissioner Fennel. He asked if it would be appropriate for Mr. <br />Newton to address these comments and the correctness of the information that was <br />presented. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Olio-Mills questioned the presentation of new evidence by Mr. <br />Newton. Mr. Hartsell advised that the Board could invite Mr. Newton to make <br />comments if it chooses to do so. He asked if there were three members who wished <br />to hear from Mr. Newton. There was no majority, and Mr. Newton did not address <br />the Board. <br /> <br /> The Board then voted on the motion by Chairman Barnhart. The vote was as <br />follows: <br /> <br />Voting for - Chairman Barnhart and Commissioner Niblock <br />Voting against Commissioners Casper, Fennel and Olio-Mills <br /> <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Casper and seconded by Commissioner Olio- <br />Mills to approve Petition 94-07. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Olio-Mills stated as a finding of fact that the Midland Area <br />Plan is incomplete. Commissioner Casper added as a finding of fact that it was <br />an oversight that the Planning and Zoning Commission had not addressed businesses <br />in that area since the last occupant of the premises was a business. Also, she <br />stated a business is located immediately adjacent to the property. <br /> <br /> Chairman Barnhart asked if the motion to approve included the placement of <br />any conditions on the rezoning. <br /> <br /> Commissioners Olio-Mills and Fennel stated that the motion did not include <br />any conditions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Newton stated that he would like to caution the Board in terms of <br />conditions. A majority of the Board agreed by consensus for Mr. Newton to <br />address the Board. <br /> <br /> Mr. Newton advised the Board that the failure to place conditions on the <br />special use rezoning would result in a straight rezoning where all the uses are <br />permitted. According to Mr. Newton, this had never been the intent of the <br />applicant. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Fennel offered an amendment to Commissioner Casper's motion <br />to include the development plan as submitted as a condition for approval of <br />Petition 94-07. Commissioner Casper accepted this amendment as did Commissioner <br />Olio-Mills who had seconded the original motion. <br /> <br />Commissioner Fennel read the following proposed Conditions for Approval: <br /> <br />1. ~e use of the site will be limited to a dispatch office and <br /> parking facility for grounded trucks as presented in the request <br /> as amended with the following conditions; <br />2. Adherence to the submitted developmentplan as modified with the <br /> following conditions; <br />3. Where traffic safety is a major concern, steps can be taken to <br /> reduce the impact on residential traffic along Cabarrus Station <br /> Road. This is achieved by: <br /> a. limiting access to one entrance on Bethel Avenue <br /> Extension; and <br /> b. restricting travel to and from the site to Bethel Avenue <br /> Extension and Wallace Road <br />4. W~ere negative visual impacts have been expressed as a concern <br /> by residents, visual aesthetics can be improved through <br /> landscaping and buffering. This is achieved by: <br /> a. meeting all landscaping/buffering requirements as set <br /> forth in the Cabarrus County Zoning Ordinance; and <br /> b. constructing a landscaped berm (4-foot minimum) along <br /> Gabarrus Station Road; <br />5. Signage on the site will also serve to reduce the negative <br /> impact and still maintain a rural appeal by: <br /> <br /> <br />