Loading...
10/02/2001 e CITY OF MONROE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 300 W. Crowell Street, Monroe, NC 28112 October 2, 2001 - 6:30 p.m. AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of September 18,2001 Minutes of Monroe-Union Historic Properties Commission Meeting of September 4, 2001 Minutes of Historic District Commission Meeting of August 13,2001 Minutes of Transportation Committee Meeting of August 9,2001 . 2. Call for Public Hearing To Be Held October 16,2001 A. Local Law Enforcement Block Grant B. Project # 01-100-00014 - Conditional Use Permit Request - New Walter Bickett Elementary School- Lancaster Avenue between Kingswood and Oak Hill Drive - 24.89 Acres - Union County Public Schools - Tax ID # 09-279-043 & 044 3. Notification of Award of Chemical Bids 4. Ordinances A. To Amend Traffic Schedules - Speed Limits B. To Amend Parking Schedules e 5. Summary of Contracts Awarded Pursuant to 0-2001-17 and Change Orders Executed Pursuant to R-2000-76 REGULAR AGENDA 6. Public Hearings Level V Economic Development Grant - Confidential Company Project # 01-100-00011 - Conditional Use Permit Request - Accessory Structure With a Home Occupation - 936 Secrest Hill Drive - .923 acres - James Marlow - Tax ID# 09-216-014 (Continued from September 4,2001) Project # 02-130-00002 - Zoning Map Change Request - G-I (General Industrial) to B-4 (General Business) - 113 Winchester Avenue - 0.22 acres - Ross Montgomery - Tax Parcel # 09-229-018 Project # 02-130-00003 - Zoning Map Change Request - B-3 (Highway Business), R-8 (High Density Residential) and R-Pl (Planned Multi-Family Residential) to B-3-SU (Highway Business Special Use) - Corner of LaSalle Street and West Roosevelt Boulevard - 1.465 acres - Henry B. Smith, Jr. on behalf of the Monroe Eight - Tax Parcel # 09-189-209 E. Project # 02-110-00002 - Special Use Permit Request - Request to construct a 5000 square foot commercial building - Corner of LaSalle Street and West Roosevelt Boulevard - 1.465 acres - Monroe Eight - Tax Parcel # 09-189-209 F. Project # 01-130-00010 - Zoning Map Change Request - R-40 (Low Density Single-Family Residential) to R-20-SU (LowlModerate Density Residential Special Use) - Secrest Short Cut Road - 48.49 acres - Walt Perry Realty, Inc. on behalf of Robert M. Powell, Arthnr K. Cates, J.W. Burchfield, and Tommy L. Broome - Tax Parcel #'s 09-256-165 and 09-265-167 A. B. e C. D. e 1 e e e e e G. Project # 01-110-00006 - Special Use Permit Request - Request to develop a 70-1ot residential cluster subdivision - Secrest Short Cut Road - 48.49 acres - Walt Perry Realty, Inc. on behalf of Robert M. Powell, Arthur K. Cates, J.W. Burchfield, and Tommy L. Broome - Tax Parcel #'s 09-256-165 and 09-256-167 H. Project # 02-110-00001 - Special Use Permit Request - Request to develop a 19.38 acre business park (Morgan Mills Business Park) consisting of two (2) multi-tenant office/retail buildings totaling 50,400 square feet and office/warehouse buildings totaling approximately 94,500 square feet on Morgan Mill Road south of Bearskin Creek - Craft Builders, Inc. - Tax Parcel # 09-185-004 7. Action from Public Hearings A. Level V Economic Development Grant - Confidential Company - Proposed Capital Project Budget Ordinance B. Resolution to Award - Level V Economic Development Grant C. Project # 01-100-00011 - Proposed Conditional Use Permit Request - Accessory Structure With a Home Occupation - 936 Secrest Hill Drive - .923 acres - James Marlow - Tax ID# 09- 216-014 (Continuedfrom September 4,2001) D. Project # 02-130-00002 - Zoning Map Change Request - G-I (General Industrial) to B-4 (General Business) - 113 Winchester Avenue - 0.22 acres - Ross Montgomery - Tax Parcel # 09-229-018 E. Project # 02-130-00003 - Zoning Map Change Request - B-3 (Highway Business), R-8 (High Density Residential) and R-Pl (Planned Multi-Family Residential) to B-3-SU (Highway Business Special Use) - Corner of LaSalle Street and West Roosevelt Boulevard - 1.465 acres - Henry B. Smith, Jr. on behalf of the Monroe Eight - Tax Parcel # 09-189-209 F. Project # 02-110-00002 - Special Use Permit Request - Request to construct a 5000 square foot commercial building - Corner of LaSalle Street and West Roosevelt Boulevard - 1.465 acres - Monroe Eight - Tax Parcel # 09-189-209 G. Project # 01-130-00010 - Zoning Map Change Request - R-40 (Low Density Single-Family Residential) to R-20-SU (Low/Moderate Density Residential Special Use) - Secrest Short Cut Road - 48.49 acres - Walt Perry Realty, Inc. on behalf of Robert M. Powell, Arthur K. Cates, J.W. Burchfield, and Tornrny L. Broome - Tax Parcel #'s 09-256-165 and 09-265-167 H. Project # 01-110-00006 - Proposed Special Use Permit Request - Request to develop a 70-1ot residential cluster subdivision - Secrest Short Cut Road - 48.49 acres - Walt Perry Realty, Inc. on behalf of Robert M. Powell, Arthur K. Cates, J.W. Burchfield, and Tommy L. Broome - Tax Parcel #'s 09-256-165 and 09-256-167 I. Project # 02-110-00001 - Special Use Permit Request - Request to develop a 19.38 acre business park (Morgan Mills Business Park) consisting of two (2) multi-tenant office/retail buildings totaling 50,400 square feet and office/warehouse buildings totaling approximately 94,500 square feet on Morgan Mill Road south of Bearskin Creek - Craft Builders, Inc. - Tax Parcel # 09-185-004 8. An Ordinance to Amend Title III, Chapter 33: Personnel Policies 9. Other Business A. New Century Scholars Program B. Location of Soccer Field 10. Closed Session - Land Acquisition 10-02-01 2 e e e e e CITY OF MONROE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 2, 2001 - 6:30 p.m. MINUTES The City Council of the City of Monroe, North Carolina, met in Regular Session in the City Hall Council Chambers, 300 W. Crowell Street, Monroe, North Carolina, at 6:30 p.m. on October 2, 2001, with Mayor Judy L. Davis presiding. Present: Mayor Judy L. Davis, Mayor Pro Tern P. E. Bazemore, Council Members Phil Hargett, Billy A. Jordan, Bobby G. Kilgore, Robert J. Smith, City Manager S. Douglas Spell, City Attorney John Milliken, and City Clerk Jeanne M. Deese. Absent: Council Member Lynn Keziah Visitors: Jatana Marlow, Sadie Helms, Bill Reule, Sf., Dan Johnson, Robert Montgomery, La Vondra Edwards, Jake Helder, John McDow, Lauren McDow, Marshall Jennette, Jean Burgess, John Freeman, Vivian Price, Jane Beamer, Terry Banner, Frank Banzhof, Lewis Floyd, Jess Perry, Jim Hutchins, Fred Gore, Glen Edwards, Danny Hilton, Rodney Secrest, Bryan Secrest, Patrick Secrest, Marie Lathan, Randy Lathan, April Burgess, Marty Stancill, P. E. Gregory, Mike Keziah, Henry Smith, Jim Loyd, Bengie Mullis, Larry Helms, Steve McCorkle, Rick Haslett, Holly Haslett, Geo Cathey, Mark Donham, Joe Fielding, Joan Fielding, Cheryl Brown, and others. Mayor Davis called the Regular City Council Meeting of October 2, 2001 to order at 6:30 p.m. A quorum was present. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Davis reviewed the Consent Agenda and asked if any member of the Councilor the public would like to have any items moved from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda for discussion. Written background information was provided in advance in the Council Agenda Packets for each item on the Consent Agenda. No further discussion was held. One motion and vote was taken, which included approval of all items on the Consent Agenda. Item No. 1. Minutes of Re~ular City Council Meetin~ of September 18, 2001. Council Member Hargett moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of September 18, 2001. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: 3 e e e e e AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: Minutes of the Monroe-Union Historic Properties Commission Meeting of September 4, 2001, Minutes of the Historic District Commission Meeting of August 13, 2001, and Minutes of the Transportation Committee Meeting of August 9, 2001 were received as information of Council. Item No.2. Call for Public Hearing To Be Held October 16, 2001. A. Local Law Enforcement Block Grant. Council Member Hargett moved to call for a public hearing to be held October 16, 2001 at 6:30 p.m. to consider the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: B. Project # 01-100-00014 - Conditional Use Permit Request - New Walter Bickett Elementary School - Lancaster Avenue between Kingswood and Oak Hill Drive - 24.89 Acres - Union County Public Schools - Tax ID # 09-279-043 & 044. Council Member Hargett moved to call for a public hearing to be held on October 16, 2001 at 6:30 p.m. to consider this request. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: Item No.3. Notification of Award of Chemical Bids. Administrative Services Manager Keziah informed City Council by memorandum of the award of chemical bids pursuant to City of Monroe Ordinance 0-1999-11. On August 23, 2001, staff received bids for various chemicals for the treatment plants operated by the Water Resources Department. Staff in the Water Resources Department reviewed and tested the chemicals for which bids were received. The bids higWighted on the Chemical Bid Spreadsheet were found to meet the needs of the systems. The Zinc Ortho Polyphosphate was not awarded to the lowest bidder, unlike the other chemicals, due to overall efficiency of the product offered by Sweetwater and its field test results. The chemicals were bid on a three year renewable yearly contract. The City reserved the right to determine any anticipated increases by way of quotes received every April. If the anticipated increases are not within industry standards, the chemical(s) in question will be re-bid at that time. Sufficient funds have been budgeted for these items. 4 e e e e e Council Member Hargett moved to award the bids as follows: Chemical Company Bid Per # Liquid Chlorine lA Jones Chemical 0.152 Liquid Chlorine 1B Jones Chemical 0.3 Zinc Ortho Polyphosphate Sweetwater Technologies 0.705 Sodium Fluorosilicate V oPak USA 0.28 Potassium Permanganate VoPak USA 1.436 Liquid Caustic Jones Chemical 0.1515 Liquid Alum Kemiron Atlantic 0.0757 Dry Anionic Polvmer Polydyne, Inc. 1.09 Powered Activated Carbon VoPak USA 0.485 Magnesium Hydroxide Martin Merietta Magnesia Specialties, Inc. 0.132 Copper Sulfate V oPak USA 0.554 Anhydrous Ammonia LaRoche Industries 0.265 Sulfur Dioxide Jones Chemical 0.379 Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: Item No.4. Ordinances. A. To Amend Traffic Schedules - Speed Limits. Engineering Director Loyd advised by memorandum that on September 13, 2001, a number of petitions for speed humps were reviewed by the Transportation Committee. In lieu of approving speed humps on Pedro Street, Stevens Street, and Sunnybrook Drive, the Committee voted to post each roadway at 25 mph for the following reasons: (a) Pedro Street - The Engineering Report identified Pedro Street as a primary emergency vehicle route. The Police Department and Fire Department recommended against the traffic devices since the roadway is used frequently by emergency vehicles. The roadway is posted 35 mph with an average speed of 28 mph and 85th percentile of 32.93 miles. The policy also requires signatures from at least 75 percent of the affected residents/businesses and only 54 percent were obtained. (b) Stevens Street - The Engineering Department recommended against the installation of speed humps due to the 85th percentile speed of 30.69 mph and an average speed of 26 mph. The roadway is not posted 25 mph. (c) Sunnybrook Drive - The Engineering Department recommended against the installation of speed humps on Sunnybrook Drive since the average daily traffic was 58 vehicles and average speed was 25 mph. A number of residents were present at the meeting and spoke against the installation of speed humps. Staff recommended that Council approve an Ordinance to reduce the speed limit on Pedro Street, Stevens Street and Sunnybrook Drive from 35 mph to 25 mph. Council Member Hargett moved to adopt Ordinance 0-2001-41: 5 e e e e e AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE VII, CHAPTER 75 OF THE CITY OF MONROE CODE OF ORDINANCES 0-2001-41 BE IT ORDAINED by the City of Monroe Council that Title VII: Traffic Code, Chapter 75 - Traffic Schedules, of the City of Monroe Code of Ordinances be amended as follows: Schedule I. (B) Speed Limits - City Maintained Streets ADD: STREET NAME DESCRIPTION SPEED LIMIT Pedro Street Entire Length 25 MPH Stevens Street Entire Length 25 MPH Sunnybrook Drive Entire Length 25 MPH Adopted this 2nd day of October, 2001. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: B. To Amend Parkin2 Schedules. Engineering Director Loyd reported by memorandum that the Engineering Department received a request from Ms. Betty Jean Liles on behalf of her neighbors to post Old NC 20 to "No Parking." The area is not well traveled, and couples and young adults tend to park there for extended periods during the day and night. Ms. Liles has discussed this matter with various patrol officers. The officers have indicated that their response is limited unless the area is posted. In discussions with Police Chief Bobby Haulk, he was not aware of the concern, but he did agree that his officers would be limited if the area was not posted to "No Parking." Staff contacted Attorney Bobby Griffin, who lives adjacent to Old NC 20, and he confirmed the problem with individuals parking in the area. This is simply an abandoned section of an old highway that serves as a connector between Leewood Estates, subdivision streets of Leewood Drive and Club Drive. There are no residences fronting this section and no reason for parked vehicles. The street is only 16-feet wide and would not support parked traffic. Staff recommended that City Council adopt an Ordinance prohibiting parking on both sides of Old NC 20. Council Member Hargett moved to adopt Ordinance 0-2001-43: 6 e e e AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE VII, CHAPTER 76 OF THE CITY OF MONROE CODE OF ORDINANCES 0-2001-43 BE IT ORDAINED by the City of Monroe Council that Title VII: Traffic Code, Chapter 76 - Parking Schedules, of the City of Monroe Code of Ordinances be amended to add as follows: SCHEDULE I. Parking Prohibited At All Times STREET Old NC 20 Leewood Drive FROM 178 South of Club Drive Adopted this 2nd day of October, 2001. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: Item No.5. Summary of Contracts Awarded Pursuant to 0-2001-17 and Chan2e Orders Executed Pursuant to R-2000-76. City Manager Spell informed City Council by memorandum of the award of contracts pursuant to Ordinance 0-2001-17: Date Name Purpose Amount 9-21-01 RCS Communications Service Agreement for 116 Pager Units $12,528 Group @ $9.00 Per Month Annually * Approved by Department Director No Change Orders have been approved recently under authority of R-2000-76. Summary of contracts and change orders were received as information of Council only, and no action was e required. REGULAR AGENDA e Item No.6. Public Hearin2s. A. Level V Economic Development Grant - Confidential Company. Mayor Davis opened this duly advertised public hearing. Economic Development Director Platé presented Schrader-Bridgeport's request for a Level V Economic Development Incentive Grant for a capital investment to exceed $20,000,000. Economic Development Director Platé advised that Schrader-Bridgeport plans to expand their facility located on Airport Road in Monroe, North Carolina. The project consists of building renovations, purchases of new machinery and equipment, and the creation of at least 50 additional jobs. The total capital investment of the 7 e e e e e project in new taxable building, machinery and equipment will be approximately $26,000,000. Staff has been meeting with representatives from Schrader-Bridgeport throughout this past year. They have been an existing industry in Monroe since 1977, and they currently employ approximately 140 people. In an effort to continue an environment that is highly pro-business, the City extends to the existing industries, such as Schrader-Bridgeport, even greater advantages under the Economic Development Incentive Grant Program. Economic Development Director Platé noted that staff is very excited about their decision to continue their capital investment in the City of Monroe. Based on a capital investment of approximately $26,000,000, the City can offer a Level V Economic Development Incentive Grant totaling $520,000 over the next five (5) years. This investment will create $650,000 of ad valorem taxes over the same period. Economic Development Director Platé reported the following findings with respect to this application: 1. All capital investment, building and equipment, are located currently in the City of Monroe's Corporate Limits. 