My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BC 2008 09 08 Work Session
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Meeting Minutes
>
BOC
>
2008
>
BC 2008 09 08 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/12/2009 12:04:03 PM
Creation date
11/27/2017 1:03:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Minutes
Meeting Minutes - Date
11/18/2008
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.
/
10
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
September 8, 2008 (Work Session) Page 950 <br />Commerce Department - Consent Agreement - Crescent Heights Retirement <br />Apartment Project <br />Jonathan Marshall, Commerce Director, reviewed the following <br />information as it relates to the Crescent Heights Apartment Project: the <br />project is targeted at the elderly population; and because there are no <br />guarantees that there wouldn't be children produced at these developments, <br />the project is processed as if it would produce children. <br />Richard Koch, County Attorney, described a consent agreement that was <br />approved by the Board at an earlier date for another elderly apartment <br />project, and stated that a similar agreement could be used for the Crescent <br />Heights Development. <br />Susie Morris, Planning and Zoning Manager, presented the following <br />information related to a Consent Agreement for the Crescent Heights <br />Retirement Apartment Project: <br />Crescent Heights received technical site plan approval by the <br />City of Concord's Development Services Department on December 6, <br />2006. This project is approved for 116 apartment units on +/- <br />9.981 acres located at 199 Branchview Drive NW in the City of <br />Concord. The specifics of the agreement are as follows: <br />• Developer - Curry Architecture, LLC, 471 High Street NE, <br />Suite 10, Salem, OR 97301 <br />• Payment of $1,331 per unit due prior to the issuance <br />of building permits. <br />• The project is already constructed. <br />The APFO worksheet filled out by Mr. Robert Kluttz with Cabarrus <br />County Schools indicates that schools impacted by the Crescent <br />Heights project are currently functioning at the following <br />capacities: <br />W.M. Irvin Elementary School - 93.13 <br />Concord Middle School - 88.79 <br />Concord High School - 72.29 <br />Including previously approved subdivisions, these schools will be <br />functioning at the following capacity upon completion of the <br />Crescent Heights project: <br />W.M. Irvin Elementary School - 126.25$ <br />Concord Middle School - 97.00 <br />Concord High School - 77.73°s <br />The Capital Improvement Plan revised in March 2008, the A.T. <br />Allen replacement school will give W.M. Irvin some relief. <br />Capital funding should be available for the construction of the <br />A.T. Allen replacement school in February 2009. <br />Cabarrus County Schools operating at 1108 capacity are considered <br />to be operating at the maximum capacity. <br />The Subdivision Lot Inventory spreadsheet has been updated <br />through August 2008. <br />She reiterated that this project falls under the old ordinance and is <br />completely built-out. Further, she said if it is determined that the project <br />is not subject to the APFO, then the developer does not have to enter into <br />the Consent Agreement. However, if children are found living in the <br />development, then APFO in effect at that time will apply. <br />Mr. Koch, Ms. Morris, and Mr. Marshall responded to questions from the <br />Board, with the following issues being addressed: the project is located <br />within the City of Concord, and was issued a zoning permit without being sent <br />to the County to go through the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) <br />process; the assumption that the APFO did not apply to projects for the <br />elderly; the property owner is working with the County Attorney to prove that <br />the development should not be subject to the provisions of the Adequate <br />Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO); etc. <br />UPON MOTION of Commissioner Carruth, seconded by Commissioner Mynatt <br />and unanimously carried, the Board voted to place the Consent Agreement for <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.