My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
July 12, 2022 PZ Agenda
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Meeting Minutes
>
Planning
>
2020
>
July 12, 2022 PZ Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/8/2022 10:47:58 AM
Creation date
7/8/2022 10:45:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Agenda
Meeting Minutes - Date
7/12/2022
Board
Parks
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
150
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
Planningand Zoning Commission <br />Minutes <br />June 14, 2022 <br />The Chair asked if they were all in agreeance. The consensus of the Board was yes. He asked if <br />there were a motion to approve the relieffrom the 200-foot setback requirement. <br />Mr. Jeff Corley MOTIONED, SECONDEDby Mr. Charles Paxton to APPROVEthe variance <br />request for the relief from the 200-foot setback requirement. The vote was unanimous. <br />The Chair said Item 2 is landscape buffer requirementsperimeter andlandscape and parking <br />lot landscape trail encroachments. <br />He this one we might need to break down a little bit because it is quite extensive. Probably for <br />clarity for Staff we probably should do it per the property line. off with the Eastern <br />property, which would the right side along the easement with Charlotte Water. <br />The applicant has requestedencroachments into 51-footlevel 2 buffer, the parking area <br />encroaches 7feet it the buffer and the walking trailsencroaches 12 feet into the buffer. <br />The Chair said going back to those four items: <br />The unnecessary hardship wouldresultinstrict application of the ordinance. <br />He said as far as the parking,he thinks we are reallytalkingminimal,they cannotreallymove it <br />over anymore. The walking trail, he is okay with that encroaching. He liked that they pulled it <br />back from the property line to help facilitate a larger landscape area,as opposed to chopping it <br />all up. <br />Mr. Corley said,just to add for the record, the parking standards layout,sizing of traffic lanes, <br />sizing of parking spaces,and when you areworking with a peculiar, shapedlot,with anexisting <br />buildingalready in the middle,the need to expand parking. Hereallydoes not see a visionhow <br />meeting those geometric standards,howthey could physically put the spaces they are needing <br />and wanting and still squeeze it in that upper corner. <br />The Chair said that probably ties to number two, size, topography, location. We have already <br />established number 3 about knowledge of the property when they purchased it, existing <br />circumstance. He said number 4, granting variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose,and <br />intent. He thinks they have already established that. <br />He said the thing that keepsthrough him off is the plan says requestedbuffer and we are asking <br />for an encroachment. He would like to clean that language up. He would rather say <br />encroachment because he would rather keep the buffer andjustallow encroachments. <br />The Chair said the northern property line,six-footwalking trail encroaches 23 feet, proposed <br />pavedparking encroaches 17 feet which includes the two parking spaces and the drive on the <br />easement for the cell towerand the deck for the pool encroaches 17 feet into the required buffer. <br />24 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.