2. The applicant is the principle employer of persons with respect to the grant application. 3. The applicant is a manufacturing operation that will exceed the Level V minimum investment threshold of $20,000,000 in taxable building, machinery, and equipment. The planned investment is approximately $26,000,000. As required by the grant program, the tax revenue will be greater than the incentive grant. 4. No other grant from the program has been awarded to the applicant for this project. 5. The applicant will create at least 10 jobs. 6. The applicant will apply for all appropriate environmental and building permits. 7. The City Attorney has reviewed all legal documents to date. 8. The applicant has submitted its request in writing to the City Manager. 9. The Monroe Economic Development Commission unanimously recommended in favor of the grant. Based on the documents in the file, Economic Development Director Platé concluded that Schrader-Bridgeport qualifies for a Level V Grant under the program. The economic benefits to the City are in the form of increased employment and industrial tax base. The Grant application should be approved subject to compliance with the Program and subject to appropriation. Mr. Frank Banzhof, Engineering Manager, and Mr. Lewis Floyd, Human Resource Manager, represented Schrader-Bridgeport to address any questions of Council regarding the project. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore expressed Council's excitement for Schrader-Bridgeport's project. Mr. Banzhof reported that the grant is for an expansion in capacity. Currently, the product is manufactured in their Belfast, Northern Ireland location. Mr. Banzhof further noted that, based on the Ford-Firestone situation, there has been a law passed called the Tire Recall and Enforcement Accountability Documentation Act (TREADA). Tacked onto the back of this Act is a requirement that all cars manufactured and sold in the United States by November, 2003 will have a live tire pressure monitoring system, which will notify the driver of significantly 8 e e e e e deflated tires. This would be phased in over a period of five years. Mr. Banzhof advised that Schrader-Bridgeport is currently the world leader in this technology. The manufacturing in Monroe will be high-tech electronics, as well as other assembly jobs, and it will service their North American customer base. Mr. Banzhof noted that Schrader-Bridgeport has recently been awarded the contract for all Ford Sport Utility Vehicles. Mr. Banzhof concluded by expressing his appreciation to Economic Development Director Platé and to staff, especially for their collaborative efforts with their European management during the Grant process. There being no other speakers, either for or against the proposal, Mayor Davis closed this public hearing. B. Project # 01-100-00011 - Conditional Use Permit Request - Accessory Structure With a Home Occupation - 936 Secrest Hill Drive - .923 acres - James Marlow - Tax ID# 09- 216-014. Mayor Davis opened this duly advertised quasi-judicial public hearing continued from September 4, 2001, and swore in the following individuals who planned to give testimony and who were not sworn in on September 4, 2001: Jake Helder, Matt Andrews, and Sadie Helms. Planning Director Herron advised Council that this was a continued public hearing for Mr. James Marlow's Conditional Use Permit request from the September 4, 2001 City Council Meeting. Planning Director Herron reported that he has met with Mr. Marlow since the September 4, 2001 City Council Meeting to discuss the following issues: (1) The number of employees that report to his house; and (2) The employees parking in, near, or around the neighborhood. Planning Director Herron noted that Ms. Marlow would present additional testimony regarding these issues. Planning Director Herron advised Council that their Agenda Packets included additional information as requested at the September 4, 2001 City Council Meeting. Planning Director Herron referenced a memorandum to City Manager Spell from Frank Neal, Zoning Enforcement Officer, which outlined when the property was in the ETJ. According to staff's records, the property was in the ETJ as early as the 1982 zoning map. In addition, a copy of the deed restrictions was also included in the Agenda Packets. Attorney Jake Helder, representing the Marlows, addressed Council. Attorney Helder advised Council that one of his concerns at the public hearing was to give other citizens who have an interest in the hearing an opportunity to speak. Attorney Helder stated that Ms. Sadie Helms is the primary citizen who needs to have an opportunity to speak, as she is the adjacent property owner not living within the subdivision, but directly across from it. Mr. Matt Andrews is another adjoining property owner. Attorney Helder advised that Council heard evidence at the last meeting, some of it appropriate and some of it not. Attorney Helder expressed his hope that Mr. Ray Black could have been present at the public hearing to speak in person, however, he was unable to attend. Attorney Helder provided Council with an additional report from Mr. Black. 9 e e e e e Attorney Helder stated, "The first thing I would like to do is let Ms. Marlow make some comments that she was unable to make at the last meeting, and then give Ms. Helms and Mr. Andrews an opportunity to speak. " Jatana Marlow spoke in favor of the request. Ms. Marlow reported, "Since the last hearing, I have met with Mr. Herron as you said, and one of the issues brought up at the last hearing was that there was a misunderstanding regarding the number of employees who were coming to the residence, and that was making us be out of compliance. Since then, we have resolved that issue, and there is now one employee, other than my husband, that comes to the residence. The cars that were parked at Ms. Sadie's house, because that was an issue of distracting from the character of the neighborhood, have been moved from Ms. Sadie's house. They are no longer parking there. What they do now is one employee reports to our house. He and my husband load the vans and then get in the vans, leave the property, go pick up the other guys off-site, and they go to the job site. That issue has been resolved, I think, to both our satisfaction. The other issue for being out of compliance was the need for the Conditional Use Permit to store the materials in the building, which is what we are here to address tonight. On the four findings of fact, the Planning Board did pass the motion to issue the Conditional Use Permit. Again, on the four findings of fact, the first one that states that the use of the building does not materially endanger the public health and safety. I have spoken with the Fire Chief, Ron Fowler, and there are no hazardous materials or chemicals that are stored within the building that are in regard to the business. The materials that are being stored there consist of bundles of wire that are about 12-inches round, plastic switch plates for light switches and outlet covers, breakers that are in the panel box, and saw service poles, which are made out of 4 x 4 posts, that have an empty meter can box on them, so it is just the pole and meter can box. If the building, for whatever reason, were to catch on fire, there would be no reason to think that there would be any kind of gases or emissions that would emit from the building, other than what would if my house caught on fire because there is nothing in the building that is not in my house after it is constructed. The business itself being located there, the home occupation being located there, and our use of the building in no way inhibits fire, police, or ambulance service from entering the neighborhood or being able to service. I think the public health and safety issue has been met. " Ms. Marlow further reported, "The second issue was that the use meets the required conditions and specifications. The building is currently being used to store mostly our personal belongings. We didn't build the building specifically to use with the business. It is a very large building. We have a truck that was my grandfather's that was restored that we didn't want to leave parked outside. Our lawn mower is in there and all the attachments to the lawn mower. We have a tractor that we also have accessories for that are in there. I have a generator, pressure washer, all my yard tools; most of the stuff in the building is for our personal use and our lawn equipment. Again, what we are talking about is maybe a 10 x 10 or 10 x 12 section where the wire and all the business material would be stored. For the specifications, it wasn't built specifically to use in the home occupation. We are just trying to get a permit to use it in conjunction so that I don't have to store that material in my attached garage to be in compliance." 10 e e e e e Ms. Marlow stated, "The other issue was that the business itself would not injure the value of the adjoining property. Attorney Helder gave you a letter from Ray Black, who is a certified appraiser with Black Appraisal Company, that states that the business itself does not depreciate the adjoining property values. At the beginning of this whole process in October of last year when we went before the Board of Adjustments, we had to submit names and addresses of our six adjoining neighbors. Five of the six adjoining neighbors supported the home occupation being there, the use of the building in conjunction with the home occupation, and they actually supported the cars being parked in our driveway, which I know is not an issue now. There are letters on file from those, and some of those people are here tonight to speak." Ms. Marlow reported, "The fourth issue was that the residential character be in harmony with what else is going on. Again, five of the six adjoining neighbors did not have a problem with the business being there. They did not feel the residential character was called into play. I have pictures, if you would be willing to look at these." Ms. Marlow distributed pictures to Council for review. Ms. Marlow stated, "Some of these pictures are of my property. I don't think I am interfering with the residential character of the neighborhood. The issue, I think, that kept coming up was the multiple number of cars. The pictures show that every house in the neighborhood has two to three cars parked in their driveways. Some houses have cars parked out on the street. The cars have been moved from our driveway, so there is currently two cars parked in my driveway, just as there is in the rest of the neighborhood. There are no cars that park on the street or delivery trucks that are parking on the street. I do have delivery trucks that come in, but my house is the first driveway on the street. So they immediately turn into my driveway, and they turn back out. They are not in and out of the neighborhood; they are in and out of my driveway. Besides living on Secrest Hill Drive, which is the one street into my subdivision, I also live on Secrest Short Cut Road, and within half a mile either way of my house, there are multiple businesses. There is Green's Nursery, Church of the Nazarene, and Covenant Baptist Church. The house beside Ms. Sadie, who is directly behind me, has a construction business in his home where he has tractor-trailers parked that he actually works out of. His employees park in his driveway. There's Comer's Auto Sales, there's a home occupation for refrigerator repair where his back yard is full of refrigerators and washer and dryer parts, and there's New Life Church of God. So the character of the area and the adjoining property is not being compromised. In fact, if you look at the other businesses there, I would venture to say you would not even realize we were a home occupation because we don't have the comings and goings that they do. Again, when we went before the Planning Board, Mr. Freddie Gordon made the statement that he had been by our house on several occasions, and it was very nice and well kept and we are to be complimented on this." Ms. Marlow continued reading from the Planning Board's Minutes and stated that Mr. Gordon is on record as saying that he did not see Mr. Marlow's property to be distracting, and he noticed that the cars were parked in Ms. Sadie Helms' yard, and he assumed that she had given him that right. Ms. Marlow reiterated, "The members of the Planning Board had been out there personally to see the property, and they did not think it was detracting from the character of the neighborhood." 11 e e e e e Ms. Marlow reported, "Some of the issues that were brought up last time that I just want to address quickly were that large trucks were entering the neighborhood, and therefore they were compromising the safety of the children in the neighborhood. That is not a true statement. The trucks that come into our neighborhood are not as big as a UPS truck, and I am the first house so they pull into my driveway, they unload their stuff into the building, and they pull right back out. I have two small children, a two-year-old and a four-year-old. Besides owning the company, I am a mother first, and I would in no way endanger the safety of my children nor anyone else's. The issue was brought up that the trucks park on the street and block the street from the school bus coming in. None of our delivery trucks ever park on the street. That does not happen. Mr. Stancill specifically brought up the complaint about the safety of the children and the residential atmosphere being maintained. Again, I have gone over that. I think the residential atmosphere is very well maintained, and five of the six adjoining neighbors submitted letters and are here to testify that the residential character is in tact. To close, I really do think all this has come about from a personal conflict of some kind between us and the next door neighbor. I don't know what initiated it, and I'm not going to get into that. My concern is that, hopefully with the issuance of the permit, we can get things back to normal and everybody can live and let live. I addressed this concern with Mr. Herron. The people who work for me, besides being my employees, are also all my family members. I have two brother-in-Iaws, two cousins, and two guys that we are very good friends with that we go to church with. Those people and those vehicles are in and out of my yard a lot anyway, not pertaining to my business. On several occasions, I go pick their children up from school if they are sick and bring them to my house. A lot of times, they come to my house to pick their children up or I go get them to come play with my children. So they are there to pick their children up. When we have cook-outs, those are the people that are at my cook- outs, birthday parties, family activities, or church activities." Ms. Marlow further stated, "We are currently building a children's church at our church, and my husband is supplying a lot of the materials and labor for that, so they