Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2014

Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2014 Members Present: John Robertson, Vice Chairman Allen Brawley Bill Ogburn Joe Yanicak Steve McGlothlin Danny Martin Mark Brady Rosalind Campbell Bill Ogburn Also Present: Craig Culberson, Senior Planner Jackie Thompson, Administrative Specialist Members Absent: David Nail, Chairman Mr. Robertson called the meeting to order at 6:03 P.M. 1.) Approval of the minutes from the July 10, 2014 Planning Board meeting. ACTION: A motion by Mr. McGlothlin, seconded by Mr. Brady to approve the minutes. The motion was unanimously approved. 2.) Consider a CONDITIONAL REZONING request from Bill & Sandra Cashion. The property located 319 W. Wilson Ave., Mooresville, NC 28117 is further referenced as Iredell County Map PIN 4657-81-9015. The request is to rezone the property from R-5 (Single Family Residential) to NMX-C (Neighborhood Mixed Use with Conditions). Craig Culberson: The applicant is requesting that the 0.66 acre site be rezoned from R-5 (Single Family Residential) to NMX-C (Neighborhood Mixed Use). The Land Use Plan indicates this area for Neighborhood Residential, but the property is located approximately 200 feet from the Corridor Mixed Use Land Use designation along Wilson Avenue. Based on the application, the applicant wishes to market the existing structure for use as office space for perhaps an attorney or doctor s office. The house is historically designated and the applicant wishes to maintain the integrity of the structure while possibly utilizing the structure for something other than single family residential use. The property once had an apartment in the rear and there are two utility services on the property. The applicant is proposing the following conditions to be placed on this request: 1. The existing structure will be maintained and utilized for any of the uses listed below. a. Single family detached (allowed under the existing zoning) b. Apartment (utilizing the existing services) c. Office use d. Bed and Breakfast (allowed under the existing zoning) 1

The applicant is requesting the conditional rezoning in order to make other uses available. The only actual new use that is being requested is the office use. The other potential uses are currently allowed in the R5 zoning district. If the request is approved, any future user would be limited to the specific uses and conditions as stated in the staff report. The request seeks to utilize and keep active an historically designated property that is currently not occupied. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan for this site indicates Neighborhood Residential. The property lies in close proximity to commercially zoned property on West Wilson Avenue. The utilization of the existing residential structure would add a measure of compliance to the property if it were to be developed for an office use. Any parking to support a nonresidential use would have to be located to the side or rear of the structure and would be required to be screened from any residential uses. ACTION: A motion by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Brawley to approve the Statement of Reasonableness and Compliance and recommend the approval of the request to rezone to NMX-C. The motion was unanimously approved. 4.) Consider a CONDITIONAL REZONING request from Hinckley Gauvain, LLC. The properties located on Big Indian Loop & Little Indian Lane Mooresville, NC 28117 are further referenced as Iredell County Map PIN s 4648-54-8306 & 4648-36-8845. The request is to rezone the property from CU R2 (Single Family Residential with Conditions, Town) & R-20 (Single Family Residential, County) to RMX-C (Residential Mixed Use with Conditions). Craig Culberson: The applicant is requesting that the approximately 135.6 acre site be rezoned from CU-R2 (Conditional Use- Residential 2) to RMX-C (Residential Mixed Use-with Conditions). The majority of the site, parcel 4658-54-8306, was originally zoned CU-R20 (Conditional Use- Single Family residential) on October 10, 2001 subject to the provisions of the site plan. Included in the request is a 3.6 acre parcel that was annexed into the Town of Mooresville corporate limits on July 1, 2014. The 2001 site plan called for a continual care retirement community consisting of approximately 350 independent living units, 50 assisted living suites and 90 nursing care units, for a total of 490 units. It included a club house and medical facility. Unless the parcel is rezoned, it must be developed per the approved plan. The other parcel (4648-36-8845) was annexed effective July 1, 2014 also. Zoning must be established on this parcel per North Carolina State statutes. The applicant proposal consists of 164 single family detached building lots and 38 condominium units on the western section of the property. This encompasses approximately 67.9 acres of the property. The eastern section of the property, approximately 67.5 acres does not have a specific plan this time. The request indicates the potential for single family, townhome, and multifamily development as well as the possibility of some nonresidential development along Bluefield Road. Development of the eastern portion of the site would be at a later time. The proposal includes a network of internal streets with connections to Bluefield Road and Big Indian Loop as well as a provision for a potential future relocation of Bluefield Road. Traffic Impact Analysis was done for the western side development of the property. The study indicates that the following improvements should be made at the developer s expense to mitigate the additional traffic generated by the proposed development. 