BC 2003 04 21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

April 21, 2003 Page 89 Mr. Michael Stafford of the Cabarrus County Emergency Medical Services presented Good Samaritan Awards to several individuals who had assisted persons prior to the arrival of paramedics. Those present for the meeting and receiving Good Samaritan Awards were Jacqueline Hompe (assisted child who was not breathing); Wendy and Janice Penninger (performed CPR on person in cardiac arrest); and David Overcash (assisted in rescuing an individual from a car that had gone into a lake). Awards will also be given to Alvaro Fernando Matta, Streven Hargett and Robert Ellis who assisted with the rescue from the lake. (D) OLD BUSINESS (D-l) Justice Center Pro~ect Monthly Progress Report Mr. Day presented an update on the progress of the Justice Center Project. The Architect Screening Committee has reviewed all submissions and narrowed the field to three firms - HDR; Ware Bonsall Architects; and Moseley, Wilkins & Wood. Each firm will make a presentation to the screening committee on April 28tn beginning at 5:30 p.m. in the Multipurpose Room at the Governmental Center. Sheriff Riley reported that the average daily jail population during April has been 204. A contract is expected shortly from Gaston County to house inmates, as needed, on a short-term basis in that county's Jail. Contact has also been made with the counties of Burke and Alleghany regarding the possibility of housing Cabarrus County inmates. There was discussion regarding the recent Jail inspection by State officials, the County's efforts to move forward with plans to alleviate the overcrowded jail conditions and the development of long-term plans to meet the jail space requirements for the County. (D-2) Summar~ of Short- and Long-term Goals Update Mr. Day presented a summary of goals that were identified by the Board in January, strategies to meet those goals and the current status of each goal. He suggested that the Board schedule a work session on either April 30 or May 1 on the topic of transportation, utilities, planning and environmental issues. The Board by consensus agreed to meet at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 30, for a work session. (D-3) Draft Unified Development Ordinance (Tabled on March 26, 2002 until A~ril 2003) Mr. Jonathan Marshall, Planning and Zoning Services Director, reviewed the status of the draft Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) that was tabled by the Board in 2002 and issues related to the UDO. He recommended that the draft of the UDO remain tabled, but not be abandoned. He stated that most ~hanges to the UDO now relate to policy decisions and the City of Concord has appointed an advisory committee to address major policy issues. Further, Mr. Marshall reported on work with the municipalities to define annexation areas in which UDO development standards could be applied. However, he explained that this issue seems to have been addressed by another policy change. The City of Concord has indicated that it will require any development connecting to its utilities to meet the City's UDO development standards. Mr. Marshall reported that County and Concord staff members have developed the basic framework for review of new developments that are under the County's jurisdiction, but would be connected to Concord utilities. The steps of that process include: (1) Meeting with property owner/developer to go through process; (2) Review by the City of Concord for possibility of voluntary annexation; (3) Review of preliminary design by County Planning staff and City engineering staff; (4) The development, assuming they do not go through voluntary annexation first, will be reviewed by the County Planning and Zoning Commission and by the Board of Commissioners, if necessary. In conclusion, Mr. Marshall reported that a major concern is that there will be no adequate facilities review for schools if voluntary annexation is chosen and t~e development review is solely by the City of Concord. He stated that one option would be to have the boards of education perform the school adequacy review for all residential development. There was lengthy discussion regarding development in Cabarrus County. Issues addressed by the Board included the enforcement of City development standards in those developments served by City utilities, the possibility of