are coming to my house to get some stuff. Again, this is not associated with my business to take the supplies to build the children's church. Every Friday morning for the past, I don't know how long we've been doing it, we feed them all breakfast-not as employees. My concern is, just because these people are coming and going from my house, there is going to be multiple complaints, either to zoning or Council, or whomever complaints must be filed with. I am hoping that the issuance of the permit is going to resolve that issue. I am telling you we are in compliance, and we are doing everything to stay in compliance. That does not mean these people will not be showing up at my house at various times, but again, Mr. Stancill has videoed over the privacy fence to monitor what is going on my personal property. I'm just concerned that that part might continue and that false complaints may be filed. I want to get back to live and let live, and let's all just be neighbors and get along." Attorney Helder asked questions of Ms. Marlow. In response to Attorney Helder's question regarding the number of deliveries received at their residence in one week, Ms. Marlow replied, "It varies. We may have two per week and we may go two'weeks without any. It just varies depending on how busy the workload is. We try to maintain an abundant amount of 12 e e e e e stock so that I'm not having to have multiple deliveries, but again we might have two to three per week. If we do, then there might be two weeks when we do not have any come at all." In response to Attorney Helder's question regarding the length of time a delivery truck stays at their residence, Ms. Marlow responded, "About five or ten minutes, just long enough to unload and leave. " City Attorney Milliken inquired whether there were any other storage facilities, in addition to their house. Ms. Marlow replied, "That is the sole storage facility." City Attorney Milliken questioned, "So in effect you are storing equipment for a business that, in total, has about six or seven employees?" Ms. Marlow replied, "Yes. Let me make sure I understand your question. You are asking me if there is anywhere else on my property that I could store the material?" City Attorney Milliken stated, "No, I'm just asking you what you store at your house. Do you store any materials for this business anywhere else other than your house?" Ms. Marlow responded, "Yes, four of my employees report to work at my father's house and a lot of the material is stored at his house. We are currently constructing a building, well I won't say constructing, we have poured the footings for it. So we are in the process of possibly constructing another building there. What we are hoping to do is eventually move the business to his house because he has four acres, so he has more room to accommodate everybody. I don't have a timeline on that, which was brought up last time. With what happened a couple weeks ago, we are waiting to see what the economy is going to do and how it is going to affect the building industry. The people at my father's house also have supplies there that they load on their one work van. " Attorney Helder called Ms. Sadie Helms to speak. Attorney Helder asked Ms. Helms to comment on where she lives and her involvement with the Marlows. Ms. Helms stated, "I live next door to them (Marlows) and we have been friends ever since they have been there, of course, we have been there a long time. My sons were so thrilled that the trucks were parking there because that was security to me, and they were so disappointed when they were taken away last week. " Attorney Helder asked Ms. Helms to describe the area where she lives. Ms. Helms responded that she lives on Secrest Short Cut Road. Attorney Helder asked her what was nearby that area in regards to business, churches, and other such things. Ms. Helms replied, "We have Green's Nursery and a couple below us, two churches, now there are three churches- Covenant Baptist Church, the Nazarene Church, and Church of God. There are used car lots. " Attorney Helder asked Ms. Helms if she sees the delivery trucks that occasionally come to the Marlows' residence. Ms. Helms responded, "Not often, because they don't come that often. They maybe come once a week or every other week." Attorney Helder further asked if Ms. Helms had ever noticed any vehicles blocking the road. Ms. Helms replied, "No sir. They pull in their drive and put whatever they have to deliver and back out and take off." Attorney Helder asked if Ms. Helms had an opinion as to whether or not the Marlows' property and the 13 e e e e e use that they are currently making of that property had any adverse effect on the property value. Ms. Helms responded, "No sir." Attorney Helder confirmed with Ms. Helms that she was one of the adjoining property owners. Attorney Helder continued questioning Ms. Helms by asking if the Marlows' use of their property was in general harmony with the property around them, not just in the subdivision. Ms. Helms replied, "Yes sir, with everything around there." City Attorney Milliken asked Ms. Helms if she lived in the subdivision that the Marlows reside. Ms. Helms stated that she does not live in the subdivision, but rather beside the subdivision in which the Marlows reside. Attorney Helder called Mr. Matthew Andrews to speak. Mr. Andrews stated that he is the resident who lives directly in front of Scooter and Jatana's property. Attorney Helder asked Mr. Andrews if he had any problems with the business being located there. Mr. Andrews responded, "No, it has been there ever since my family has lived there." Attorney Helder asked how long his family had lived there. Mr. Andrews replied, "About five or six years. When we first got there, Scooter and Jatana actually approached us and told us that they had a business, just to make sure that we would not have a problem with it." Attorney Helder asked if the Marlows basically asked permission beforehand. Mr. Andrews responded, "I think we purchased the property, and then within a couple of days, they let us know. " Attorney Helder asked Mr. Andrews if he ever noticed any delivery trucks or any other vehicles that would pose a problem for fire or emergency vehicles to be able to get in or out of there. Mr. Andrews replied, "No sir. Actually, 1 was out of work for awhile, and when 1 was there, 1 only saw possibly a couple of trucks in the two months or so 1 was out of work. The delivery trucks that were there backed into there, and they were UPS-type trucks. They were all small trucks and just parked there on their own property next to the garage." Attorney Helder asked if Mr. Andrews had noticed any outside storage or unsightly material that would pose a problem or be unsightly. Mr. Andrews replied, "No, they constructed a large-size garage to take care of anything that was outside previously, and my tax value on the house went up about $20,000, if not more, since they have been living there. I've only had the house myself for about three years." Attorney Helder asked if Mr. Andrews felt the use that the Marlows were making of their property adversely impacted either his or anyone else's property value in the neighborhood. Mr. Andrews responded, "No, otherwise my taxes would have went down, not up." Attorney Helder further questioned if the use of the property was more or less in general harmony with what is going on in that area along Secrest Short Cut Road. Mr. Andrews replied, "Yes, it is in harmony. As a matter of fact, there is a used car dealership in which people have to park pretty much on the side of the road on Secrest Short Cut, and with the amount of churches on Sunday, there is more obstruction with the churches getting out of their services than with their business. They have no obstruction at all." There being no other speakers, either for or against the proposal, Mayor Davis closed this public hearing. 14 e e e e e C. Project # 02-130-00002 - Zonin2 Map Chan2e Request - G-I (General Industrial) to B-4 (General Business) - 113 Winchester Avenue - 0.22 acres - Ross Mont2omery - Tax Parcel # 09-229-018. Mayor Davis opened this duly advertised public hearing. Planning Director Herron addressed Council with the pertinent facts regarding this zoning map change request. Planning Director Herron advised that this is a rezoning request from G-I (General Industrial) to B-4 (General Business District). The name of the petitioner is Mr. Ross Montgomery, and the location of this property is at 113 Winchester A venue. The Tax ID Number is 09-229-018, and the acreage is .225 acres. The property is located adjacent to property that is currently zoned B-4, General Business, at the intersection of Winchester Avenue and Skyway Drive. A small brick building is located on the .225-acre parcel. Due to the size of the parcel, most general industrial uses would not be able to locate and operate at this location. The property would have more appropriate uses available with the B-4 zoning, which is located immediately adjacent to the property. Staff recommended approval of this request, and Planning Director Herron noted that the Planning Board also reviewed this request and recommended approval. There being no other speakers, either for or against the proposal, Mayor Davis closed this public hearing. D. Project # 02-130-00003 - Zonin2 Map Chan2e Request - B-3 (Hi2hway Business), R-8 (Hi2h Density Residential) and R-Pl (planned Multi-Family Residential) to B-3-SU (Hi2hway Business Special Use) - Corner of LaSalle Street and West Roosevelt Boulevard - 1.465 acres - Henry B. Smith, Jr. on behalf of the Monroe Ei2ht - Tax Parcel # 09-189- 209. Mayor Davis opened Items D and E as one public hearing. The public hearings were held together and action was taken separately. E. Project # 02-110-00002 - Special Use Permit Request - Request to construct a 5000 square foot commercial buildin2 - Corner of LaSalle Street and West Roosevelt Boulevard - 1.465 acres - Monroe Ei2ht - Tax Parcel # 09-189-209. Mayor Davis opened this duly advertised quasi-judicial public hearing and swore in the following individuals who planned to give testimony: Attorney Henry B. Smith and Wayne Herron. Planning Director Herron advised that Item D of this hearing was for a rezoning request from R-Pl (Planned Multi-Family Residential District), R-8 (High Density Single-Family Residential District) and B-3 (Highway Business District) to B-3-SU (Highway Business Special Use). The names of the petitioners are Henry B. Smith, Ir., Esq., legal representative of Monroe Eight. Monroe Eight consists of the following partners: Charles R. Auten, Robert F. Barr, Richard H. Frazier, Clyde M. Graham, Ir., Melvin T. Graham, Lars Gren, Richard T. Meek and William H. Reule. The location of the property is at LaSalle Street at Roosevelt Boulevard. The Tax ID Number is 09-189-209, and the property is a 1.444-acre tract. Planning Director Herron reported that the property requested for rezoning is a portion of a single lot owned by the petitioners. The lot is currently split between the B-3, R-8, and R-Pl 15 e e e e e districts. The portions of the lot zoned R-8 and R-Pl were rezoned from R-8A and R-8 to B-2 (Highway Business) in March of 1987. At that time, the entire lot was zoned B-2, Highway Business. On November 17, 1987, the City adopted a new zoning map. All property zoned B-2 was rezoned to B-3 (the current designation for Highway Business) and all property zoned R-8A was rezoned to R-Pl to reflect changes made in the Zoning Ordinance. The entire lot owned by the petitioner was not included in the new B-3 district on the map, as it likely should have been. Instead, the adopted map showed the property again divided between the B-3, R-8, and R-Pl districts. There was no information in City files to indicate an intention by staff or City Council to once again split the lot between the zoning districts as it existed prior to the owners' petition in March of that year. This change went unnoticed by City staff. Planning Director Herron further advised that a digital version of the "Official Zoning Map" was adopted by City Council on March 7, 2000. The petitioner's property remained as B-3, R-8, and R-Pl. Staff working for the City at this time had no knowledge of the March, 1987 petition, and the owners of the property did not question the zoning. The applicant brought the zoning issue to the City's attention in May of this year when the zoning was investigated as part of an appraisal commissioned by the owners to facilitate the sale of the property. Fourteen years have elapsed and two comprehensive map amendments have occurred since the March, 1987 petition. Staff determined that, despite the fact that it appears a mistake was made by City Council and staff in November of 1987 during the comprehensive map amendment, too much time had elapsed for the zoning to be changed administratively. The petitioner was therefore informed that a new rezoning petition would need to be filed in order to change the zoning. Planning Director Herron stated that staff recommended approval of the zoning map amendment to B-3-SU, and the Planning Board also reviewed the request and recommended approval. Planning Director Herron advised that Item E of this hearing was a request for a Special Use Permit in conjunction with the B-3-SU rezoning to construct a 5000-square foot building on the property. Planning Director Herron reported that the relevant Land Development Plan elements were noted in Council's Green Sheet that was included in the Agenda Packets. With regard to staff analysis on the Special Use Permit, the petitioners propose to construct one 5,000-square foot commercial building on the 1.44-acre tract. Access to the development is limited to one driveway located off LaSalle Street and approximately 85 feet from West Roosevelt Boulevard. All parking for the development is located directly in front of the commercial building. A ten to twelve-foot access lane is located around the side and rear of the building. A trash dumpster site is located on the west side of the proposed building. The petitioners plan to utilize existing trees and undergrowth to provide the majority of required screening with an additional 24 ligustrum (3.5-feet tall and planted 5-feet on center) to fill in spaces where grading will occur or where no existing vegetation is present. 