1. An exclusive right turn lane with 100 feet of storage length and a 100 foot taper from Big Indian Loop turning onto Bluefield Road. 2. An exclusive right turn lane with 100 feet of storage and 100 feet of taper from Cornelius Road onto Bluefield Road. 2

3. An exclusive left turn lane with 100 feet of storage and 200 feet of taper from Bluefield Road onto Big Indian Loop. The roadway improvements only account for the west side development. Any development proposals for the east side would require another Traffic Impact Analysis to determine any additional roadway improvements. The site plan indicates a preservation of ten feet buffer of existing trees and vegetation along Big Indian Loop to provide screening of the development to the road. The interior of the site includes sidewalks and walking trails throughout the neighborhood. This site plan indicates single family residential development on the western portion of the property along with a small number of stand-alone condominium units. The plan indicates the street network, open space areas, walking paths, sidewalks, tree save areas, etc. A Traffic Impact Analysis has been performed for the western portion of the site and the results are enumerated above. The single family lots and the condominiums result in a net density of 3 units per acre on the western side of the project. The eastern portion of the project is less defined. The plan indicates a proposed road network and lists possible use categories with proposed maximum numbers. No traffic analysis has been performed for the eastern portion of the site. This situation creates some unknowns as to the nature of future development on the eastern portion of the site. The Board can consider the request as presented by the applicant to rezone the property to RMX-C based on the proposed plan and TIA conditions. The Staff has some concern with the uncertainty of the development of the eastern portion of the property. Staff would suggest that the Board consider rezoning the western portion of the plan as delineated on the site plan to RMX-C and consider zoning the eastern portion of the site R2 and removing the existing conditions of the retirement community. This way the eastern portion of the property is not encumbered with a previous plan and the applicant can come back to the Board with a more specific plan for development at a later date. The applicants request is in keeping with the provisions of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan which calls for Neighborhood Residential for the area. Kelsie Anderson gave a report on the TIA. Dan Brewer with WSP Sells showed renderings of how the park would look. He spoke in regards to the meeting that they had with the neighbors. One concern of the neighbors is the driveway cuts and entrance off Bluefield. The entrance off Bluefield was required by the Fire Department. Construction traffic was also a big concern of the neighbors. The developer has agreed to limit the construction traffic only to the Bluefield cut. That would keep construction traffic off Big Indian Loop. Steve Rotman, Jim Kenny, Jeff Shaver, Karen Height, Sharon Wally, Bobby Honeycutt & Margaret Hoffman have concerns in regards to the traffic, safety and the three entrances. They want more time (30 days) to understand better the safety factors. Jim Kenny wants clarification from the builder and a commitment as this is a conditional request for a zoning change as I understand it. Put the conditions in writing as to when we are going to get the entrance off of Bluefield. As it stands right now I understand that their intentions are to build from the lake out. They would start down in what they are calling phase 1 and this would bring all the traffic down Big Indian Loop to build phase 1. I was told by Eric that it would be sometime before they worked their way out and got the additional entrance. I strongly feel safety and otherwise just to relieve some traffic that needs to go in as the original four. My biggest point is to put the conditions in place. Steve Rotman wants to make sure the conditions are put into the vote. Speed bumps, sidewalks on the east side, more definition of the 10 buffer. We are told if it is not recorded on the plot on the development it can t enforce. The construction entrance and if there are going to be phases that we 3

