AG 2001 05 21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

78 PURPOSE OF REQUEST: To budget the contribution from the City of Concord for the proposed Soccer Complex at Stonewall Jackson properties Present Revised Account No. Approved Budget Increase Decrease Budget 34091920-9830-0072 $ 857,220.00 ~000.00 $ 957,220.00 Other improvements - Stonewall Jackson Soccer 34061920-6412 - $ 0.00 $100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 Contribution from City of Concord OLD BUSINESS Update on the County Expo Site - Nicola Storey, Plan~er MS. Nicole Storey, Planner, presented an update on the County Expo site. The Concord Planning and Zoning Commission will consider the petition to rezone the property to a Public Interest District at its meeting on May 15. The architects are finalizing the designs for both the Expo Center and Exhibition Building. Bids are expected in mid-May with construction to begin the second week of July. Chairman Fennel asked that a groundbreaklng ceremony be scheduled for the Expo Center. This event is to be held prior to July 4~. Proposed Unified Dewelo~nnent Ordi~ance, Zoning Atlas (Maps) and Memorandum o~ Understanding - Jonathan Marshall, Plann£n~ Services Director Chairman Fennel proposed that the Board adopt the proposed Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) with the following change~: {1) Remove and continue discussion on the adequate public facilities section, specifically in regards to schools; (2) Eliminate the requirement for sidewalks within the County,s Jurisdiction; and {3) Eliminate the connectivity requirements within the County's Jurisdiction. Rather than eliminating the adequate public facilities section from the UDO, Mr. Marshall suggested that the Board could make the entire section, or just the schools portion of that section, ~inactive" pending further review by the Board. Chairman Fennel concurred with that suggestion. There was discussion regarding Chairman Fennel's proposed changes, including the following: {1) Need to review school growth and construction needs at least once a year; (2) Sidewalks - safety concerns, desirability of having sidewalks on one side of the street, sidewalk requirements based on the density of an area, and current County sidewalk requirements in high density developments; (3) Connectivity requirements - desirability of cul de sacs and the need to balance safety issues to connectivity requirements, specifically access for emergency vehicles and the danger of cut through traffic in residential areas. The Board took no action on the proposed changes. Commissioner Privett e asked to hear from the local Homebuilder' s Association regarding its concerns about the UDO. The Association had submitted a letter on April 10 expressing its opposition to provisions of the UDO. Mr. Mike Quickel, President of the Cabarrns County Hombebuilder, s Association, stated the organization had no problem with the original concept of countywide zoning. However, he stated the orgamization is concerned that the development of the UDO went beyond that, got into the marketplace and increased the cost Of building. He stated in his opinion the UDO has taken the county out of affordable housing to a big degree. Commissioner Privette objected to the proposed UDO, stating it did not provide unified zoning tn the county. Ke further objected to ~piecemeal" legislation and the continuing need to consider changes to the UDO. He called for a completed document prior to adoption and proposed that the Board defer the UDO for one year to give the municipalities an opportunity to complete changes to the ordinance. Uice Chairman Carruth spoke in support of the UDO and objected to a delay in its adoption. He stated the UDO is not a perfect document but is a mechanism for communications between the various goverr~ental entities in the coLhnty. Mr. Marshall explained the proposed ordinance would never be perfectly unified and there would always be changes to any ordinance that is working. He estimated the UDO adopted by the County and the municipalities would he approximately 95 percent the same. According to Mr. Marshall, the County is one of the major differences due to its enabling legislation and various legal differences. He also outlined the planned process by which the County and the municipalities would make future changes to the ordinance. There was lengthy discussion regarding the proposed Ordinance, including the followingI (1) extensive work over several years by the appointed Steering Committee; (2} establishment of lines of communication and coordination