16 e e e e e Planning Director Herron further stated that the site plan submitted indicated that there would be substantial grading of the site to provide a relatively flat building area and parking lot. The grade of the site increases 28 feet from the front of the site to the rear of the site. A substantial portion of the property is located within a FEMA regulated floodplain. A small portion of the property near the intersection of LaSalle Street and West Roosevelt is located within the Bearskin Creek Floodway. The City of Monroe Engineering Department is also concerned about the possibility of increased offsite flooding, drainage and erosion problems. Engineering staff recommended that a registered Professional Engineer in the State of North Carolina provide certification that the proposed development will not increase offsite flooding, drainage or erosion problems. Planning Director Herron advised that staff recommended the following conditions should City Council choose to approve this request: (1) All access to the site shall be from LaSalle Street; (2) The development of the tract shall proceed in conformity to all plans, design features and restrictions submitted as part of the Special Use Permit application and kept on file by the City of Monroe Department of Planning and Development except that the City of Monroe Zoning Administrator may approve minor changes to such plans as required by field conditions, and as defined in Section 156.188 (H)(2); (3) The petitioner must receive an approved City of Monroe driveway permit prior to beginning any development activity on the site; (4) Prior to issuance of any zoning permits for the property, the petitioner shall submit a Floodplain Development Permit Application and receive approval from the City of Monroe Department of Planning and Development prior to any land disturbance or filling of land located within the 100-year floodplain; (5) Prior to issuance of any zoning permits for the property, a registered Professional Engineer in the State of North Carolina shall provide certification that the proposed development will not cause increased offsite flooding, drainage or erosion problems; (6) All on-site improvements shall comply with all applicable state and federal requirements for land development, including an approved erosion and sedimentation control plan from the Mooresville office of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources Division of Land Quality; (7) The petitioner shall install a 20 x 100-foot temporary construction entrance with at least eight inches of #5 washed stone placed on top of an approved soil stabilization fabric prior to beginning any land disturbing activity; (8) The petitioner shall install all landscaping materials in accordance with Section 156.060 of the Monroe Code of Ordinances, the standards recommended by the American Association of Nurseryman, and in the locations and numbers indicated on the site plan. Planning Director Herron advised that the Planning Board had reviewed the Special Use Permit application and recommended approval with the staff recommendations noted. Council Member Jordan inquired about the kind of uses that could go in the B-3-SU zoning. Planning Director Herron responded that all the uses permitted within the B-3 district would be allowed to go into that building as tenants. The B-3-SU mainly dictates the development of the building, the parking and the landscaping on the site. Planning Director Herron further advised that any use that is permitted would be able to go in, and any use that is allowed by a Conditional Use Permit would have to receive an additional Conditional Use Permit before 17 e e e e e being located in the building. Council Member Jordan subsequently inquired about what was allowed in a B-3 zoning. Planning Director Herron read a general list of uses in response to Council Member Jordan's inquiry, which included banks and financial institutions, barber and beauty shops, bowling alleys, community meeting facilities, laundromats, libraries, motels and hotels, offices, office equipment sales and services, photocopying, post offices, recycling of clothing pick-up stations, restaurants, retail sales, schools, service stations, studios, and automobile rental agencies. Council Member Jordan expressed his concern regarding the construction of a facility that could involve activity occurring throughout the night in this particular area. Council Member Jordan noted that there is a house and development located in the back of the property. Planning Director Herron advised that staff addressed this issue by providing the required buffer. Any uses read by Planning Director Herron would be allowed to locate in the building adjacent to the residential area. Mr. Henry B. Smith, attorney for the petitioners, spoke in favor of the request. Attorney Smith requested that Mr. Bill Reule respond to questions of Council. Attorney Smith confirmed that Mr. Reule is one of the owners of the property, and that he is familiar with the use proposed as described in the Special Use Permit that was presented for approval by Council. In keeping with the required findings of fact for a Special Use Permit, Attorney Smith asked the following questions of Mr. Reule: Attorney Smith: Do you have an oplillon as to whether or not the use will materially endanger the public health or safety if located, designed, and operated according to the plan? Do you think it will adversely affect it? No sir. I don't. Mr. Reule: Attorney Smith: Do you have an opinion as to whether or not the use or development complies with all regulations and standards of Chapters 156 and 151 of the Monroe Code of Ordinances, as well as any other state or local rule or regulation governing the development of land? Yes. Mr. Reule: Attorney Smith: Do you have an opinion as to whether or not the use or development will adversely impact surrounding property and will substantially injure the value of adjoining property? I don't believe it will. Mr. Reule: Attorney Smith: Do you have an opinion às to whether or not the location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and will be in general conformity with the Monroe Land Development Plan? Yes sir. Mr. Reule: 18 e e e e e Attorney Smith: Mr. Reule: Attorney Smith: Is public water and sewer service available in adequate capacity? Yes sir. Will the rezoning of land to a special use district produce a development of equal or higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application of the provisions of a general use district of similar type and intensity and will therefore benefit the owner, his neighbors, and the surrounding community? I believe so. Mr. Reule: Attorney Smith stated that the presentation was clear, and they would answer any questions of Council. Attorney Smith advised that the proposed use in this situation would not be an all- night-type use and would therefore not have an adverse impact on the surrounding community. There would be an elevation change of about 28 feet from the front to the back, which would help with light and sound, should there be any. Council Member Smith inquired about the height of the building. Attorney Smith responded that it would be a one-story building with the highest point being 12 feet, with a single slope roof. It would be highest in the front and slope back to nine feet in the rear. Council Member Smith expressed a concern regarding whether the buffering behind the building would be tall enough to shade the building. Mr. Steve McCorkle, Building Contractor, reported that the buffer would be adequate. There being no other speakers, either for or against the proposal, Mayor Davis closed this public hearing. F. Project # 01-130-00010 - Zonin2 Map Chan2e Request - R-40 (Low Density Sin2le- Family Residential) to R-20-SU (Low/Moderate Density Residential Special Use) - Secrest Short Cut Road - 48.49 acres - Walt Perry Realty, Inc. on behalf of Robert M. Powell, Arthur K. Cates, J. W. Burchfield, and Tommy L. Broome - Tax Parcel #'s 09-256-165 and 09-265-167. Mayor Davis opened Items F and G as one public hearing. She explained that while the public hearings would be held together, action would be taken separately. G. Project # 01-110-00006 - Special Use Permit Request - Request to develop a 70-lot residential cluster subdivision - Secrest Short Cut Road - 48.49 acres - Walt Perry Realty, Inc. on behalf of Robert M. Powell, Arthur K. Cates, J. W. Burchfield, and Tommy L. Broome - Tax Parcel #'s 09-256-165 and 09-256-167. Mayor Davis opened this duly advertised quasi-judicial public hearing and swore in the following individuals who planned to give testimony: Jess Perry, Wayne Herron, Fred Gore, David Fencl, Pat Secrest, Rodney Secrest, Joe Fielding, Randy Lathan, and Brian Secrest. Planning Director Herron advised Council that Item E of this public hearing was a rezoning request from R-40 to R-20-SU. The names of the petitioners are Walt Perry Realty, Inc. on behalf of Robert M. Powell, Arthur K. Cates, J. W. Burchfield, and Tommy L. Broome. The location is on Secrest Short Cut Road north of Fowler Road and south of Roanoke Church Road. The Tax ID Numbers are 09-256-165 and 09-256-167, and this is a 48.49-acre tract. 19 e e e. e e The petitioner proposes to rezone this property from R-40 (Low Density Single-Family Residential) to R-20-SU (Low/Moderate Density Single Family Residential - Special Use). Planning Director Herron reported that special use rezoning addresses any concerns by providing specific information on subdivision layout issues and design standards. The Watershed Ordinance limits lot sizes within a single-family development to 20,000 square feet, except within an approved cluster subdivision. The southwest portion of this property lies within the Stewart's Fork Creek Floodplain. Planning Director Herron reported that staff recommended approval of the rezoning as requested. The Planning Board also reviewed this request and recommended approval. Planning Director Herron briefed Council regarding the special use request in Item G. Planning Director Herron reported that this is a Special Use Permit request to develop a 70-lot subdivision. Mr. David Fencl utilized a map to familiarize Council with the exact location of the site on Secrest Short Cut Road. Planning Director Herron noted that there will be one entrance and one road coming in, several branches off left and right that have been marked and left as temporary turn-arounds, so that if there are future developmental adjoining properties, then access could be coordinated. The petitioners propose to develop a 70-lot cluster subdivision on this 48.49-acre tract. All proposed lots meet the general yard requirements for cluster development in the R-20 zoning district, which allow the minimum lot sizes to be reduced to 15,000 square feet with the same overall density as conventional R-20 zoning. The remaining acreage is to be used as common area or open space. Seven new streets are proposed to serve this development, with one street connection to Secrest Short Cut Road. The plat indicates several stub streets with temporary turn-arounds to provide for future connectivity. The petitioners have indicated that they intend to meet all recommended residential design standards of the Land Development Plan for the rezoning and clustering in the R-20 zoning district. Planning Director Herron further stated that a water main extension along Secrest Short Cut Road would be required. The petitioners have also indicated that Union Electric transmission lines run through the southern and eastern portions of the site, and an existing sanitary sewer line runs south of the property from lot number 58 to Secrest Short Cut Road. Staff would like the location of these lines and easements clarified before recordation of the final plat. Planning Director Herron reported that the appropriate pavement and right-of-way widths are shown on the preliminary plat and meet the requirements of the City of Monroe Standard Specifications and Detail Manual. Proposed sidewalks have not been shown, but will need to be provided in accordance with standards. Off-site sidewalks shall be constructed within the right-of-way or within a sidewalk easement provided outside of the right-of-way. The location, size and materials used for on and off-site improvements shall be coordinated with the City of Monroe Engineering Department based on the requirements of the Standard Specifications and Detail Manual. The developer intends to install a left-turn lane on Secrest Short Cut Road. 20 e e e e e Planning Director Herron advised that the petitioners' site lies within the WS-III Water Supply Watershed District and meets the requirements for single-family developments in the WS-III Watershed. Stewart's Creek mns through the western portion of this property, and the plat indicates that there will be a fifty-foot undisturbed buffer measured from the top of the bank on both sides of the stream. The Stewart's Creek floodplain is also shown on the plat. Finished floor elevations for those lots within the lOO-year floodplain have been identified on the plat. A floodplain development permit is required prior to any fill or land disturbing activity within the floodplain. One crossing of the stream is proposed over a 30-foot General Public Utility Easement, in order to serve the open space associated with this project. Much of the 15.59 acres of open space shown at the rear of the property is located on the opposite side of the stream as the proposed lots. In order to qualify as open space, this land shall be used for recreational purposes or shall provide visual, aesthetic or environmental amenities per section 156.053(E)(3)(a) of the City of Monroe Zoning Ordinance. At least thirty percent of the gross area of open space, unless otherwise allowed by City Council, must be used as active recreation space. The project engineer has indicated that a five-foot wide gravel trail will be provided, along with five, 600-square foot exercise stations. A playground area and gazebo are also shown on the plat. Planning Director Herron stated that staff recommended the following conditions should Council choose to approve this request: (1) The petitioner must complete all land purchases and transfers and submit copies of recorded deeds to staff as evidence of land ownership prior to the recordation of the Special Use Permit; (2) The development of the tract shall proceed in conformity to all plans and design features submitted as part of the Special Use Permit application and kept on file by the City of Monroe Department of Planning and Development, except that the City of Monroe Zoning Administrator may approve minor changes to such plans as required by field conditions. Minor changes shall be defined as any change in lot configuration which does not affect approved public facilities and any change in lot size which does not result in more than a 5 % reduction in total square footage as shown on the preliminary plan; (3) The petitioners must submit evidence to staff that they have recorded all restrictive covenants and the articles of incorporation and by-laws for the homeowners' association prior to recordation of the Special Use Permit. Such agreements shall be in substantial conformity to those which were submitted for review by staff prior to recordation, and that the agreements include applicable provisions and standards to meet all conditions placed upon the Special Use Permit by City Council and any design features imposed by the petitioners; (4) Following inspection and approval of the construction and/or installation of all required recreational areas of the development, the developer shall submit a letter of credit issued in the City's favor, for 100% of the annual maintenance cost of these facilities as agreed upon and approved by the Zoning Administrator. Such letter of credit shall be renewed every twelve months until such time as H & E Land Development, Inc. ceases to have the controlling vote in the homeowners' association, as recorded in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions and the City of Monroe has received written notice thereof and a copy of the names, addresses and phone numbers of all duly elected members of the homeowners' association board of directors; (5) The petitioners shall submit detailed plans for all recreation area improvements, including playground equipment, walking path cross section, stream 21 e e e e e crossing data, and fitness station equipment prior to recordation of the final plat. Walking path improvements shall comply with all ADA requirements; (6) The recorded articles of incorporation and by-laws shall require the homeowners' association to submit a copy of the names, addresses, and phone numbers of all duly elected members of the homeowners' association board of directors, as well as a financial statement to the City of Monroe, Director of Planning and Development, by the 15th day of January each year; (7) The petitioners shall construct all street and sidewalk improvements in accordance with the City of Monroe Standard Specifications and Detail Manual, and receive approval from the City of Monroe Engineering Department; (8) A driveway and encroachment permit shall be submitted and approved by the North Carolina Department of Transportation for all off-site improvements along Secrest Short Cut Road, including sidewalks and the proposed left-turn lane; (9) The petitioners shall coordinate installation of a 2,250 linear foot, 8-inch water main from the Yorkshire subdivision entrance to Fowler Road with the City of Monroe Water Resources Department; (10) The petitioner shall submit a Floodplain Development Permit Application and receive approval from the Department of Planning and Development prior to any fill or land disturbance activity within the floodplain; (11) The petitioner shall obtain approval of an erosion and sedimentation control plan by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources Division of Land Quality prior to commencing with any land disturbing activities. Planning Director Herron reported that the Planning Board had reviewed this special use request, as well as the rezoning, and they recommended approval of this special use request with the noted conditions. