Chairman Bankirer welcomed and introduced a new member, Ron Smith.

Transcription

1 Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 26, :30 PM Town Chambers A. Call to Order/Roll Call The Chairman determined quorum, and called the meeting to order. Members present: Bankirer, Chairman, Davis, Vice Chairman, Miller, Planty, Sailers, Smith, Swanick and Thomas. Member absent: Graffy Chairman Bankirer welcomed and introduced a new member, Ron Smith. B. Approval of Minutes 1. Consider Approval of the June 28, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes A Motion to Approve the June 28, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes was made by Joe Sailers and seconded by JoAnne Miller. The Motion Carried by a vote of 8 Ayes and 0 Nays. Board Members voting Ayes: Bankirer, Davis, Miller, Planty, Sailers, Smith, Swanick, Thomas Absent: Graffy C. Public Comments Frank Schotthoefer, Asbury Chapel Road, Huntersville, addressed the Board, and stated as follows: He wanted to address the line of sight issue with the western entrance to the subdivision. This is the area where the dogleg is; the 90 degree curve with a 20 MPH curve. Let's say you are traveling on Asbury Chapel towards Eastfield, and you get through the dogleg and drive about 300 and due to grade change you are on top of the hill. Now and only now can you see the entrance to the subdivision on the left. It is about 250 in front of you. Most people by this point are already doing 40 MPH. If a car was stopped and waiting to make a left into the subdivision, and you were paying attention stopping is not a problem. If there is a left turn lane with 100 storage, no problem; you pass in the outer lane. 100 of storage would fit 6 or 7 cars or 2 school buses. So, maybe the storage lane is full a single car is now stopped in the outer lane. That will give you about 140 to stop when you get to the top of the hill. It will be real tight, but you can probably stop; but, the car behind will probably not be able to do it (stop). Someone is going to end up getting killed. Even if the entire corner is clear cut, the grade change will not allow you to see clearly what is ahead, nor will you be able to look and make that turn and see what s going go. You can t do it. 45 MPH is too fast for Asbury Chapel Road. With increasing traffic from surrounding developments, limited visibility, and lack of signage or traffic lights along the entire route, it is only a matter of time before there are fatalities. Nothing is currently in place to control southbound traffic from Huntersville- Concord to Eastfield. Asbury Chapel Road is an important north-south connector and needs to be treated as such. Thank you. Randy Poindexter, Asbury Chapel Road, Huntersville, addressed the Board, and stated as

2 follows: I share the sentiments, and as said at the previous meeting, I have always felt like the entrance on the southern side of Asbury Chapel should be moved further down. Currently it is planned to go right next to my driveway. It is literally butted up against my property line where the road is going to connect across the street with the dirt road that this other gentleman lives on. Since the last meeting a lot has taken place. The folks from planning staff have reached out to me. They have been very gracious with their time, and I know for a fact they have had multiple meetings trying to look at alternatives, but I think the engineers and the folks have settled in on it needs to go right up next to my property line. I am trying to understand and appreciate that, and accept that fact. Also since then, the folks as Ryan Homes have graciously reached out to me and meet with me personally. I think that they have done really well in terms of trying to create a buffer. As much as I would like to move the road further off my property line, they have really done a great job in terms of trying to provide the buffer to protect my family and line of sight from our property looking over to the five (5) new homes that will be right in our back yard. For that I am very grateful. I think most of my issues have been resolved. As much as I would love to see the road go further away from our property line, I think that both planning staff and Ryan Homes has really gone out of their way to try to make me happy in this situation. There is not a lot more I can say from the stand point of being argumentative. It is a fact of reality that this development is going in next to my property, and I think they are very sensitive of that. They are going out of their way to make is a little less concerning for me. Thank you. D. Action Agenda 1. SKETCH: Asbury Chapel NVR Subdivision is a request by NVR to subdivide approximately acres to develop 110 single family homes in the Transitional zoning district. The property is located on Asbury Chapel Road and is identified as PINs: , , , & A Motion to Approve the Sketch Plan with conditions was made by Adam Planty and seconded by Susan Thomas. The Motion Carried by a vote of 8 Ayes and 0 Nays. Board Members voting Ayes: Bankirer, Davis, Miller, Planty, Sailers, Smith, Swanick, Thomas Absent: Graffy Discussion: Brian Richards (also referred to herein as staff ), entered the Staff Report into the record, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference. Staff gave an over of the subdivision, including location, density, and tree save requirements. The applicant is asking for a block length waiver of two (2) streets. One of 1645 and the other of Staff supports the waivers due to the environmental issues associated with the crossings. At the last meeting the Planning Board had a number of questions, and the applicant has done a sufficient job answering, and would go over those with the Board. First, there was an issue with the TIA being sealed, and that has taken place and the Engineering Department can speak to any questions. The Chairman asked if the Board could ask whatever questions or concerns they may have on a particular topic as staff moves along, and staff agreed. Joe Sailers noted that several things were asked to be added, and there is one on the plan, but none of the other stuff. The TIA came back with no requirements and it makes for more problems for our road system. Mr. Sailers asked if they (the developer) have committed to do anything asked at the last meeting, and Stephen Trott responded that based on the recommendations of the TIA no improvements were recommended at any of the four (4) studied intersections based on the current Ordinance. It is Engineering and Public Works recommendation that a left turn lane be installed at each of the two entrances with 100 of

