BC 2009 10 05 Work Session - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

October 5, 2009 (Work Session) Page 1641 costs would be required, just the purchase of the property. Mr. Downs reported Coldwater Ridge located off Lake Concord Road and Roxie Street near the Northlite development was another site investigated and the corresponding site costs would be $350,000.00 which includes costs for stormwater detention and soil leveling. Mr. Downs reported the third location surveyed was the International Business Park located on International Drive which has two separate sites. The first site, an existing flat site, located directly across Fortune Drive, would incur $125,000.00 in site costs; and the other site located across the street from Walker Marketing would require $250,000.00 in site costs. He stipulated the costs identified do not include the properties, and informed Yates-Chreitzberg-Hughes Architects did a comparison of the properties and found they all were comparable in cost to the old fairgrounds property. He provided an illustration of the elevations of the originally designed building and stated the County was anticipating constructing a LEED-certified structure with many windows and metaling on the exterior; however, it did not meet the City of Concord's small area plan requirements which required more brick and less metal and glass. He conveyed this was the County's design preference and that the architects produced a second design that incorporated brick in the elevations. Jonathan Marshall, Commerce Director, stated the design standards are part of the Concord ordinance and the International Business Park site would have to comply with the same design standards. He further stated the Afton Ridge and Coldwater sites are both in the City of Kannapolis, and Kannapolis has verbally confirmed the utilization of the initial design allowing the architectural metal panels at those locations. Mr. Downs stressed if the old fairgrounds or the International Business Park sites are selected, the County will have to go back through the Concord Planning and Zoning Board's review process which can take up to 60 days. He made an appeal for the Board to make a decision on a site as the design of the building is on hold until a decision is made. Commissioner Poole questioned the estimated total costs of the building and land, whether brick veneer increases the cost, and the functionality of the building. Mr. Marshall stated the County started putting together some land costs but did not have enough confidence in it to present it to the Board. Mr. Downs pointed out that a site has not been selected so the County cannot negotiate a price for the Board's review. John Day, County Manager, stressed it would not be an option if the price of the property is not less than the cost of the old fairgrounds. He stated although the old fairgrounds property was originally designed as a campus that could be expanded, the County does not foresee the need to expand the property. Commissioner Poole inquired about the disposition of the old fairgrounds property if the campus is not built on it. Chairman White responded that the old fairgrounds property is in the Downtown Sma11 Area Plan which is extremely restrictive noting very little can be done with the property other than leaving it vacant. He added the County is being forced out of being able to make the property a viable parcel or a nice gateway to the City, and that the County will have to strategize how to optimize the restrictive land not only in terms of design but also placement and location of the building. Chairman White sought clarification on how the Pre Gel building was erected noting that although the International Business Park is under the same ordinances, it cannot use metal siding and is restricted on the number of windows that can be included. Mr. Marshall responded, in conjunction with the old fairgrounds site, the County is subject to both the small area plan and commercial design standards. Also, the commercial design standards which are in effect throughout Concord's jurisdiction include the I-1 zoning at IBP. He noted the ordinance allows masonry and concrete, but it is the metal that it does not permit. He further explained PreGel has less than 20 percent metal. Chairman White questioned whether the building could be constructed of masonry and concrete instead of brick. Mr. Marshall responded in the affirmative. Mr. Day stated the appearance is the same which is the issue that was discussed with City staff. He noted the reasoning behind the ordinance appears to be related to prefabricated metal buildings. He Further stated the building could look exactly like the diagram if structural concrete is used, which is less expensive.