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore asked if, once you put all the conditions in a Special Use Permit, if the Land Development Committee prefers an R-20-SU over the standard R-40. Planning Director Herron replied that this has been staff's preference within the City of Monroe for some time since it allows the condition whereby the applicant agrees to certain design and construction guidelines, which were noted on the Green Sheet included in the Agenda Packets. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore stated that the developer of the house could make it a 10 x 10 structure under the R-40 zoning if he so chooses, whereby the R-20-SU must meet special standards. Planning Director Herron confirmed his statement and further stated that the City currently has no standards that would be applied to the design of homes within a standard R- 40. However, within a special use R-20, the applicant has agreed to several conditions included in the Land Development Plan. The conditions are: (1) All houses would have a minimum floor area of 1600 square feet; (2) All houses would have a two-car garage; (3) All driveways would be paved with asphalt or concrete from the street to the garage; (4) Any house built on a slab would have a minimum of four course brick masonry veneer skirt; (5) The wall of the architectural front would have to have a break at a point somewhere around 24 feet so that you do not have a flat non-offset wall on the front; (6) The exterior wall of the dwelling shall be made of wood, brick, vinyl, stone, stucco, or similar materials; (7) A minimum of 25 percent of the architectural front of any house constructed of vinyl will have a brick, stucco, or stone finish; (8) The majority of all roofs on any house shall have a minimum of 6/12 roof pitch; (9) A planted strip of at least 24 inches between the street curb and the sidewalk; (10) The front yard shall have at least two trees for each house; and (11) All exposed 22 e e e e chimneys shall have a brick veneer. Planning Director Herron reiterated that the applicant has agreed to all the above-referenced conditions, which would not be applicable in a standard R- 40 subdivision. Council Member Smith asked if off-site improvements included a right-hand deceleration lane. Planning Director Herron responded that he was unsure if it was included. In response, Council Member Smith advised that a right-hand deceleration lane would need to be included due to the high volume of traffic on the road and the risk of accidents. Planning Director Herron advised that staff could add that as a condition. Council Member Smith further advised that there needed to be both an acceleration and deceleration lane included as a condition. Council Member Smith inquired whether school buses would be entering this subdivision. Planning Director Herron stated that he would expect they would, but could not say for certain. Council Member Smith requested the size of the smallest lot in the proposed subdivision. Planning Director Herron responded that he believed 15,000 square feet would be the smallest allowable lot with the clustering. Council Member Jordan stated that as long as the builder has controlling interest in the subdivision, then Council has a way to insure that the open space is maintained. However, Council Member Jordan inquired about ways Council would have to insure that the open space would be maintained once the builder no longer had controlling interest. Planning Director Herron responded that this is the reason there are several conditions that require submission of documentation regarding the homeowners' association. Council Member Jordan replied that he understood that Council would be given their names and financial reports, but further questioned what enforcement could be done if they did not maintain the open space. Planning Director Herron replied that the Ordinance allows staff to enforce it on the responsible party, and if it is the developer, then it would be enforced upon him. If it was turned over to the homeowners' association, the City Code allows staff to send a letter to the homeowners' association to enforce maintenance of the open space as required by the Land Development Plan. Planning Director Herron referred this question to City Attorney Milliken, who confirmed the accuracy of his response. Council Member Jordan expressed a problem with homeowners' associations not taking care of their open space. Planning Director Herron reported that the City has had to deal with some developers, but asked Mr. Fencl if there had been reported problems whereby notices were issued to the homeowners' association. Mr. Fencl replied that he had not known any instance in the last three years, which would be the extent of staff's knowledge. Council Member Kilgore questioned whether the cul-de-sacs would have landscaped requirements for beautification purposes. Planning Director Herron responded that these would be turn-around cul-de-sacs, and there would be no landscaped median in the middle of the cul-de-sacs as proposed. e Council Member Hargett commented that he agreed with the deceleration suggestion. However, Council Member Hargett noted that the other lane going to the right of the 23 e e e e e development would be as much of a detriment as it would be a benefit to the traffic situation. It would be a problem if a resident had to pull out to the right in a spare lane and then maneuver back into traffic. Council Member Hargett requested that this issue be referred to the City Engineer for review. Council Member Smith noted that acceleration lanes are still on Highway 74, coming off from Skyway Drive onto Highway 74. If you did not have these lanes, you would have to stop prior to getting on Highway 74. Mr. Jess Perry, a representative of Walt Perry Realty, spoke in favor of the request. Mr. Perry advised that Walt Perry Realty is the broker on the project, and the developers are Mr. Glen Edwards and Mr. Danny Hilton of H & E Development. In addition, Mr. Fred Gore of Civil Tech Engineers was also present at the hearing. Mr. Perry utilized an aerial photograph to show how the subdivision fits in with the rest of the area. Mr. Perry noted that when one thinks of Secrest Short Cut, one thinks of congestion. However, there is not a great deal of congestion in the immediate area of the proposed subdivision. There is Yorkshire further up the road, but the aerial photograph reveals that the subdivision would fit in the area quite well, and Mr. Perry stated that he believes it would add to the value of other properties and people in the neighborhood. The developers have been working on this project for some time. There are a lot of requirements that the developers have had to meet in order to make this subdivision work, which include sidewalks (25-percent of the surface) and structure being of brick masonry. These houses are to be 1600-square feet, and the developers have agreed to abide by this size as well. When you think of an R-20 subdivision, you think it adds congestion to an area that is already congested. However, Mr. Perry noted that the area allows a nice open space in the back for recreational use, and the developers have made provisions for this, which should add to the subdivision. There are many other things that have been done by the developers to make this work, including working with the City to get proper water to the site. In keeping with the required findings of fact for a Special Use Permit, Mayor Davis asked the following questions of Mr. Perry: Mayor Davis: Is it your opinion that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located, designed, and operated according to the plan? Mr. Perry: Yes. Mayor Davis: Is it your opinion that the use or development complies with all regulations and standards of Chapters 156 and 151 of the Monroe Code of Ordinances, as well as any other state or local rule or regulation governing the development of land? Mr. Perry: Yes. Mayor Davis: Is it your opinion that the use or development will not adversely impact surrounding property and will not substantially injure the value of adjoining property? Mr. Perry: Yes. 24 e e e e e Mayor Davis: Is it your opinion that the location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and will be in general conformity with Monroe Land Development Plan? Mr. Perry: Yes. Mayor Davis: Is it your opinion that public water and sewer service are available in adequate capacity? Mr. Perry: Yes. Mayor Davis: Is it your opinion that the rezoning of land to a special use district will produce a development of equal or higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application of the provisions of a general use district of similar type and intensity and will therefore benefit the owner, his neighbors, and the surrounding community? Mr. Perry: Yes. Mr. Fred Gore, engineer for the project, spoke in favor. Mr. Gore addressed the issue of acceleration lanes. The North Carolina Department of Transportation does have some concerns with creating acceleration lanes, as sometimes they can be dangerous if they are not placed in the right location. However, the deceleration lane would certainly enhance the situation, and Mr. Gore stated that the owners should not have any problems with creating a deceleration lane. The main thing that can be done to help the traffic problem is to create a left-turn lane, which is already proposed and would most likely be required by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. The deceleration and acceleration lanes could be done, however, they would be contingent upon NCDOT allowing this to be done. As far as the sidewalks, if there was an extra turning lane located there, the sidewalks are typically at the back of the right-of-way, which would not adversely impact the subdivision by placing the lane there. Council Member Smith explained that the main reason he desires the acceleration and deceleration lanes is due to the narrowness of the road and the high speed of traffic, despite posted speed limits. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore asked if the developers would be agreeable to following the recommendation of the NCDOT. Mr. Gore affirmed this inquiry and stated that they would be required to follow any requirements of the NCDOT prior to the issuance of a driveway and encroachment permit. Council Member Jordan inquired whether there were any sight restrictions for the proposed area of Secrest Short Cut. Mr. Gore replied that he did not think there were any restrictions, however, he believed there was adequate to meet the standards, which would be ten times the speed limit. Mr. Pat Secrest of 3907 Secrest Short Cut Road spoke in opposition to the request. Mr. Secrest stated that he owns 49 acres that adjoin the property and cited a concern regarding 25 e e e e e extreme traffic congestion. Mr. Secrest cited the reasons for his opposition to the request: (1) The safety of the highway, and (2) There has recently been property rezoned that is located directly across from the proposed plot on Secrest Short Cut Road. Mr. Secrest further stated, "They are talking about putting 70 houses on about 20-25 acres of land. There is not 48 acres. The rest of it they are going to turn into something else. As Mr. Jordan said, I have concerns about the maintenance of this area as well. I know what is going to happen is that these folks are going to overrun that onto my property and use the sewer lines and the gas lines as their recreation area. I'm opposed to that. The people who have been surveying this land have been driving across my land to survey it. They would deny that, but it is true. We have asked them to leave a few times. It seems to me, if my math is correct, that I heard something like one million square feet for 70 lots. That comes out to be about twenty something acres, and I just don't think it adds to the cluster of housing. I would like to see a nice subdivision of R-40 go in, and that's my argument." Mr. Rodney Secrest of 3901 Secrest Short Cut Road spoke in opposItIon. Mr. Secrest expressed that the major concern is traffic, and stated that it appears that the County Planning Board is overrunning its road systems. Mr. Secrest cited the fact that Secrest Short Cut Road has a history of being a traffic hazard and continues to worsen. In addition to Lake Park, Mr. Secrest reported that there is a proposed 1500-home lot planned for Poplin Road and Rocky River Road areas toward Stallings, which would affect Secrest Short Cut Road. Mr. Secrest noted that the developers stated there would be no houses built across the creek, which would cause a size issue regarding the amount of acreage per house. Mr. Secrest stated, "Seventy houses on 45 acres, minus 15, is somewhere around 30 acres that they are planning on building 70 houses on. That is more than two houses per acre. I think that is a little much compared to the other area around. The only other development I know that has lots anywhere close to this size would be Yorkshire, but the development above us has nice, big, pretty lots. We're not opposed to the development, but we are opposed to the size of the lots and the homes within it. I would like to see it stay more consistent with the homes that are already there. We've got homes with larger tracts of land, with a lot of the homes sitting on five or six acres of land." Mr. Joe Fielding of 3517 Secrest Short Cut Road spoke in opposition. Mr. Fielding expressed his agreement with everything that had been stated previously, and noted his desire that there be a provision in the zoning requiring a 6- foot cyclone fence be built around the development for containment purposes. Mr. Fielding reported that the surrounding property is used for recreational activities, and this would encourage residents of the subdivision to cross onto their property if there was no containment fencing. Mr. Randy Lathan of 3711 Secrest Short Cut Road spoke in opposition. Mr. Lathan reiterated the fact that traffic is the main issue causing opposition. Mr. Lathan cited traffic issues pertaining to large trucks running through his yard, continual speed limit violations, and bumper-to-bumper traffic during peak travel times in the morning and evening. Mr. Lathan further reported that there have been numerous accidents on the road, with three occurring in his yard recently. Mr. Lathan expressed his agreement that all 70 houses should be put on 26 e e e e e floodplains and watershed, where all the water is on all sides of it going into the creek. Mr. Lathan concluded that his desire was for Council to investigate these issues further. Mr. Brian Secrest of 3815 Secrest Short Cut Road spoke in opposition. Mr. Secrest stated that most of his concerns had been previously expressed by other residents of Secrest Short Cut Road. Mr. Secrest elaborated on the traffic issue and stated that any citizen who travels Secrest Short Cut would agree that it is a very