3 storage. NCDOT has provided input and they require, based on an , the same left turn lanes. JoAnne Miller asked about the storage, and Stephen Trott stated the did not specify a storage length; typically they recommend a minimum Mr. Sailers commented that Mr. Schotthoefer, due to the hairpin curve, needed more storage. Stephen Trott stated that the turn lanes were not shown on the plans because they have not been designed yet, so if there is a sight distance issue that would be remedied. Mr. Sailers asked that in approving this without the design on the plans was the Planning Board approving without turn lanes installed, and Stephen Trott replied he did not know what the Board has recommended, and could not answer. The Engineering staff recommendation is to have the two (2) left turn lanes at each entrance with 100 of storage. Mr. Sailers repeated that the turn lanes are not on the plans, which Stephen Trott confirmed. Mr. Bankirer agreed and commented that the recommendations should be what the developer will do, including details, line of sight issues and length of storage to be worked out with the Town and NCDOT. There is a disconnect between what the Town is recommending and the best interest of the public and what is written on the sketch plan. This is a question to ask the developer to see if they will make a commitment, officially, to change so the left turn lanes are in the sketch plan, and we can all move forward understanding that the lanes will be built. Ron Smith asked about the grading in the hill and the turn lane, and asked if the turn lane addressed his concerns, and Mr. Bankirer replied, that as he understood it his comments included that with the turn lane there is still the issue that he described. Brian Richards commented that the design of the turn lanes and sight distances is resolved at the preliminary plan stage, and Mr. Bankirer responded, exactly, assuming that the NVR representative will agree to putting the lanes in on the sketch plan, but unless we have that commitment included in the sketch plan the developer does not have the requirement to deal with it. Mr. Bankirer will not vote for it unless they move forward in that direction. Mallie Colavita, NVR, Inc., stated they are willing to commit to two (2) left turn lanes with a length specified by either the Town or NCDOT, whichever is compliant. The Chairman asked if those changes would be on the sketch plan, and Mr. Colavita stated, that s correct. The Chairman called for any other TIA questions, and Joe Sailers expressed his concerns with the TIA Ordinance causing more and more problems as it does not address enough of the details to control some of the congestion of traffic and issues. The Chairman noted that he has requested from staff, and the Mayor has agreed to have staff provide a TIA briefing, hopefully sometime during the month of August. The Board will have the opportunity to become more educated, and talk about the criteria in the TIA (Level of Service, etc.). Brian Richards commented about the two (2) small wetlands, and neither will be impacted by the project. They will remain as is. Joe Sailers asked if they were installing culverts, and staff responded they are still in design, but the wetlands will not be impacted. Joe Sailers asked about the area marked by the 1645, and staff indicated that was a man-made lake and it will be drained. It is not a natural feature. JoAnne Miller wanted clarification of its location, and asked where the big lake was, and staff showed its location. Staff indicated that pond/lake will be a natural feature and there is a BMP to the south of that area. Adam Planty asked if LUESA had approved, and staff confirmed. Staff indicated that the PCO1 was approved by Mecklenburg County on June 7, 2016 with minor notations, and they have agreed to those notations being corrected (typos and notes). Staff informed the members that NVR is in conversation with Asbury Methodist Church to maintain and preserve the cemetery. Joe Sailers commented that he had a long conversation with the Minister, and the congregation wants to maintain the cemetery and never have been able to because of the restrictions from land owners. They need ingress and egress. Mr. Sailers told the Minister to contact the developer. Mr. Colavita responded that he had not heard from that particular representative of the Church. There has been another person that