should define the phases so that everybody knows how that construction entrance is going to work for that phase. It could be six to seven years between phases one, phase two or phase three. We would just like to make sure that if you reflect a positive vote for this that some of these things are written down not just discussed, so that we understand what is going to happen. Then when we go to the next meeting that goes before the chairman, then we will address those issues at that time. The Town and the developer have been working together since the first of May. They had multiple meeting and changes made to that development map based on those meetings. We were not part of those meetings. The first meeting that we had was at the bowling alley by the developer. He was gracious enough to show us this and we had no idea that there would be entrances coming out onto Big Indian Loop. When this was originally annexed into the Town for Acts, there was only one entrance exit and it was stated to be an emergency exit out onto Big Indian Loop. It was about in this area here. That was the only entrance that we were told of at that time that would be access to Big Indian Loop and it would not be used as a main it was more of an emergency entrance and exit. The main entrance was going to be out here just like this entrance here and all of the units that they described were going to be in Acts were serviced off that one in and one out road with the backside being for emergency use only. So there a big difference between this proposed rezoning and the way the development looks compared to what was done when it was annexed into the Town. If you will look back at the records and Craig Culberson was part of that meeting there was little people against that because they understood that our community was respected and it would not see any influx of major traffic. So that is why there is a big difference for how we are feeling about this particular development. That is why we are just asking for 30 days to catch up to where the Town is and to where the developer is and understanding what is there and try to talk to them. I ve had conversations with Eric on the phone, he will take my call, and I take his call. I ve talked to his architecture yesterday. We are trying to communicate in a positive manner. We are just trying to work with them in a straight on approach of making them aware of what we are concerned about and what can we do about it. I ll stop because you know what I mean. Dan Brewer: They had some good points. I love the neighborhood too. I ride my bike there a good bit. I have a lot of friends on that street. I just hope that this neighborhood would just compliment that neighborhood. To address some of these comments, since the developer has agreed to do the construction entrance on Bluefield that would be done day 1. Fire code does not require the full road completed until the 31 st lot is built, but the developer has agreed to put that entrance in day 1. As soon as development starts phase 1 will include the Bluefield Road all the way through the back. The 30 day delay is going to be an issue because of contractual obligations between the buyer and the seller. In my opinion I think there is time between now and the Town Board meeting to iron out the other items that we need to discuss. We are willing to meet with the spokesman and the neighborhood as well. The blind curve issue. I know that well, I took a spill on my bike there last summer. I am going to be meeting with DOT about that because when we get driveway permits they will require us to look at that curve. There is one idea of making that a T intersection with a stop sign. We are looking at other possibilities for entrance drives to this subdivision. We actually looked at one entrance here and deleting the other two. After discussion with the Land Planner it takes away the focal point of the lake front park. It really does no good to have just one verses the two, because you have the same amount of traffic at that spot. It doesn t take away or benefit to go from two to one. We looked at sidewalks on Big Indian Loop. DOT would require us to extend that ROW 14 more feet to get that sidewalk in. If we did that it is going to wipe out those trees that we are trying to save. The buffer information, we are willing to talk about increasing that buffer. All it does is decrease the width of the linear park. So we are willing to discuss that with the adjacent property owners to increase that buffer. The common open space will be recorded. That is required by law it be recorded. The last comment about the one access onto Bluefield during the original rezoning, I was involved with that 4