dangerous road. Adding 70 houses on top of the 1500 houses proposed for the intersection of Rocky River and Poplin Roads would increase the traffic problem dramatically. Mr. Secrest expressed a concern that the houses being built at the front of the property would not match anything in the surrounding area as the current houses are larger and more spread out. Mr. Secrest reported that he is not completely opposed to a development; however, his desire for this development is to contain larger houses that are built on larger tracts of land. Mr. Secrest concluded that traffic needs to be the priIÍ1ary consideration with this development. Council Member Smith commented that when he enters Secrest Short Cut Road, if there is a car to the left that is visible, it is dangerous to pull onto the road as there will be an accident. The area Council Member Smith referred to is approximately one half mile from the proposed development. Council Member Smith expressed a concern regarding the speed that cars travel on Secrest Short Cut Road and the continual concern for loss of life due to this traffic problem. Mr. Perry responded that this 70-house subdivision would not make a significant difference to the present traffic problem. Council Member Smith responded that it would be just another side road. Mr. Perry agreed that his desire is also to see nice homes, however, he noted that not all citizens can afford R-40 property. The proposed houses would be more affordable since everyone cannot afford houses like those in Yorkshire. Mr. Perry stated that one of the purposes of this subdivision was to provide additional middle-priced homes for citizens. Mr. Rodney Secrest stated that there are currently areas set up in the County that contain more affordable housing as mentioned by Mr. Perry. Mr. Secrest advised that there is no reason to build houses of this nature in an area that does not currently contain this type of house. In addition, Mr. Secrest noted that the rationale used by developers that their particular subdivision would not make a significant difference in the traffic problem on Secrest Short Cut Road is the main reason that the traffic problem continually compounds with each new development. Mr. Pat Secrest advised that he is not opposed to the project; however, he desires that the houses have bigger lots. If the houses have larger lots, then there would be fewer houses, fewer people and less traffic on the highway. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore requested that Secrest Short Cut Road be referred to the Department of Transportation for consideration of making it more than two lanes. City Manager Spell advised that this could be done with the TIP update and would ask the DOT to review this road at the input session in November, 2001. 27 e e e e e Council Member Jordan asked Planning Director Herron what the Land Development Plan called for in the proposed area. Planning Director Herron advised that the Land Development Plan calls for medium to low-density residential in this area. Council Member Jordan asked for clarification regarding the definition of medium density. Planning Director Herron responded that it would be the R-20, and if a developer wanted to go with low density, then staff would go with the R -40. If developers were to go with the medium density and the developer wanted to rezone the property, that is when staff requests them to self-impose the City's design guidelines to help control the construction. Council Member Jordan confirmed with Planning Director Herron that the medium density is a part of the Land Development Plan. Council Member Smith advised that the property from Fowler Road onto Rocky River is the last bastion of R-40 in the City of Monroe. The reason they are going to medium density is because they can only build one house per acre on R..40 and to make the project work, one could not afford to build 35 houses unless they were of the $250,000-$300,000 range. Mr. Perry responded that developers have many costs involved with building a home. Mr. Perry further stated that work has been done since January to make this project go, and the developers have agreed to several design features in order to make this project work. The developers could not make this project work without having a higher density. The developers initially thought they could build a nice home with 1200 or 1400 square feet, but eventually they were required to build homes of 1600 square feet. Council Member Smith noted that 1200-square foot homes would not be in harmony with what is located in that neighborhood. There are some houses on R-40 in the area that are larger than 1400 square feet, and this fact presents a problem. Council Member Smith stated that he would ordinarily be in agreement with this concept, however, the location of the subdivision and the fact that it is on Secrest Short Cut Road does not make sense. Council Member Smith reiterated his concern that there is not much land left to be developed in Monroe. Mr. Rodney Secrest stated that there are beautiful houses in Yorkshire that are built on lots that are not necessarily that large, with some being less than one acre. The difference is that Yorkshire contains larger homes of 1800 plus square feet, and the size of the home in the proposed subdivision needs to be reconsidered. Mr. Perry reiterated the fact that everyone cannot afford this size of home. Council Member Jordan asked Planning Director Herron if this request received a favorable recommendation from the Planning Board. Planning Director Herron confirmed that the Planning Board did recommend approval of this request. Council Member Jordan asked Mr. Perry if he operated within the guidelines of the Land Development Plan. Mr. Perry responded that they have adhered to all guidelines of the Land Development Plan and confirmed this statement with Planning Director Herron. 28 e e e e e Mr. Fielding requested that Council consider the impact that this development would have on the school system. Mr. Gore advised that, as engineer, it has been made to sound like this subdivision would be very high-density development. When you look at the overall density of the project, there would be 1.4 units per acre, as opposed to one unit per acre. Council Member Smith noted that this includes everything from the floodplain to the creek. Council Member Smith concluded then that the developers are actually building on twenty plus acres. Mr. Perry responded that things such as the floodplain would be a portion of someone's lot. There would be 15 acres of open space out of the 40 acres that are there, and 5-6 acres of the open space is floodplain. Of this area, there is probably three acres that could not be built on because of flood way encroachment, and there would be a restriction placed on the land. Council Member Smith advised that it would be hypocritical of him to vote in favor of this request since he lives in a subdivision that is R-40 with at least one-acre lots. There is no reason that a developer could not make a profit by building a subdivision of a similar nature. Council Member Smith reported his desire for the character of the proposed area to remain the same and stated that he would vote against this request. Council Member Kilgore reiterated the concern regarding the roadway and the traffic. Council Member Kilgore stated that he does not have a problem with houses and expressed a desire to work with the developer, however, the roadway and traffic are sources of great concern. Planning Director Herron provided several alternatives for consideration of Council. First, Council may choose to add a condition, if traffic is a concern and the public hearing is closed, regarding acceleration and deceleration being provided upon recommendation approval by NCDOT and the City Engineer. If Council chooses to continue the public hearing, a request for a Traffic Impact Study could be made as it has been done on other projects, if Council feels it would provide additional information that would assist with their decision-making process. Planning Director Herron noted that the public hearing could be continued until such time that the Study could be completed and reviewed. Mayor Davis requested if Council had any intent of continuing this public hearing. Council Member Smith reported that it should be continued to determine the findings of the Traffic Impact Study since Secrest Short Cut Road is one of the most dangerous roads in Union County. Council Member Smith stated that he did not feel this request should be approved by Council without at least a deceleration lane. Council Member Hargett moved to continue the public hearing until November 20, 2001. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: 29 e e e e e AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: Council Member Jordan inquired if it was time for staff to review the Land Development Plan along Secrest Short Cut Road, since this is a case where a petitioner has come before Council and has operated within the guidelines of the City's Land Development Plan, and the appearance is that Council is close to denying the request that was a legitimate request within the guidelines of the Land Development Plan. Mayor Davis advised that her interpretation of the dialogue was not necessarily a problem with the Land Development Plan, but rather a problem with the road. Council Member Jordan responded that it was the road because of what is allowed in the way of subdivision in the City's Land Development Plan. If Council Member Smith does not feel that R-20 is justified because of the road, than this should perhaps be a consideration as part of the City's Land Development Plan so that petitioners do not spend their time and energy preparing a package for presentation before Council that a road would stop them from being able to build. Council Member Smith expressed his agreement with Council Member Jordan because there is a problem with the road safety and also a problem with the land use plan. Council Member Smith stated that he has a problem with the proposed land being used for the particular purpose, even though it is within the guidelines. Since the proposed property is the last bastion of R-40, Council Member Smith noted his concern that this is an inappropriate use for the property. This will not be the last one as there is additional land on Fowler Secrest Road whereby a citizen is trying to sell lots for $42,000 to build 1600-square foot houses. Council Member Smith reported that he was not comparing this situation to the more superior product being presented before Council. Council Member Smith further advised that he realizes that the request meets the guidelines of the land use plan, however, it does not meet safety or intent of that area. Council Member Smith concluded that he basically does not want all the land developed into cluster housing. Council Member Jordan moved to refer the remaining zoning of Secrest Short Cut Road area to the Land Development Committee for further review. The motion was seconded by Council Member Smith, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: Council Member Smith addressed the petitioners and stated that this was not a personal vendetta, but he felt that this is something that needed to be done to satisfy the land use plan. 30 e e e e e Mayor Davis advised that this public hearing will resume on November 20, 2001 at 6:30 p.m. H. Project # 02-110-00001 - Special Use Permit Request - Request to develop a 19.38 acre business park (Mor2an Mills Business Park) consistin2 of two (2) multi-tenant office/retail buildin2s totalin2 50,400 square feet and office/warehouse buildin2s totalin2 approximately 94,500 square feet on Mor2an Mill Road south of Bearskin Creek - Craft Builders, Inc. - Tax Parcel # 09-185-004. Mayor Davis opened this duly advertised quasi- judicial public hearing and swore in the following individuals who planned to give testimony: Wayne Herron, Fred Gore and Dan Johnson. Planning Director Herron presented to Council that this request was for a Special Use Permit to develop a 19.38-acre business park on Morgan Mill Road in Morgan Mill Business Park. The petitioner is Craft Builders, Inc., and the location of the property is Morgan Mill Road (N.C. Highway 200) between Sutherland Avenue and Creekridge Subdivision. The Tax Parcel ID#s are 09-185-004 and 09-185-015. Planning Director Herron reported that the petitioner's property was rezoned from R-lO to B-4-SU and G-I-SU on August 3, 1999. A Special Use Permit for development of an industrial park was also issued on August 3, 1999. A site plan was included and approved with the issuance of the Special Use Permit. The approved site plan specified that there was going to be one entrance road on Morgan Mill Road for the development. The petitioner also imposed restrictions on the uses permitted in both the G-I and B-4 zones and also submitted design restrictions for any development visible from Morgan Mill Road. Due to there not being any building permits obtained within two years from the date City Council approved the Special Use Permit request, the Special Use Permit has now expired. The property is still zoned B-4-SU and G-I-SU, but zoning and building permits cannot be issued until a new Special Use Permit is issued. Planning Director Herron advised that the petitioner is proposing a business park that contains two (2) multi-tenant office/retail buildings totaling 50,400 square feet that front Morgan Mill Road. These multi-tenant office/retail buildings are located in a 7.22-acre area zoned B-4-SU. Eleven (11) office/warehouse buildings ranging in size from 2,400 to 20,000 square feet and totaling approximately 94,500 square feet are proposed in a 12.16-acre area zoned G- I -SU . One centrally located private road is proposed to serve all of the development site. A deceleration lane for vehicles traveling north on Morgan Mill Road and a left -turn lane for vehicles traveling south on Morgan Mill Road are also proposed. The petitioner has voluntarily agreed to impose the same design restrictions on the B-4-SU and G-I-SU areas as imposed on the property in 1999. Some of these design restrictions include requiring a brick, decorative block, or stucco exterior on the portions of buildings facing Morgan Mill Road and limiting outdoor storage to the rear of the buildings. According to Planning Director Herron, the site plan submitted with this request meets the submittal requirements of the Special Use Permit process in that it includes the location and size of buildings, driveways and parking areas. Due to the amount of area occupied by buildings and asphalt, there is potential for increased offsite flooding, drainage and erosion problems. The City Engineer has recommended that a Professional Engineer registered in the 31 e e e e e State of North Carolina provide certification that the development will not cause increased flooding, drainage or erosion. The City of Monroe Fire Department requested that an additional fire hydrant be installed adjacent to the main entrance and connected to an eight-inch water main. Planning Director Herron noted that staff recommended the following conditions should Council choose to approve this request: (1) All access to the site and its individual tracts shall be from the entrance road off Morgan Mill Road; (2) The development of the tract shall proceed in conformity to all plans, design features, and restrictions submitted as part of the Special Use Permit application and kept on file by the City of Monroe Department of Planning and Development except that the City of Monroe Zoning Administrator may approve minor changes to such plans as required by field conditions, and as defined in Section 156.188 (H)(2); (3) The petitioner must complete off-site transportation improvements and receive approval from the City