4 he had been in contact with to discuss other easements needed on the other end of the property, and asked at that time if they would be interested in taking over maintenance, and they were interested. NVR is prepared to provide access to the cemetery and provide the Church with the necessary easements so they can maintain as they see fit. Adam Planty asked if that would be included in the HOA covenants and restrictions, and Mr. Collavita noted that it will be recorded in the plat and there will be a recorded easement in the Deed Book, and did not feel it will impact the HOA, but the HOA will maintain the path to the cemetery. The owners on both sides of the path will be notified that they are adjacent to a cemetery and the area will be properly staked and buffered according to State standards. Mr. Bankirer noted that there was a fence, and Mr. Collavita responded they can fence only the portion that is on the property, and it will be more of a two prong fence. Mr. Bankirer asked if there had been discussions with the Church about what kind of fence, and Mr. Collavita noted they have not gotten into that detail yet. Mr. Bankirer commented that the fence is not on the notes in the plan. Brian Richards stated, in using previous decisions and using the same language about a pipeline and using markers, stakes and HOA documents, and surveyor is committed to providing the first homeowners a survey showing its location and all fences will be approved through the HOA, and nothing can encroach into the gas line easement. Hal Bankirer noted on sheet C-250, part of the gas line is marked as recreational open space (ROS), and part is marked as natural open space (NOS). Mr. Bankirer asked for clarification. Mr. Bankirer thought the 50 right of way was to be clear, and why would they agree, or not, to use it as a recreational field. Staff replied they are limited to four (4) types of open space, and there is no general common space. Sometimes it is putting a round peg into a square hole, and NVR has committed to putting in a trail in the area and that would make it a better fit for ROS as opposed to NOS where there are no improvements or amenities. Mr. Bankirer noted that the trail is not on the right of way; it is off of the right of way. Staff noted it is right on the 50. JoAnne Miller did not think the gas company would allow it, and staff replied, they do on occasion. Mallie Collavita noted they provided the site plan to P&G as well as specification of the type of trail the material will be and they have approved that. They permit anything as long as there is proper clearance from the grass line to the gas line. Staff noted that the fountain has been removed from the pond(s). Staff noted the developer will provide a greenbelt and all homes will be within one-quarter mile of an urban open space (UOS), and that meets the requirement of the ordinance. Hal Bankirer noted that the land upon which the BMP s sit are being counted as ROC (staff agreed), and thought that it may be a mislabeling since nobody would recreate in the BMP. Jack Simoneau commented they can walk around it, and staff has examples of trails around BMP s. Mr. Sailers asked about the big pond and stated it is marshy now, and asked if it would be graded and cleaned, and JoAnne Miller commented it would not be a good place to play. Rad Hudson with American Structurepoint, Inc., commented those are jurisdictional streams and wetlands and we are not allowed to disturbed them in anyway whether grading or clean up. Mr. Sailers asked staff why it is being counted for anything when you cannot do anything with it, and staff replied, that it is natural open space; land that is there by nature. Jack Simoneau commented there is no better use than to leave it alone. The house lots need to stay off of it. Storm water come off of it and there is vegetation between the back of the houses and the actual water is to be filtrated. This is exactly what staff wants in open space, and gave an example of the pond in Olmstead. Mr. Bankirer noted that it may be the terminology.