back in 2001. There was an agreement to limit that one cut to the folks in the nursing home only. However the 490 units proposed today fire code would not allow all that access to go out onto Bluefield. Joe Yanicak: Do you have the current peak hour s stats? Kelsie Anderson: PM peak hour is156 cars so that would be about 2 a minute. Eric (Developer): I would like to address the neighbors. Jim, Steve, Karen and all these guys have really been wonderful to work with. What we have tried to do from our last conversation is go back to our financing sources to allow us to put that entrance in. We actually received approval on that about 24 hours ago. I was in New York doing that for you. So we will put that entrance in based on your request 100%. The construction entrance is the same way. That does change the idea and the concept of phazing. Dan has been trying to work through what that will look like. We will do more of the neighborhood probably in two phases. We will landscape the entrance so it is nice. We will make it the main entrance and use it as our marketing window as the main entrance to the neighborhood. So we would like to find a way to drive the traffic on Bluefield as well. We think it helps us that we re really off Steve and the rest of the guys. So this will now go to two phases instead of three. Mike Brotherton: Concerned about the traffic. Steve Rotman: Part of the problem with the changes that we are hearing tonight. This is the first time that we have heard it. Makes me ask another question. So you got the construction entrance that we are agreeing to off of Bluefield. If you put the Little Indian Lane in there how do we enforce that the trucks don t just come down Big Indian Loop into Little Indian Lane and rather than bounce and go down a temporary drive that s probably going to be close to a mile. I ve said to the neighborhood that if we suggest anything we shouldn t suggest anything that requires enforcement because who is going to do that? Who is going to fill the calls when we have somebody do something wrong that was suggested and put in place in this meeting and then it happens. Who do we call to say can you stop this can call the police. Do they need to be bothered with that type of thing? So this is the first time as he said 24 hours ago this was put in place. We have been talking about this for two or three weeks and every time I ve asked about that has been delayed to the third phase. So all these changes are new to this whole group. So we are just asking for 30 days again and yes if it there was a timing issue for this to development it has to get done by 2016 I have not heard any need that it has to make a certain time commitment. One month is not that long of a commitment over a possible 10 year development of this magnitude. So that is why the 30 days is important to us to ensure that we have the time. Craig Culberson: The state statues do not give the Town Board the ability to mandate the phasing of a project. The rezoning request is a project in and of itself. Having said that, if the Developer agrees to a phasing plan and they make that a part of their approved Development Document, we then have the ability to enforce that. The Town can t make that a condition of the approval. The Developer can offer that as a condition if it is on the plan. Then we have the ability to hold building permits and different things. Since this was brought before you as a Conditional Zoning prior to that coming to you the plan has to be reviewed and approved by staff with regard to does it meet all of the Town s regulations and requirements with regards to lot size, setbacks, roadway, infrastructure, fire access compliance. This is part of the administrative process that has to take place before it comes to you. Mr. Chairman you have the ability to bring the Developer back up here and ask him if he agrees to these conditions, as laid out by his Engineer. Those then become part of the record for recommendation that goes to the Town Board of Commissioners. What I would expect and hope is that if you decide to move this forward it would exclude those conditions and by the time this goes to 5

the Town Board of Commissioners we would have an amended plan from the Developer that has all of those outlines on the plan. Therefor they would be in writing and enforceable. Eric: I feel like we worked pretty hard with the neighbors and with the Town to get to this point. In terms of the 30 days I would ask that you guys move forward. Certain stages need to continue moving forward to make this happen. As far as including any of these items that we have talked about, the things that Dan laid out, we will happily make that part of the record and happily take those forward and make those part of our rezoning. We can happily add those conditions. Allen Brawley: Will you continue to work with the neighbors between now and the Town Board meeting? Eric: Steve will be at my house tomorrow if I don t answer the phone. I think that we have a good relationship. They have been good to work with. They are trying to keep traffic off their road and they know that I am here to help them. We can talk about some other possibilities if needed to make that entrance up there a little more opening. We will certainly work with them on all their issues as we move forward. Dan Brewer: The entrance off Bluefield will be done in the first phase. Contractors will be required to use the Bluefield entrance as their construction entrance. The other item, we will work with the land owner of adjacent land owners about is the buffer. There is a little flexibility in that 10 as it just starts narrowing down the park. We will need to do some engineering studies in the next two weeks to see what we can do. That is all I had. Eric: I will happily agree with those conditions. Under initial construction I