AG 2004 07 26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

June 15, 2004 Page 504 lot size itself rather than using gross density seconded by Mr. Moore. The vote was 8 to 1. Mr. Lancaster dissenting. 2. Non-residential development sidewalks - Mr. Moore Motioned to keep current standard, seconded by Mr. Smith. The vote was 8 to 1. Mr. Brown dissenting. 3. Street trees - Mr. Smith Motioned to keep the current standard, seconded by Mr. Starnes. The vote was unanimous. 4 Cul-de-sacs - Mr. Smith Motioned to increase the standard from 35-feet to 37-feet minimum radius, seconded by Mr. Lancaster. The vote was unanimous. 5. Paving standards - Mr. Moore Motioned to accept the recommended new standard, seconded by Mr. Griffin. The vote was unanimous. 6. Right-of-way width and definitions for width of pavement - Mr. Lancaster Motioned to keep the current ordinance and raise the right-of-way to S0 feet to help with the services, seconded by Mr. Starnes. Mr. Griffin amended Mr. Lancaster'8 motion and recommended that the minimum street requirement go up from 18 to 20-feet minimum and 24-feet for collector streets where there ars no homes on the street, seconded by Mr. Moore. The vo~e for the amended motion wa8 8 to 1. Mr. Brown dissenting. The vote for the original motion was unanimous. ~ 7. Street names Mr. Smith Motioned to approve the proposed changes, seconded by Ms. Slivensky. The vote was unanimous. 8. Connectivity ratio - Mr. Slivensky Motioned to send it back. Ms. Slivenaky retracted her motion. Mr. La~caster Motioned to stay with the current standard, seconded by Mr. Smith. The vote was 8 to 1. Mr. Moore dissenting. 9. Numbering system Mr. Moore Motioned to accept this recommendation, seconded by Mr. Smith. The vote was unanimous. There was discussion regarding the proposed development standards, specifically sidewalks on both sides of the street in developments where the lot size is less than one-half acre in size, street tree requirements and connectivity issues. Vice Chairman Suggs said there had been a misunderstanding regarding the proposed revisions and asked that the matter be tabled until clarifications are given to the Board. It was noted that the public hearing had been advertised and would need to be held at this time. At 8:20 p.m., Chairman Freeman opened the public hearing on the Revised Subdivzsion Ordinance and amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. The Public Hearing Notice was published in THE INDEPENDENT TRIBUNE on June 4 and June 14, 2004. Mr. Toby Prewitt spoke in favor of the proposed standards as presented by staff. Me stated in his opinion minimum certain standards would attract investment and it was a good objective for the County to have common building standards throughout the county. Finally, Mr. Prewitt suggested the possibility of granting variances for affordable housing in certain areas Mr. Steve ~ochrane stated he had met the strict standards imposed by the City of Kannapolis and said the purpose of connectivity is safety He did not conclude his comments at the end of the allotted time and was escorted from the meeting room. There was no one else to address the Board, and Chairman Freeman closed the public hearing at 8:24 p.m. Ms. Porter stated the mediation with the City of Concord had been extended to June 30. She said the proposed development standards are a component of that issue and the City has requested an answer by June 30.