of Monroe and/or the North Carolina Department of Transportation prior to the release of any certificates of occupancy; (4) The petitioner shall submit a Floodplain Development Permit Application and receive approval from the City of Monroe Department of Planning and Development prior to any land disturbance or filling of land located within the 100-year floodplain; (5) The petitioner shall install an additional fire hydrant connected directly to an eight-inch water main at the entrance to the development; (6) The petitioner shall install all landscaping materials in accordance with the standards recommended by the American Association of Nurseryman and in the locations and numbers indicated on the site plan. The Planning Board reviewed this Special Use Permit request and recommended approval with the recommendations noted on the Green Sheet that was included in the Agenda Packets. Mr. Dan Johnson spoke in favor of this request. Mr. Johnson noted that this request was approved two years ago, and the site plan has been changed slightly. Mr. Johnson reported that they are abiding by the same restrictions as the prior approval, and there have actually been improvements made since then. In keeping with the required findings of fact for a Special Use Permit, Mayor Davis asked the following questions of Mr. Johnson: Mayor Davis: Is it your opinion that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located, designed, and operated according to the plan? Mr. Johnson: It will not. Mayor Davis: Is it your opinion that the use or development complies with all regulations and standards of Chapters 156 and 151 of the Monroe Code of Ordinances, as well as any other state or local rule or regulation governing the development of land? Mr. Johnson: Yes. 32 e e e e e ........... Mayor Davis: Is it your opinion that the use or development will not adversely impact surrounding property and will not substantially injure the value of adjoining property? Mr. Johnson: It will not adversely impact it. Mayor Davis: Is it your opinion that the location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and will be in general conformity with Monroe Land Development Plan? Mr. Johnson: Yes. Mayor Davis: Is it your opinion that the public water and sewer service are available in adequate capacity? Mr. Johnson: Yes. Mayor Davis: Is it your opinion that the rezoning of land to a special use district will produce a development of equal or higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application of the provisions of a general use district of similar type and intensity and will therefore benefit the owner, his neighbors, and the surrounding community? Mr. Johnson: Yes. Mr. Fred Gore advised Council that he was also available to answer any questions regarding this request. There being no other speakers, either for or against the proposal, Mayor Davis closed this public hearing. Item No.7. Action from Public Hearings. A. Level V Economic Development Grant - Confidential Company - Capital Project Budget Ordinance. Council Member Hargett moved to approve Budget Ordinance BO-2001- 11: CAPITAL PROJECT ORDINANCE SCHRADER-BRIDGEPORT INTERNATIONAL INC. BO-200l-11 WHEREAS, the City of Monroe established the Economic Development Grant Program for the City of Monroe on November 7, 1997, in order to induce industry to expand and locate in Monroe; and WHEREAS, the City's Department of Finance has determined that establishing a project fund is the most effective way to manage the financial administration of the program; and WHEREAS, the City Council at its September 18, 2001, meeting called for a public hearing to be held October 2, 2001, to consider making a grant to Schrader-Bridgeport International Inc.; and WHEREAS, the City Council following the public hearing approved a grant for Schrader- Bridgeport International Inc., on October 2,2001; and 33 WHEREAS, the City Council desires to appropriate funds to set aside for Schrader-Bridgeport e International Inc.; and, WHEREAS, the funds will only be disbursed upon compliance of the grantee with all the appropriate requirements under the grant; e e e e THEREFORE, the Monroe City Council appropriates to the Economic Development Incentive Grant Project Fund the following revenues and expenditures: Revenues: Transfer from General Fund $520,000.00 Expenditures: Grant over five years $520,000.00 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that an amendment to the General Fund budget for FY 2001-2002 is approved to appropriate fund balance to transfer $520,000.00 to the Economic Development Incentive Grant Project Fund. Adopted this 2nd day of October, 2001. Council Member Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: B. Resolution to Award - Level V Economic Development Grant. Council Member moved to approve Resolution R-2001-49: RESOLUTION OF THE MONROE CITY COUNCIL TO AWARD A LEVEL V INCENTIVE GRANT R-2001-49 WHEREAS, the City of Monroe has adopted an Economic Development Grant Program, hereinafter "Program;" and, WHEREAS, Schrader-Bridgeport International Inc. has duly applied for a Level V incentive grant under said program; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted by the City Council on October 2, 2001, at which hearing testimony was given by Mr. Chris Platé, Economic Development Director, of the City of Monroe and Mr. Frank Banzhof, Engineering Manager, of Schrader-Bridgeport International Inc. and, WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings with respect to said application: 1. All facilities proposed to be built by the applicant will be on property currently within the corporate limits of the City of Monroe. 34 2. The applicant is the principal employer of persons with respect to the grant application under the e Program. The applicant is a manufacturing business which will have a minimum new investment of $26,000,000 in a taxable building, equipment, and improvements to the land. 3. 4. 5. 6. e 7. 8. e e e No other grant from the Program has been awarded to the applicant for this project. The applicant is not in the retail or the construction trade. The applicant will pay their employees on average a minimum of 110% of the average Union County wage. The applicant meets all other applicable requirements of the Grant Program. The applicant will create at least five (5) jobs the first year and five (5) jobs the second year for a total of 10 new jobs. WHEREAS, based on the above findings and other documentation's in the file, the City Council concludes that the applicant qualifies for a Level V Grant under the Program and that economic benefits in the form of increased employment, increases in the tax base and increased City utilities revenues will accrue to the City and that the grant application should be approved subject to compliance with the Program and subject to appropriation. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the grant application of Schrader-Bridgeport International Inc., for a Level V Grant be approved subject to compliance with the requirements and provisions of the Program and subject to appropriation. Adopted this 2nd day of October, 2001. Council Member Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: C. Project # 01-100-00011 - Proposed Conditional Use Permit Request - Accessory Structure With a Home Occupation - 936 Secrest Hill Drive - .923 acres - James Marlow - Tax ID# 09-216-014. Council Member Hargett moved BE IT ORDAINED that this Conditional Use Permit be granted in all respects. Council Member Jordan seconded the motion, which received the following votes: AYES: NAYS: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Smith Council Member Kilgore, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, Mayor Davis 35 e e e e e Mayor Davis advised that her vote in opposition resulted from a lack of convincing evidence that Mr. Marlow had a legal home occupation, and it was therefore impossible to vote in favor of the Conditional Use Permit on the basis of the information presented. Ms. Marlow inquired if this issue needed to be discussed with Planning Director Herron. Mayor Davis confirmed that it is an issue that needs to be addressed. During Mr. Marlow's presentation at the September 18, 2001 City Council Meeting, Mr. Marlow stated that he had eight employees. Considering this information, Mayor Davis advised that Mr. Marlow did not meet the qualifications for a legal home occupation. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore clarified that it was the findings of facts that the Marlows fell short on. City Attorney Milliken advised that the motion did not have a majority, therefore, the motion failed. Ms. Marlow inquired about the process for filing an appeal. City Attorney Milliken advised that Attorney Helder would be able to address that issue. D. Project # 02-130-00002 - Zoning Map Change Request - G-I (General Industrial) to B-4 (General Business) - 113 Winchester Avenue - 0.22 acres - Ross Montgomery - Tax Parcel # 09-229-018. Council Member Smith moved BE IT ORDAINED that this property be rezoned from G-I (General Industrial) to B-4 (General Business). Council Member Kilgore seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: E. Project # 02-130-00003 - Zoning Map Change Request - B-3 (Highway Business), R-8 (High Density Residential) and R-Pl (Planned Multi-Family Residential) to B-3-SU (Highway Business Special Use) - Corner of LaSalle Street and West Roosevelt Boulevard - 1.465 acres - Henry B. Smith, Jr. on behalf of the Monroe Eight - Tax Parcel # 09-189- 209. Council Member Hargett moved BE IT ORDAINED that this property be rezoned from B-3 (Highway Business), R-8 (High Density Residential) and R-Pl (Planned Multi-Family Residential) to B-3-SU (Highway Business Special Use). Council Member Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: F. Project # 02-110-00002 - Special Use Permit Request - Request to construct a 5000- square foot commercial building - Corner of LaSalle Street and West Roosevelt Boulevard - 1.465 acres - Monroe Eight - Tax Parcel # 09-189-209. Council Member Kilgore moved BE IT ORDAINED that the Special Use Permit be adopted in all respects: 36 · e 1. e 2. 3. 4. e e SPECIAL USE PERMIT On the date(s) listed below, the City Council of the City of Monroe met and held a public hearing to consider the following application: Record Owner(s): Monroe Eight (a North Carolina General Partnership) % William H. Reule & Associates Property Location: Corner of LaSalle Street and West Roosevelt Boulevard Tax Map & Parcel # 09-189-209 Acreage: 1.465 Deed Reference: BOOK 440 ,PAGE 240 Type and Intensity of Use: 5,000 square foot Commercial Building Meeting Date: October 2,2001 Approval Date: October 2,2001 SECTION 1. FINDINGS: Having heard all of the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing, the City Council, at its regular meeting, finds and determines that the application is complete, and subject to the conditions imposed below, the following findings are made: The use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located, designed, and operated according to the plan; and The use or development complies with all regulations and standards of Chapters 156 and 151 of the Monroe Code of Ordinances, as well as any other state or local rule or regulation governing the development of land; and The use or development will not adversely impact surrounding property and will not substantially injure the value of adjoining property; and The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and will be in general conformity with Monroe Land Development Plan; and 5. Public water and sewer service are available in adequate capacity; and 6. The rezoning of land to a special use district will produce a development of equal or higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application of the provisions of a general use district of similar type and intensity and will therefore benefit the owner, his neighbors, and the surrounding community. SECTION 2. CONDITIONS: Now, therefore, the application to make use of the above described property for the purpose indicated is hereby approved and granted, subject to all applicable provisions of Chapter 156 of the City of Monroe Code of Ordinances, Section 3 of this permit, and the following special condition(s) which the City Council finds to be in the public interest: 1. All access to the site shall be from LaSalle Street; and 37 e e e e e 2. The development of the tract shall proceed in conformity to all plans, design features, and restrictions submitted as part of the special use permit application and kept on file by the City of Monroe Department of Planning and Development except that the City of Monroe Zoning Administrator may approve minor changes to such plans as required by field conditions and as defined in Section 156.188 (H) (2); and 3. The petitioner shall receive an approved City of Monroe driveway permit prior to beginning any development activity on the site; and 4. Prior to issuance of any zoning permits for the property the petitioner shall submit a Floodplain Development Permit Application and receive approval from the City of Monroe Department of Planning and Development prior to any land disturbance or filling of land located within the 100- year floodplain; and 5. Prior to issuance of any zoning permits for the property, a registered Professional Engineer in the State of North Carolina shall provide certification that the proposed development will not cause increased off-site flooding, drainage, or erosion problems; and 6. All on-site improvements shall comply with all applicable state and federal requirements for land development, including an approved erosion and sedimentation control plan from the Mooresville office of the North Carolina Department of Enyironmental Health and Natural Resources Division of Land Quality; and 7. The petitioner shall install a 20 by 100-foot temporary construction entrance with at least 8-inches of #5 washed stone placed on top of an approved soil stabilization fabric prior to beginning any land disturbing activity; and 8. The petitioner shall install all landscaping materials in accordance with the standards recommended by the American Association of Nurseryman and in the locations and numbers indicated on the site plan. SECTION 3. VESTED RIGHTS. Approval of this permit confers upon the property the right to develop with the type and intensity of use as herein described and as shown on the approved site plan. Development of the property, however, shall be subject to any and all future amendments to Chapters 151 and 156 of the Monroe Code of Ordinances which do not effect type and intensity of use (e.g. landscaping, design standards, screening, etc) as herein approved. