Planning Board Minutes November 12, 2015

Planning Board Minutes November 12, 2015 Members Present: David Nail, Chairman John Robertson, Vice Chairman Mark Brady Bill Ogburn Rosalind Campbell Danny Martin Joe Yanicak Also Present: Craig Culberson, Senior Planner Jackie Thompson, Administrative Specialist Absent: Alan Brawley Steve McGlothlin Mr. Nail called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. 1.) Approval of the minutes from the October 8, 2015 Planning Board meeting. ACTION: A motion by Mr. Yanicak, seconded by Mr. Martin to approve the minutes. The motion was unanimously approved. 2.) Consider a REZONING request from Alexander Place Shoppes, LLC. The property located at 3279 Charlotte Highway, Mooresville, NC 28117 is further referenced as Iredell County Map PIN 4646-82-8078. The request is to rezone the property from NMX (Neighborhood Mixed Use) to CMX (Corridor Mixed Use). Craig Culberson: The applicant is requesting a rezoning from NMX (Neighborhood Mixed Use) to CMX (Corridor Mixed Use). The property is located at the corner of Charlotte Highway (US 21) and Medical Park Drive. The applicant is currently marketing the property for sale and does not have a specific end user in mind at this time. Most of the surrounding development in this area is consistent with CMX development. Much of the development in this area was done under a previous ordinance that included somewhat different development criteria than the current ordinance. Once an end user is determined, plans will have to be submitted for review by Town Staff including a TIA if needed. This property was zoned NC (Neighborhood Center) under the provisions of the Mount Mourne Zoning code which predates the current ordinance. When the current ordinance was adopted in 2008, all zoning districts in the Town s jurisdiction had to be transitioned to a new district name. In this case the transition was to the NMX district. In retrospect, the NMX zoning district did take away some of the potential uses that were allowed in the previous ordinance. The rezoning of the property to CMX (Corridor Mixed Use) would serve to reinstate some of the allowed uses from the previous ordinance. 1

Any future development of the property will require a full review by Town Staff for compliance to all appropriate Land Development requirements including site plan, interconnectivity, and a Traffic Impact Analysis if required. The Town of Mooresville Comprehensive Land Use Plan indicates this area for Corridor Mixed Use Development. This district is characterized by small shopping, restaurant, and service areas, as well as some commercial uses that are not appropriate for larger scale activity centers. The request to rezone this property from NMX to CMX is in keeping with the provisions of the Land Use Plan and would serve to continue the existing development pattern in the area. Jeff Mc Cluski: With MC2 Engineering. I am representing the applicant. We are wanting to rezone to CMX. We actually came up with some conceptual plans. As far as looking at it from a CMX stand point. The biggest concerns were based on the size of the land and the limitations of NMX. You are basically limited to 5,000 square feet for a single use tenant; or up to 15,000 square feet for a multi-use tenant building. With us having 3 acres, it is dramatically under utilizing the land. That is one of the main reasons that we are going from NMX to CMX. ACTION: A motion by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Brady to recommend the approval of the request. The motion was unanimously approved. 3.) Consider a REZONING request from Eastwood Construction, LLC. The property located on Shearers Road, Mooresville, NC 28115 is further referenced as Iredell County Map PIN s 4666-10-6598, 4666-10-7433, 4666-10-3330, 4665-19-4921, 4665-19-4414, 4665-19- 8873, 4665-19-9746, 4665-19-9668, 4665-19-9681 & 4665-29-0426. The request is to rezone the property from R-2 (Single Family Residential-2) to R-3 (Single Family Residential-3). Craig Culberson: The applicant has assembled several parcels including the Green Acres mobile home park. The request is to rezone the properties from R2 (Residential 2) to R3 (Residential 3) for the purpose of creating a single family subdivision. A portion of the property is currently in the Town limits and a portion is in the ETJ. The applicant has received approval of a utility extension of Town services and has filed an annexation petition for the portions of the property that are not currently in the Town limits. At this time there has been no plan approval, but a TIA has been completed based on 96 single family lots. This property is located on Shearers Road and is in close proximity to several existing residential developments. These single family developments are zoned R2, R3, and R5. As plans move forward, they will be reviewed and approved to be in compliance with Town of Mooresville, and other applicable requirements. The TIA identified off site infrastructure improvements that must be made in conjunction with the development. The request to rezone the property to R3 (Residential 3) is in keeping with the provision of the Town of Mooresville Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates this area for Neighborhood Residential Development. This district is characterized by adjacent and interconnected neighborhoods. A TIA was administered per the Town of Mooresville policy document and the results have been agreed to by both the Town and NCDOT. Dan Brewer: I am the sight Engineer and Surveyor. I am here to answer any questions that you may have. 2