do not see why we would have to cut those roads thru while we are doing the first building until they actually had to go in. That would pretty much guarantee and eliminate the big trucks during road construction to stay off of those. A lady in the audience was speaking but could not be heard. Eric: I think this is a fire safety. The way it was understood to me we actually asked for fewer entrances and this entrance and another entrance were required per the fire code. I think it was adjusted for some of the other safety issues that Mr. Honeycutt brought up. Having two ways of access. Another lady can t be heard. Dan: Fire actually wanted another entrance here and we negotiated not to have that. The existing Little Indian does access the interior lots until it comes all around to here because that is a different tier. The fire department is requiring at least one more cut on Big Indian Loop. The emergency access is here. You are required to have two ways in and two ways out. A man from the audience can t be heard. Dan: I did not bring that with me but I can get it to you. A man from the audience can t be heard clearly. ACTION: A motion by Mr. Martin to rezone the property to RMX-C 6

leaving the east side as R2 with all the conditions that were agreed upon, seconded by Mr. Brawley to approve the Statement of Reasonableness and Compliance and recommend approving the request. The motion was unanimously approved. 5.) To consider an ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING request from Town of Mooresville. The properties located on Little Indian Lane, Mooresville, NC 28117 is further referenced as Iredell County Map PIN 4648-36-8845. Iredell County has released their jurisdiction of zoning for this property. The Town of Mooresville is required to Establish Zoning on the property. The request is to establish zoning from R-20 (County, Single Family Residential) to R-2 (Town, Single Family Residential). Craig Culberson: This property was released from Iredell County s jurisdiction on July 15, 2014. State statutes require that the Town establish municipal zoning on the property. The municipal zoning district that most closely approximates the county zoning is R2. This district allows for a comparable number of dwelling units per acre. The R2 zoning designation would be in keeping with the overall land use plan as well as being consistent with the existing county zoning designation. Staff recommends establishing the zoning for this property as R2 (Single Family Residential) ACTION: A motion by Mr. Brady, seconded by Mr. Ogburn to approve the request and establish rezoning to R-2. The motion was unanimously approved. 6.) To consider a TEXT AMENDMENT TA-2014-07 Chapter 10 Section 6, Maintenance Guarantee Allison Kraft: The proposed text amendment will add a requirement for a developer of a new subdivision to post a maintenance bond guaranteeing against damage or defect in infrastructure that will eventually be turned over to the Town for maintenance. Currently the only items that may be bonded are the final lift of asphalt, street trees and sidewalks under a performance bond. The proposed text amendment would protect the Town against projects where the developer is unable to bring infrastructure up to Town standards in order for the Town to assume maintenance responsibility. Chapter 10 Section 6 MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE: Before the Town will approve a subdivision final plat, the subdivider or such person or entity having ownership of the subdivision shall give bond guaranteeing appropriate maintenance of streets, curb, gutters, sidewalks, drainage facilities, and water and sewer lines until such time as the bonded infrastructure is accepted for maintenance by the Town. Said bond shall be in an amount no less than 75% of the construction value of the covered infrastructure and shall be made to the Town of Mooresville, North Carolina and executed by one or more surety companies legally authorized to do business in the State of North Carolina. Such bond shall, at a minimum, address minimum quality standards imposed by the Town and also any immediate health or safety issues that arise due to defective, worn, or otherwise damaged infrastructure. Before accepting the streets, curb, gutters, sidewalks, drainage facilities, and water and sewer lines for maintenance by the Town, the subdivider or such person or entity having ownership of the subdivision shall give bond guaranteeing against defects for those repairs required by the Town as part of the maintenance acceptance process for a period of one (1) year from the date of such acceptance. Such bond shall be in the amount acceptable to the Town and shall be made to the Town of Mooresville, North Carolina. 7

ACTION: A motion by Mr. Yanicak, seconded by Mr. Brady to approve the Statement of Reasonableness and Compliance and recommend to approve the request. The motion was unanimously approved. ACTION: A motion by Mr. Brady, seconded by Mr. McGlothlin, to adjourn the August 14, 2014 Planning Board meeting. The motion was unanimously approved. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M. 8