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY AND RECORDATION. Invalidation of anyone or more of these conditions shall not adversely affect the balance of said conditions, which shall remain in full force and effect. This permit shall become null and void if not recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds, Union County, North Carolina, on or before December 3, 2001. Council Member Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: 38 e e e e e G. Project # 01-130-00010 - Zonin2 Map Chan2e Request - R-40 (Low Density Sin2le- Family Residential) to R-20-SU (Low/Moderate Density Residential Special Use) - Secrest Short Cut Road - 48.49 acres - Walt Perry Realty, Inc. on behalf of Robert M. Powell, Arthur K. Cates, J.W. Burchfield, and Tommy L. Broome - Tax Parcel #'s 09-256-165 and 09-265-167. No action taken as the public hearing was continued until November 20, 2001. H. Project # 01-110-00006 - Proposed Special Use Permit Request - Request to develop a 70-lot residential cluster subdivision - Secrest Short Cut Road - 48.49 acres - Walt Perry Realty, Inc. on behalf of Robert M. Powell, Arthur K. Cates, J. W. Burchfield, and Tommy L. Broome - Tax Parcel #'s 09-256-165 and 09-256-167. No action taken as the public hearing was continued until November 20, 2001. I. Project # 02-110-00001 - Special Use Permit Request - Request to develop a 19.38 acre business park (Mor2an Mills Business Park) consistin2 of two (2) multi-tenant office/retail buildin2s totalin2 50,400 square feet and office/warehouse buildin2s totalin2 approximately 94,500 square feet on Mor2an Mill Road south of Bearskin Creek - Craft Builders, Inc. - Tax Parcel # 09-185-004. Council Member Kilgore moved BE IT ORDAINED that the Special Use Permit be adopted in all respects: SPECIAL USE PERMIT On the date(s) listed below, the City Council of the City of Monroe met and held a public hearing to consider the following application: Record Owner(s): Craft Builders, Inc. Property Location: Morgan Mill Road south of Bearskin Creek Tax Map & Parcel # 09-185-004 & 09-185-015 Acreage: 19.44 Deed Reference: BOOK BOOK 1227 1246 , PAGE , PAGE 604 79 Type and Intensity of Use: Business Park consisting of two (2) multi-tenant office/retail buildings totaling 50,400 square feet and office/warehouse buildings totaling approximately 94,500 square feet Meeting Date: October 2,2001 October 2,2001 Approval Date: SECTION 1. FINDINGS: Having heard all of the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing, the City Council, at its regular meeting, finds and determines that the application is complete, and subject to the conditions imposed below, the following findings are made: 1. The use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located, designed, and operated according to the plan; and 39 e e e e 4. 5. 6. e 2. The use or development complies with all regulations and standards of Chapters 156 and 151 of the Monroe Code of Ordinances, as well as any other state or local rule or regulation governing the development of land; and 3. The use or development will not adversely impact surrounding property and will not substantially injure the value of adjoining property; and 4. The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and will be in general conformity with Monroe Land Development Plan; and 5. Public water and sewer service are available in adequate capacity; and 6. The rezoning of land to a special use district will produce a development of equal or higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application of the provisions of a general use district of similar type and intensity and will therefore benefit the owner, his neighbors, and the surrounding community . SECTION 2. CONDITIONS: Now, therefore, the application to make use of the above described property for the purpose indicated is hereby approved and granted, subject to all applicable provisions of Chapter 156 of the City of Monroe Code of Ordinances, Section 3 of this permit, and the following special condition(s) which the City Council finds to be in the public interest: 1. All access to the site and its individual tracts shall be from the entrance road off Morgan Mill Road; and 2. The development of the tract shall proceed in conformity to all plans, design features, and restrictions submitted as part of the special use permit application ånd kept on file by the City of Monroe Department of Planning and Development except that the City of Monroe Zoning Administrator may approve minor changes to such plans as required by field conditions and as defined in Section 156.188 (H) (2); and 3. The petitioner shall complete all off-site transportation improvements and receive approval from the City of Monroe and/or the North Carolina Department of Transportation prior to the release of any certificates of occupancy; and The petitioner shall submit a Floodplain Development Permit Application and receive approval from the City of Monroe Department of Planning and Development prior to any land disturbance or filling of land located within the lOO-year floodplain; The petitioner shall install an additional fire hydrant connected directly to an eight-inch water main at the entrance to the development; and The petitioner shall install all landscaping materials in accordance with the standards recommended by the American Association of Nurseryman and in the locations and numbers indicated on the site plan. SECTION 3. VESTED RIGHTS. Approval of this permit confers upon the property the right to develop with the type and intensity of use as herein described and as shown on the approved site plan. Development of the property, however, shall be subject to any and all future amendments to Chapters 151 and 156 of the 40 e e e e e Monroe Code of Ordinances which do not effect type and intensity of use (e.g. landscaping, design standards, screening, etc) as herein approved. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY AND RECORDATION. Invalidation of anyone or more of these conditions shall not adversely affect the balance of said conditions, which shall remain in full force and effect. This permit shall become null and void if not recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds, Union County, North Carolina, on or before December 3, 2001. Council Member Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: Item No.8. An Ordinance to Amend Title III, Chapter 33: Personnel Policies. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore moved to adopt Ordinance 0-2001-42: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE III, CHAPTER 33: PERSONNEL POLICIES OF THE CITY OF MONROE CODE OF ORDINANCES 0-2001-42 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONROE THAT TITLE III, CHAPTER 33: PERSONNEL POLICIES, OF THE CITY OF MONROE CODE OF ORDINANCES BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. § 33.035 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION; PERFORMANCE PAY BONUS is amended by adding the following subsection: (C) Employees who are out of work because of an extended leave shall have their performance review period extended by the amount of time out on leave to allow their evaluation period to encompass a full twelve month review period of work. Section 2. § 33.114 MILITARY LEAVE; REINSTATEMENT is rewritten in its entirety as follows: (A) Regular employees who are members of an Armed Forces Reserve Organization or National Guard shall be granted ten workdays per year for military leave without pay. On rare occasions due to annual training being scheduled on a federal fiscal year basis, an employee may be required to attend two periods of training in one calendar year. For this purpose only, an employee shall be granted an additional ten days of military leave during the same calendar year. If the compensation received while on military leave is less than the salary that would have been earned during this same period as a city employee, the employee shall receive partial compensation equal to the difference in the base salary earned during this 41 e e e e e same period as a city employee. The effect will be to maintain the employee's salary at the normal level during this period. (B) Regular employees who are members of an Armed Forces Reserve Organization or National Guard and who are called to active duty by the Federal Government shall receive partial compensation equal to the difference in the compensation received while on military leave and their base salary earned during this same period as a city employee for a maximum period of six (6) months. This provision only applies if the military compensation is less than the salary that would have been earned during this same period as a city employee. If such duty is required beyond the first six (6) months, the employee shall be eligible to take accumulated vacation leave or be placed in a leave without pay status, and the provisions of that leave shall apply. Employees who are eligible for military leave have all job rights specified by the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994. (C) In the event that an employee's tour of active duty extends beyond a six (6) month period, the City Manager has the authority to extend for an additional six (6) months the partial compensation and health insurance coverage benefits contained in (B) and (F) of this Section. City Council may vote to extend these same benefits upon the expiration of the initial twelve (12) months. (D) The city will not discriminate against service members or applicants to the service because of past, current, or future military service. (E) While taking military leave without payor with partial pay, the employee's leave credits and other benefits based upon length of service shall continue to accrue as if the employee physically remained with the city during this period. (F) While on active duty, an employee will be eligible for free medical insurance (CHAMPUS) from the military. The City's health insurance program excludes coverage for any condition, injury or illness suffered as a result of any act of war or while on active or reserve military duty. Since the insurance provided by the city will not cover an employee during a time of active duty, the city will consider an employee being called to active duty as a COBRA qualifying event and will therefore continue health and dental coverage for up to 18 months for employees on military leave (and their dependents). The coverage may terminate before the end of the 18-month period if an employee fails to return to work after military service. If military service is longer than 31 days, the city may charge up to 102 % of the cost of the health coverage as determined under COBRA or it may choose to continue to pay the same share it now pays for a period of six (6) months. If the military leave is for 31 days or less, the city may charge only the employee's share, if any. Employees (and dependents) whose health coverage is terminated because of the employee's military service will have the coverage reinstated upon reemployment of the employee without the imposition of any exclusions or waiting periods that would not have been imposed had the coverage not terminated. (G) (1) Employees in the military, either voluntarily or involuntarily (e.g., call-up of reservists), will have reemployment rights if they: (a) Give advance notice (written or verbal) of their military service to the employer; (b) Are absent for five years or less; (c) Separate from military service under honorable conditions; and (d) Report for reemployment within certain time periods. 42 e e e e (2) Employees performing military service for fewer than 31 days must report for reemployment on the first regularly scheduled workday within eight hours after returning home. Those serving more than 30 but less than 181 days must report within 14 days. Those serving more than 180 days must report within 90 days. (Ord. passed 5-19-92; Am. Ord. 0-1998-43, passed 11-3-98) Section 3. Chapter 33 is amended to add new section 33.118 as follows: § 33.118 EXTENSION OF PERFORMANCE REVIEW PERIOD. Employees who are out of work because of an extended leave shall have their performance review period extended by the amount of time out on leave to allow their evaluation period to encompass a full twelve month review period of work. Section 4. § 33.130 TYPES OF SEPARATION is amended to delete reference to "reduction in force", and delete subsection (B) Reduction in Force. * Section 5. ARTICLE XII: SUBSTANCE ABUSE POLICY and all sections thereunder are deleted from the City of Monroe Code of Ordinances. ** Section 6. ARTICLE XIII: NATURAL GAS DEPARTMENT ANTI-DRUG PROGRAM and all sections thereunder are deleted from the City of Monroe Code of Ordinances. ** * Administrative Policy adopted on June 19, 2001 ** This Article has been rewritten in its entirety as an Administrative Policy that will be administered and monitored by the City Manager through the Human Resources Director. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. ADOPTED this 2nd day of October, 2001. Council Member Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: Item No.9. Other Business. e A. New Century Scholars Pro~ram. Mayor Davis advised that the City of Monroe should consider sponsoring ten students for the New Century Scholars Program sponsored by the 43 e e e e e JobReady Partnership Council. The Scholars Program involves taking seventh grade students with untapped potential, mentoring them throughout high school, charging them with being above average and stellar citizens, and then giving them a two-year scholarship to South Piedmont Community College. There, the students can prepare for a career in one of Union County's many businesses and industries or study in a two-year college transfer program. This program will begin with the Fall 2001 school year and will present its first scholarships six years later as the first class graduates. Mayor Davis further reported that many businesses will be sponsors, and these scholarships are worth $500 each. Since there will be ten students from each of the middle schools in Union County, Mayor Davis noted her desire for the City of Monroe to sponsor the ten students from Monroe Middle School who would be involved in this program. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore moved that the City of Monroe participate in the New Century Scholars Program by sponsoring ten students at Monroe Middle School for $500 each. Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Kilgore, and Smith seconded the motion. City Manager Spell advised that Council consider including an appropriation of the $5,000 from the General Fund fund balance as part of the motion. Mayor Davis requested that future consideration be made with the other outside funding agencies at the time of the budget requests. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore restated his motion to sponsor ten students from Monroe Middle School for $500 each as part of the New Century Scholars Program and to appropriate $5,000 from the General Fund fund balance. Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Kilgore, and Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: B. Location of Soccer Field. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore briefed Council regarding a location for a new soccer field. In collaboration with Mayor Davis, they have been identifying potential locations for a soccer field to be used by all citizens of the City of Monroe. Presently, three locations have been identified; however, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore welcomed input from the public as to other possible locations for the soccer field. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore reported that they would be in a position to provide further information within 30 days as to which of the sites would be recommended for a soccer field. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore further stated that there are currently aquatics, fitness, and other recreational facilities throughout the City for everybody, and there exists a need for a soccer field for everybody. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore advised that there was no motion at the present time, but he wanted to update Council on the status of the soccer field issue. 44 e e e e e Item No. 10. Closed Session - Land Acquisition. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore moved to go into Closed Session to discuss land acquisition. Council Member Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: Upon return from Closed Session and there being no further business, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore moved to adjourn. Council Member Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: The Regular City Council Meeting of October 2, 2001 adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Attest: ~'m~ Jeanne M. Deese, CIty Clerk Minutes transcribed by Donna Helms, Office Administration Contractor 10-02-01 45