Misty Eller: Has concerns going from R2 to R3. I live at 1036 Shearers Road. This property will go around my property completely. Our concerns are traffic and over crowing of schools. John Triplett: How many units are proposed to go in? What would be the max? To my understanding this does go all the way over to Blackwelder Road. Craig Culberson: The TIA that was done was based on a sketch plan of 96 lots. So that would be the max. If the plan showed more than that the analysis would need to be redone. ACTION: A motion by Mr. Ogburn, seconded by Mr. Brady to recommend the approval of the request. The motion was unanimously approved. 4.) Consider a CONDITIONAL REZONING request from Blue Heel Development, LLC. The property located at 868 Mount Ulla Highway, Mooresville, NC 28115 is further referenced as Iredell County Map PIN 4668-70-1264. The request is to amend the conditions of the current R5-C zoning of the property. Craig Culberson: The applicant is requesting the addition of this 1.938 acre parcel to their existing single family development project on Beam Drive off of Mt. Ulla Hwy. The original project was approved for a 43 lot subdivision on July 7, 2014. Subsequent to the rezoning, redesign of the site yielded a plan with a lower lot count. The addition of this additional acreage will allow the 43 lots to be built. The redesign and additional area will serve to give the development a more defined entrance into the community. The previously indicated emergency entrance will remain and the existing portion of Beam Drive will be brought up to current Town of Mooresville Standards. The development will have a density of 3.3 units per acre. This request is actually an amendment to the original rezoning request that was approved in 2014. The request adds the additional acreage but does not exceed the originally approved lot count for the project. This development has undergone several changes since it was originally presented to staff for review. The previously approved plan, while workable had some issues with some of the lot layout and other items. The additional of these 1.938 acres will serve to create a more definable entrance into the community as well as creating a better lot layout for the development. This property is in the WS II Balance Yadkin-Back Creek water supply Watershed District. This limits the impervious surface to a maximum of 30%. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan indicates this area for development as Rural Residential: The Rural Residential areas are within the Yadkin Creek/Back Creek and Yadkin Creek/Coddle Creek WS II Watershed Protection Areas. This area is intended to accommodate very lowdensity residential development, agricultural uses and supporting services. A compact residential development pattern is encouraged to protect environmentally sensitive lands and natural areas. The previous plan conditions and roadway conditions from the previous rezoning request remain in place for this request as well. The Town of Mooresville Comprehensive Land Use Plan indicates this area for Rural Residential Development. This indicates a low density pattern of residential development. The density yield of just over 3 units per acre is in keeping with this designation. 3

This request is consistent with Planning Strategy 20 which supports economic development: 20. Assure that development proposals are consistent with and supportive of land use, transportation, and economic development plans. The Staff is in agreement with this request. ACTION: A motion by Mr. Brady, seconded by Ms. Campbell to approve the Statement of Reasonableness and Compliance and recommend the approval of the request. The motion was unanimously approved. 5.) Consider a CONDITIONAL REZONING request from Mattamy Homes. The property located on Coddle Creek Road, Mooresville, NC 28115 is further referenced as Iredell County Map PIN s 4675-19-5070, 4675-29-3337 & 4676-20-8578. The request is to rezone the property from R3-C (Single Family Residential-3, with Conditions) to R3-C (Single Family Residential-3, with Conditions). Craig Culberson: The applicant is requesting that the conditions of the previous rezoning with regard to the actual site layout and roadway mitigations be removed while leaving in place the previously approved conditions regarding screening to adjacent properties. The property was rezoned in January of 2007, but the plan was never taken forward. The applicant is intending to purchase the property from the current owner who was the applicant in the 2007 rezoning. The previous rezoning included off site roadway improvements, set aside of acreage for a Town park, and screening to adjacent properties. The January 2007 approved rezoning concept plan included a proposed lot layout. A Traffic Impact Analysis was performed for the project and mitigation measures were proposed. At the public hearing, there was discussion about provision of screening and buffering to some adjacent properties. The previous plan included the reservation of land for a proposed Town park within the subdivision. Due to the length of time that has passed since the original 2007 rezoning, the TIA and mitigation measures are no longer valid. A new TIA must be done for the site. The new TIA has been initiated based on a preliminary sketch plan provided by the new developer. It has not been finalized. Town Staff has done an initial review of a plan proposal, but it has not yet been approved. This request is a conditional request to amend the conditions of the 2007 rezoning of the property by removing the site plan including the provision of park land, and the TIA mitigations as conditions of the approval, while maintaining the existing conditions that relate to screening and buffering of adjacent parcels. The original plan that was adopted in 2007 indicated 234 single family detached lots. The plan set aside approximately 7 acres for a proposed Town park. During the public hearing, Town Recreation staff indicated that it was not their desire to have this as a Town park location due to the small size and distance from other potential users of the facility. They felt at the time that it would become a case of the Town providing maintenance for what would essentially be a subdivision amenity. The Town and NCDOT require that a new TIA be conducted due to the amount of time that has passed since the previous version. Since that time, traffic patterns have changed, there has been more residential development in the area, and the new schools are up and running. The TIA that is currently under way is based on a total lot count of 276. The request is before you ahead of the plan approval so that the developer can continue forward with the due diligence. 4