5 Staff stated he spoke with two (2) environmentalists from Mecklenburg County who personally walked the site, and there are many sunflowers there, but none of the Schweitzer Sunflowers. There is a stand of the Schweitzer Sunflowers about a half-mile to the northwest of the site. Staff indicated that a bike lane will be installed on the western portion of Asbury Chapel, and a wide outside shoulder will be installed on the northern portion for the bikeway and greenway plan, both of which are reflected in the cross sections of the plan. Hal Bankirer asked by no bike lane on the northern part, and staff indicated that the greenway committee recommended it because of the rural nature in that area. The Trails End Extension will be going to the west and that will be the formal bike lane. This will be more informal for a more rural feel as opposed to an urban feel with a striped bike lane. JoAnne Miller noted she lives out there and has been waiting for someone to be killed because the road are extremely curvy and narrow. Adding a bike lane you might have a chance. You can go over a hill and there are 20 bikes in front of you, and Asbury Chapel Road is listed as a Scenic Bike Route and recommended. It is extremely dangerous. Staff understand and that is why it will be a wide shoulder to help minimize those risks. The bike lane will be the full length of the property with 4 of lane (paved asphalt) with a stripe on the left side but no markings in the lane. Mr. Bankirer noted it is not reflected on sheet 201; it is for the west but not the north side. Staff indicated the very small note on top of the sheet and the cross section. Staff informed the members that the western entrance on Asbury Chapel was revisited with TRC the following the last meeting, and still feels this is the correct alignment for safety. A rough sketch of the vegetation buffer for that area was presented. The applicant and Mr. Poindexter are looking at extending the buffer as close to Asbury Chapel Road as possible at the same time keeping all sight distances clear of trees. Staff and Mr. Poindexter are satisfied with the buffer. Joe Sailers asked about the property owners along the driveway; if they had any concerns, and staff responded that he had not spoken to anyone. Mr. Schotthoefer indicated from the audience that he lives there. Ron Smith asked if the entrance and Mr. Poindexter were sharing a drive way, and staff clarified they are separated. Mr. Smith pointed out that the site plan looks as if they are ending up at the same point. Mr. Collavita stated they have entered into an agreement with Mr. Poindexter to relocate his driveway and resodding the area (existing driveway entrance), and providing about separation between the entrance and Mr. Poindexter s driveway in order to provide better sight distances for both he and his family and the residents in an effort to make sure there are not traffic hazards. Mr. Bankirer asked if that had been documented, and Mr. Collavita said it was in an agreement. The Chairman noted the new information, and asked if there was any issue extending the vegetated buffer down to the line of sight. Mr. Collavita stated they agreed to extend the buffer another 123 and filled in with Leyland Cypress trees, which were recommended by Mr. Poindexter. Mr. Bankirer asked what is being done for the buffer between Mr. Poindexter and the five (5) lots, and staff commented they are meeting the ordinance minimums and will utilize the Leyland Cypress. Mr. Bankirer asked if there had been any discussion about planting over sized vegetation, and staff responded, no. The trees need to be 8 when planted. Mr. Bankirer s thoughts were to make the buffer opaque sooner with taller trees. Staff directed the members to sheet C-900 to see the buffer. Staff noted that they often are asked if they over-plant, and staff feels they are firm but fair. Mr. Bankirer asked if Mr. Poindexter is okay with the vegetation, and staff understood he is happy with the buffer. Mr. Bankirer addressed Mr. Poindexter and noted his earlier comments about screening, and asked if he prefer they do additional screening or if he understood them to do just the requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Poindexter noted that he asked for the Leyland Cypress to be planted and he provided a picture from McCoy Road as an example. The

6 home and road side, from what he saw, provided adequate buffer that he would be happy with. The height, diameter, and/or double line of trees was not discussed, but any additional buffering would be appreciated. Mr. Bankirer noted the evergreen chosen, and Mr. Poindexter confirmed the Leyland Cypress chosen (due to his limited knowledge), and the picture example included pines and some Crepe Myrtles. He did not know the road vegetation, but from his point of view it looked satisfactory. Mr. Poindexter was concerned that the member might think the buffer is not enough, but had already conveyed to Ryan Homes what he was looking for to which they agreed. Mr. Bankirer noted that after planting, for several years, the view will be the back yard of five (5) houses, and Mr. Poindexter noted they will see it from their deck and the bedroom upstairs will have a view of the front of the homes. Mr. Bankirer was concerned with giving Mr. Poindexter as much privacy from the onset; that they have been there for almost three decades and thought consideration should be offered. Mr. Poindexter has been very gracious through the process, and thanked him. Mr. Poindexter noted he was a past Planning Board member, and understood the process, and thought Ryan Homes has gone out of their way to accommodate some of the requests, but he was not a tree or vegetation expert and if the Board feels there should be additional vegetation in the buffer it would be appreciated. Mr. Poindexter also wanted to be clear that he did not ask for additional vegetation, but that may be from his own ignorance. The Chairman asked Mr. Collavita if he was amenable to meeting with staff and Mr. Poindexter to decide what to plant to maximize the opaque buffer, including size, to which Mr. Collavita agreed. The Board member had no objections. Hal Bankirer noted that the movement of the driveway resolves many of issues. Mr. Bankirer asked about the buffering around the Yost property in the middle of the western portion, and staff noted it will have a 20 buffer along the three (3) sides and they will supplement with what is naturally out there. They are not allowed to grade or remove the vegetation there. Mr. Bankirer asked about the markings behind Lots 46-50, and was concerned about the view from Mr. Yost s with the buffer. Staff indicated they are not aware of anything unusual behind those lots. Ron Smith asked if the property owner (Yost) was satisfied with the buffering around his property, and staff commented that staff has not spoken to Mr. Yost. He has been notified of the project, and he has spoken with the applicant, and staff is unaware of any issue from Mr. Yost. Hal Bankirer asked if staff was okay with the USPS clusters and locations, and staff replied, yes. Hal Bankirer commented that the nature trail crosses a perennial stream near Lot 16, and asked how it would cross. Staff responded there would be a footbridge to cross. The footbridge is not on the sketch plan, and staff indicated it will be done at preliminary plan, and permits will be through the Army Corp of Engineers. Joe Sailers commented that in the past the Corps has not allowed any disturbance. Staff responded a footbridge can be spanned in that area. The HOA will need to pay attention to this area for maintenance. Susan Thomas noted the five (5) recommendations that would be later addressed in the plan, and requested staff to clarify the status of numbers 2-5. Devona Allgood with the Engineering Department stated that based on the latest plan they have not been addressed. After this meeting and Town Board they will have to address as part of your approval, if you were to approve. The recommendations are part of the design requirements. Jennifer Davis asked if it has been established where the sewer is going, and staff responded, that comes at preliminary plan. The concept design for storm water is approved through the county, but sewer systems get designed at preliminary plan stage.

