Laserfiche WebLink
27. 3.7.6.2 - References to preliminary site plans as required for all types of applications but the <br /> requirements for a preliminary site plan do not show up anywhere that I can find or at the places that <br /> are referenced. <br /> <br />Probably should read" preliminary major site plan" for clarification. This description of the <br />process may be too detailed. This is the process we use now. An applicant submits a site <br />plan and it goes to the board, the board may approve the application with changes. Before <br />final approval, the applicant must submit a site plan with the requested changes to the <br />administrator. <br /> <br />28. 3.7.6.3.2 - Citations are incorrect and 3.7.5.2.1 does not exist. <br /> <br />· Needs to be corrected. <br /> <br />29. Figure 3.7-2 - reference to preliminary site plan application. See note 28 above. <br /> <br />(I think he means see 27 above). Probably should read" preliminary major site plan" for <br />clarification. This description of the process may be too detailed. This is the process we use <br />now. An applicant submits a site plan and it goes to the board, the board may approve the <br />application with changes. Before final approval, the applicant must submit a site plan with <br />the requested changes to the administrator. <br /> <br />30. 3.11 - Will the planning board be serving in a dual capacity as referenced in all jurisdictions? As with <br /> all sections in the county document as provided on the county web page, it refers directly to the city <br /> web page, which has all references to city General Statutes. <br /> <br />Each jurisdiction has not made that decision. The County, Mount Pleasant and Harrisburg <br />each have a combined board. The model draft was done using the City of Concord as a <br />model. The draft handed out this evening, uses county General Statue citations. <br /> <br />ARTICLE 4 <br /> <br />I. Table4.7-1 FARforRV, RC, B-1, O-I,C-l,C-2seemverylow. <br /> <br />· Staff agrees that these maybe too low and are reviewing them for possible update. <br /> <br />Table 4.7-1 AG maximum densities seem to devalue the land of persons having more than ten acres <br />by requiring various density standards (1:1, 1:3.33, 1:4, 1:5 dua) <br /> <br />Standards for residential subdivisions in the AG zone are proposed in Section 5.25. This <br />section proposes permitting 1 unit per acre for the first 10 acres of land and then I unit per <br />four acres for the remaining acreage. This standard matches the already adopted policy of <br />the "Rimer._O_verlay District". <br /> <br />Table 4.7-1 RV and RC maximum lot depth and lot width should not be set. It will create <br />tmbuildable land and possibly landlocked parcels. <br /> <br />Because these districts will likely be used for in-fill projects within the older portions of <br />Concord and Kannapolis, maximum width and depth standards are recommended to ensure <br />that these projects have similar block dimensions as the existing development. <br /> <br /> <br />