The conditions that would remain from the previous request are: 1. Create a privacy condition along the perimeter adjacent to the Kistler property that would address safety conditions associated with an electric fence. The applicant will provide a berm, fence or vegetation with the approval of the Town that would provide adequate safety to the adjoining fence along the perimeter. 2. Provide a 50 foot buffer along the southeastern portion of the property and the perimeter property. The buffer would be maintained in a natural condition that would provide adequate buffering from the adjoining farmland. The applicant would extend the street right of way to the perimeter property line. This request while being a conditional request, is to amend and/or remove some of the existing conditions from a previous rezoning of the property in 2007. The site plan is under review but has not been finalized and the TIA is under review. The property was previously rezoned to support the R3 zoning district. This request maintains the R3 density requirements while making changes to the specific site plan to accommodate the new applicant s residential offerings. The R3 request is in keeping with the provisions of the Town of Mooresville Comprehensive Land Use Plan which indicates this area as Neighborhood Residential and Rural Residential. The request supports low density residential development. Ultimate approval of the plan shall include all appropriate Land Development requirements as well as full implementation of all off site roadway improvements that shall be required in the TIA. Dan Brewer: Engineer and Surveyor with ESP. We are keeping the exact buffers that were in place in 2007. Larry Taylor: Questions in regards to the buffer. Dan Brewer: Another condition that we are keeping is the connectivity to the school. We are designing a sidewalk that goes all the way up to the school property so the kids can walk to school. Lucinda Russ: Lives in Hunters Creek. I just want to know how far off of my property line is this wonderful housing development that none of us want. The schools are already packed the traffic is awful on Hwy 3. We do not want it. How far off my property line are these houses going to be. My neighbors are here and they don t want it either. I don t want a house in my backyard. Craig Culberson: You will have a 50 buffer, from that point there will be individual lots with a 30 back setback. So you will have 80 from the property line to the back of the structure. Cathy Williamson: We have a water problem already. If you want to look at these photos from my cell phone I can show you where we get a ton of water off of that field up there, If you put houses there and cement driveways how much more water are we going to get in our backyard, our sideyard. It is a flood stage as we currently have it. If we get more houses up there are they going to put in a retention pond or are they going to do something to midigate the water flow? Also there are traffic problems getting in and out of the neighborhood that we live in. 5

Craig Culberson: In regard to the water problem, all town projects have to do storm water management control. Part of the engineering of the site would be to capture run off and direct it in to retention ponds that take care of water quality and also water quantity. Dan Brewer: The storm water ordinance does not allow any more water than is going off today after development as well. It has to be the same of less. Most of the water on the west side drains to that farm pond that you see. We will have some BMP around the farm pond to treat the water. The state is not letting us use the farm pond for treatment. They will let us use it for storm water detention to slow the water down before it gets out. The state is going to be inspecting that pond hopefully next week to let us know if there is additional criteria to upfit that pond. On the east side we are planning a large BMP at about that location. There is a creek that runs along this way. We have to stay out of that creek and none of that water that gets in the creek has to be the same flow that is going to it today? Danny Williams: I live at Hunter Creek drive. Our property is at the very back of the Hunter Creek Development. When we moved in 20 years ago we put in a retention ditch between that property and ours to turn the water from coming into our back yard. It would be as much as 2 to 3 feet deep. It would flood. Our water flow if from Highway 3 down the side. So it is completely a different flow in what we are being told now. It does not come in from the back of the property, it comes in down off of Highway3 behind our subdivision. Bob Wiggins: Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the board. I represent Mattamy Homes the applicant. I wanted to introduce myself and see if you had any direct questions for me. I would like to address some of the concerns from our neighbors. We do want to be great neighbors. We understand the sensitivity of your homes. We want to establish great buffers around these areas. In regards to the storm water I will work with Dan. If we need to go above and beyond here we will look at this and analyze it and see if we can t improve the overall situation to the best of our ability. I can be around after the meeting and leave you my business cards. I will be glad to come out and meet at your convenience and see your concerns in the field and address them as best as we can. Cindy Sims: Wants to make sure of the buffering between the two homes off of Williaford. James Diggs. I live at 151 Williford. Concerned about neighbors land being land locked. Roger Brown: I live at 554 Rocky River Road. Concerned about the traffic. ACTION: A motion by Mr. Brady, seconded by Mr. Ogburn to approve the Statement of Reasonableness and Compliance and recommend the approval of the request. The motion was unanimously approved. 5.) Other business the Board may consider. ACTION: A motion by Mr. Brady, seconded by Mr. McGlothlin, to adjourn the November 12, 2015 Planning Board meeting. The motion was unanimously approved. The meeting adjourned at 7:12 P.M. 6

7