7 E. Other Business The Chairman called for questions, and there were none. The Chairman called for a Motion. Stephen Swanick made a Motion to Approve pending the two left turn lanes being completed and all the other recommendations being included. Stephen Swanick withdrew his Motion. Detailed Motion: Motion to approve the plan based on the application being complete; the subdivision sketch plan is consistent with implementation goals H-1, E-1, E-2, E-3, T-5, T-6, T-8, and PF-2 of the 2030 Community Plan, and Eastfield Road Small Area Plan; recommends the 2 block length waivers due to topography and nature at which the creek crossings occur, which includes a 1,645 and 1150 road; the application complies with the Zoning Ordinance and future land use plans upon minor plan corrections, which includes items 1-5, which are, 1) NCDOT has chosen to agree with and require the road improvements suggested by the Town; therefore the developer will be required to construct two (2) exclusive left turn lanes on Asbury Chapel Road and the developer has agreed to the recommendations of the length of the lanes; 2) trees planted along Asbury Chapel Road will need to be 5 from the back of the ditch; 3) internal sight triangles will need to be revised; 4) proposed storm lines may not have more than 50 of pipe under the pavement; and 5) that these items be noted on the sketch plan; including that the easement to the cemetery be documented and included in HOA documentation for who is to cover the maintenance of the easement, and that a fence for the corner of the cemetery property intruding into the subdivision be included in the sketch plan; and that the meeting with Mr. Poindexter to determine vegetation to be planted in the buffer along his property line be agreed upon with the applicant. The Chairman called for discussion of the Motion, and Ron Smith commented again about Mr. Yost s knowledge of the project, and the Chairman responded to his concerns about notifications to the adjoining property owners. Susan Thomas thanked everyone for the detailed and deliberate discussions, and stated there were unique circumstances with this property and all were successfully addressed and would support because of the canopy preservation as well as not impacting the wetlands, and it consistently supports the 2030 Community Plan. Hal Bankirer noted that at the last meeting he commented he would not support if there was not resolution to the driveway issue at Mr. Poindexter s entrance, and was glad to see it now accomplished. NVR has done a lot to address the issues and concerns of the Planning Board. Clearly, there is still a lot of work to be done, particularly in the preliminary stage, but hopeful it will go well. Mr. Bankirer will vote yes for approval. There was no further discussion. 1. Bi-annual Update for the 2030 Implementation Schedule Jack Simoneau, Planning Director, gave the bi-annual update for the 2030 Implementation Schedule. Two (2) new plans were shared; the Northwest Thoroughfare Alignment and the East Huntersville Plan update. Requests for proposals for transportation consultants will be sent out soon, and public input will be part of the process. The Planning Board will be invited and be a part of the thoroughfare planning, and that will be within the next six (6) months. The East Huntersville Plan update is for the 115 corridor near Holbrooks Road and the industrial park (Commerce Station). The current plan suggests that there should be residential in the area, but what is being seen and requested are employment opportunities. The chart will be modified with the timelines and sent to the members electronically. Both plans will probably be completed in the next nine (9) months. The Town Board will look for

8 F. Adjourn Planning Board recommendation before its final action. Approved this day of, Chairman or Vice Chairman Michelle V. Haines, Board Secretary