Loading...
11/20/2001 e e . e e CITY OF MONROE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 300 W. Crowell Street, Monroe, NC 28112 November 20, 2001 - 6:30 p.m. AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of November 6,2001 Minutes of Monroe Housing Authority Meetings of July 11,2000, August 15,2000, November 28, 2000, December 12,2000, January 16,2001 and Apri117, 2001 Minutes of Board of Adjustment Meeting of September 27, 2001 Minutes of Transportation Committee Meeting of October 11, 2001 Minutes of Planning Board Meeting of November 7, 2001 (Draft) 2. Call for Public Hearing to be Held December 3, 2001 - Project # 02-12000002 - Zoning Text Change Request - Addition of Reception Halls and Banquet Facilities to B-2 (Central Business) Zoning District - Michelle Evans 3. Land Acquisition for Airport - Cates, Broome, Tyson Property A. Budget Amendment B. Land Acquisition 4. Award of Bid - Spec Building II 5. An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 75 - Traffic Schedule I. (B) Speed Limits - City Maintained Streets 6. Budget Amendment - Property and Liability Insurance Renewal 7. Summary of Contracts Awarded Pursuant to 0-2001-17 and Change Orders Executed Pnrsuant to R- 2000-76 REGULAR AGENDA 8. Public Hearings A. Project # 02-10000002 - Conditional Use Permit Request - New Walter Bickett Elementary School- 25 Acres on South Side of Highway 75 (Waxhaw Highway) Between New Town Road and Highway 84 (Weddington Road) - Union County Public Schools - Tax ID # 09-321-004 (portion) B. 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 Shortcut 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 C. Project # 01-110-00006 - Special Use Permit Request - Request to develop a 70-10t 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 09-256-167 117 e e e e e D. Project # 02-12000004 - Zoning Text Change Request - Addition of Planned Unit Development District Regulations - City of Monroe E. Project # 02-13000006 - Zoning Map Change Request - R-20 (LowlModerate Single-Family Residential) to PUD-SU (Planned Unit Development Special Use) District - 291.30 acres on the south side of Highway 75 (Waxhaw Highway) between New Town Road and Highway 84 (Weddington Road) - City of Monroe - Tax ill #s 09-321-004,09-321-002 (portion), 09-321- 005, and 09-321-001 F. New Downtown Incentive Programs 9. Action from Public Hearings A. Project # 02-10000002 - Conditional Use Permit - New Walter Bickett Elementary School- 25 Acres on South Side of Highway 75 (Waxhaw Highway) Between New Town Road and Highway 84 (Weddington Road) - Union County Public Schools - Tax ill # 09-321-004 (portion) B. 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 Shortcut 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 (Continued From October 2,2001 Meeting) C. Project # 01-110-00006 - Special Use Permit - 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 Tornrny L. Broome - Tax Parcel #s 09-256-165 and 09-256-167 (Continued From October 2,2001 Meeting) D. Project # 02-12000004 - Ordinance - Zoning Text Change Request - Addition of Planned Unit Development District Regulations - City of Monroe E. Project # 02-13000006 - Zoning Map Change Request - R-20 (LowlModerate Single-Family Residential) to PUD-SU (Planned Unit Development Special Use) District - 291.30 acres on the south side of Highway 75 (Waxhaw Highway) between New Town Road and Highway 84 (Weddington Road) - City of Monroe - Tax ill #s 09-321-004, 09-321-002 (portion), 09-321-005, and 09-321-001 F. New Downtown Incentive Program - Resolution to Adopt Development Incentive Grant G. New Downtown Incentive Program - Resolution to Adopt Residential Investment Grant H. Project # 01-100-00011 - Conditional Use Permit Request - Accessory Structnre With a Home Occupation - 936 Secrest Hill Drive - .923 acres - James Marlow - Tax ill# 09-216-014 (Public Hearing Completed on October 2,2001) 10. Public Input Meeting - Resolution to Approve 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program Recommendations 11. Appointments - Economic Development Cornrnission 11-20-0 I 118 e e e e e CITY OF MONROE CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 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 November 20,2001, with Mayor Judy L. Davis presiding. Present: Mayor Judy L. Davis, Mayor Pro Tern P. E. Bazemore, Council Members Phil Hargett, Billy A. Jordan, Lynn Keziah, Bobby G. Kilgore, Robert J. Smith, City Manager S. Douglas Spell, City Attorney John Milliken, and City Clerk Jeanne M. Deese. Absent: None. Visitors: Walter Gibson, Luzette Glendy, Bob Glendy, Helen Nisbet, Peggy Brooks, James Woodson, Sonia Vizcaino, Mark Donham, T. T. Turner, Letha Turner, Johnnie Mullis, Torn Cook, Benton Langfitt, Robert DeWitt, Ernest Collins, Bonnie Elber, Dana Kerr, James Kerr, Horace