My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
AG 2000 10 16
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Agendas
>
BOC
>
2000
>
AG 2000 10 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2002 4:59:38 PM
Creation date
11/27/2017 11:47:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Agenda
Meeting Minutes - Date
10/16/2000
Board
Board of Commissioners
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
156
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
9. 6.5.4.1 Fii~een foot wide pedes~ian easements are unnecessary. Ten feet is plenty wide. <br /> <br />Fifteen feet allows for a five foot paved path and five foot maintenance and landscaped area <br />on each side of the path. In addition, this would allow enough room for a vehicle to pass in <br />case of an emergency. <br /> <br />10. 6,5.5 Fees-In-Lieu of open space should be fled to a project that clearly serves timt <br /> neighborhood and if not then the fees should go back to the person that paid the fee not the new lot <br /> owners. I would )hlnl~ that the payment would also be supported by an approved plan that has <br /> determined the costs. <br /> <br />The County does have a Parks and Recreation plan and is in the process of updating that <br />plan. Within the plan, park districts are defined. Within the new plan, new districts are <br />being defined. In this voluntary Fee-In=Lieu option, monies paid will only be spent in the <br />park district in which the neighborhood is located. Fees should be refunded to the property <br />owner since those fees were passed on to them when they purchased the home or lot. The <br />new park plan will identify park costs. <br /> <br />11. Table 6.5-1 Mandatory open space requirements for medium sized and large lot developments are not <br /> necessary. These requirements axe taldn$ 8, 10, and 12 percent of usable land away. Allow <br /> developments to tailor their subdivisions to the market instead of taking away the property owner's <br /> land. <br /> <br />The proposed open space policies carry forward policies of each of the member jurisdictions. <br />The AG district is exempt from the standard unless they are doing a cluster subdivision. Not <br />all of the required open space is developable land, up to 25% can have very steep slopes, be <br />in wetlands, or water bodies, etc. <br /> <br />12. 6.6.5.2 While the maximum number of lots is reasonable, what happens for parcels of land that <br /> are' very linear and have no depth and a new road csnnot b~ built. <br /> <br />· They would need to request a subdivision exception and show that it is impossible to meet <br /> the standard. You could possibly do a parallel access road in the situation described. <br /> <br />13. 6.6.6.1.1 Typo. Table should be 6.6-2 not 11.2-2, I think. <br /> <br />· St~ffwill make the change. <br /> <br />15 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.