Wells, Karen Wells, Paul Averette, JoAnn Guzman, Nonna Sledge, Loretta Browning, Henry Browning, Joan Fielden, Richard Browning, Roberta Herrholz, Wilma Walewski, Barbara Owens, Charles Owens, Joe Copley, Jim Loyd, Chris Platé, Houston Hawfield, Betsy Hawfield, Shirley Hilburn, Cofield Hilburn, Rudy Krakeel, Terry Krakeel, Bryan Secrest, Pat Secrest, Gale Secrest, Charles Mimms, Beth Stegall, Todd Lewandowski, Elizabeth Gibson, Bob Gibson, Bob Neal, Mary Neal, Randall Frattini, Donald Stewart, Jodi Osuch, Kevin Osuch, David McSheehan, John Crowder, David Burnett, Carolyn Lowder, Tim Ledbetter, Bob Powell, Jake Helder, Jess Perry, Fred Gore, Carolyn Teague, Harold Teague, Ed Davis, Glenn Edwards, Jim Hutchins, Larry Helms, Al Diehl, Jeanne Davis-Diehl, Kyle Dunn, Fred Howell, Marshall Jennette, Margie Jennette, Joe Fielden, Sis Dillon, Virginia Bjorlin, Joyce Nash~ Parks Nash, Marie Lathan, Randall Lathan, Mary Marshall Nash, Laura Davidson, Terry Davidson, Sabrina Fadial, and others. Mayor Davis called the Regular City Council Meeting of November 20, 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 infonnation was provided in advance in the Council Agenda 119 e e e e e 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 the Re2:ular City Council Meetin2: of November 6. 2001. Council Member Keziah moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of November 6, 2001. Council Member Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: Minutes of the Monroe Housing Authority Meetings of July 11, 2000, August 15, 2000, November 28,2000, December 12, 2000, January 16, 2001 and April 17, 2001; Minutes of the Board of Adjustment Meeting of September 27, 2001; Minutes of the Transportation Committee Meeting of October 11,2001; and Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting of November 7,2001 (Draft) were received as information of Council. Item No.2. Call for Public Hearin2: to be Held December 3.2001 - Proiect # 02-12000002- Zonin2: Text Chan2:e Request - Addition of Reception Halls and Banquet Facilities to B-2 (Central Business) Zonin2: District - Michelle Evans. Council Member Keziah moved to call for a public hearing to be held on December 3, 2001 at 6:30 p.m. to consider this request. Council Member Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: Item No.3. Land Acquisition for Airport - Cates. Broome. Tvson Property. Economic Development Director Platé reported by memorandum that, in an attempt to assemble land for the future expansion of the Monroe Municipal Airport, it was necessary to acquire the "Tyson Property" along Teledyne Road, prior to the development of this property. The negotiated purchase price for the 3.465± acres is $148,000, which is in line with the appraised amount. Staff recommended Council approve the purchase of the 3.465± acres known as the "Tyson Property" for a total sum of$148,000 for the future expansion ofthe Monroe Municipal Airport. A. Bud2:et Amendment. Council Member Keziah moved to approve Budget Amendment BA- 2001-26: 120 e e e e e BUDGET AMENDMENT BA-2001-26 1. Appropriate funds for the acquisition of land within the approach to Runway 23. General Fund: Revenues: Appropriation of Fund Balance Expenditures: Transfer to Airport Fund $ 148,000 $ 148,000 Airport Fund: Revenues: Transfer from General Fund Expenditures: Land Acquisition $ 148,000 $ 148,000 ADOPTED this 20th day of November, 2001. Council Member Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: D. Land Acquisition. Council Member Keziah moved to acquire the 3.465± acres known as the "Tyson Property" for a total sum of $148,000 for the future expansion of the Monroe Municipal Airport. Council Member Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: Item No.4. Award of Did - Spec Duildin!! II. Economic Development Director Platé requested by memorandum that Council consider a bid award for the construction of the Monroe Shell Building II to be built within the Monroe Corporate Center. Following an extensive review process of the bid packages and interviews with the low bidders, City staff concluded that the lowest, responsible bidder was Matthews Construction with a bid of $815,000. Almost all the bids had irregularities within the submitted materials. After legal review, it was determined that these irregularities were minor and did not affect the integrity of the process. Funds for this project were included in the FY 2002 Capital Improvement Budget. Council Member Keziah moved to award the construction contract of the Monroe Shell Building II to Matthews Construction with a bid of $815,000. Council Member Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: 121 e e e e e AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: Item No.5. An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 75 - Traffic Schedule I. (B) Speed Limits- City Maintained Streets. Engineering Director Loyd requested by memorandum that Council consider amending Schedule I: (B) Speed Limits - City Maintained Streets to reduce the speed limit on Gleneagles Drive, Karrington Place, and Roland Drive from 35 mph to 25 mph. Council Member Keziah moved to approve Ordinance 0-2001-51: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE VII, CHAPTER 75 OF THE CITY OF MONROE CODE OF ORDINANCES 0-2001-51 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 Glenea les Drive Karrin on Place Roland Drive DESCRIPTION Entire Len Entire Len Entire Len SPEED LIMIT 25 MPH 25MPH 25 MPH ADOPTED this 20th day of November, 2001. Council Member Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: Item No.6. Bud2et Amendment - Property and Liability Insurance Renewal. Finance and Administration Director Vizcaino reported by memorandum that on November 14, 2001, City staff met with Mr. James E. Woodside, Jr. from Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. Mr. Woodside provided a summary of the rate quotes received as of this date and will continue to negotiate the renewal of property and liability insurance through the expiration date of November 30,2001. A comparison of the premiums quoted to date with the current year's actual is as follows: 122 e e e e e Insurance Tvpe 2000-2001 Actual 2001-2002 Quote Premium Public Entity Package Excess Property Excess Liability Excess Workers' Comp Boiler & Machinery Airport Liability Surplus Lines Tax Loss Control $550,000*** 41,995 84,000 25,463 50,708 9,940 4,200 6,000 $167,500 30,000 61,500 21,809 44,094 6,214 11,450 6,000 $348,567 $772,306 Total *** This premium is based on increasing the Loss Fund from $250,000 to $275,000. Considering the current level of the Self-Insurance Reserves ($1,067,000) and to reduce the increase in the Premium Public Entity Package renewal rate, an additional $250,000 level 'corridor' of self-retention can be added to the package. This would represent a reduction of $175,000 in premium. Furthennore, taking into account the aforementioned changes, the increase in premiums would be approximately $250,000. Council Member Keziah moved to approve the changes to the Self-Insurance program, to authorize the City Manager to enter into the necessary insurance coverages within the budget amount, and to approve Budget Amendment BA-2001-27: BUDGET AMENDMENT BA-2001-27 1. Appropriate funds for the renewal of property and general liability, automobile liability and workers' compensation insurance. General Fund: Revenues: ApproprÜltion of Fund Balance $ 250,000 Expenditures: General Government $ 250,000 ADOPTED this 20th day of November, 2001. Council Member Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: 123 e e e e e Item No.7. Summary of Contracts Awarded Pursuant to 0-2001-17 and Chan!!e Orders Executed Pursuant to R-2000-76. City Manager Spell informed City Council by memorandum ofthe award of contracts pursuant to Ordinance 0-2001-17: Date Name Purpose Amount 10-29-01 Developmental Training and Consultation for an $21,250 Management Associates Implementation Plan for Quality (DMA) Improvement Teams 11-8-01 Textilease Corporation Rental Services for uniforms, mats, and Uniforms: $5.00- dust mops $12.00 Per Employee Per Week Mats/Mops $1.00- $4.50 Ea. Weeklv 11-1-01 The Ferguson Group, LLC Washington Representative to City of $72,000 Monroe to Advise the City on Federal Issues * 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 required. REGULAR AGENDA Item No.8. Public Hearin!!s. A. Proiect # 02-10000002 - Conditional Use Permit Request - New Walter Bickett Elementary School- 25 Acres on South Side of Hi!!hway 75 (Waxhaw Hi!!hway) Between New Town Road and Hi!!hway 84 (Weddin!!ton Road) - Union County Public Schools - Tax ID # 09-321-004 (uortion). Mayor Davis opened this duly advertised quasi-judicial public hearing and swore in the following individuals who planned to give testimony: Wayne Herron, Jim Loyd, David Fencl, David Burnett, Joe Copley, Dana Kerr, Laura Davidson, Mary Marshall Nash, Gary Moore, and three representatives ofthe Union County School Board. Planning Director Herron briefed Council and stated that this was a Conditional Use Permit request by Union County Public Schools to construct a new elementary school on approximately 20 acres located on the south side of Highway 75 (the Waxhaw Highway) and Highway 84 (Weddington Road and New Town Road). Planning Director Herron reported that the area is approximately a 20-acre site that is part of a 300-acre tract. The piece of property would be divided into the area where the school would be located. Mr. Fencl utilized a map to point out locations pertinent to the proposed elementary school. The area is zoned B-3, and the surrounding neighborhood area is zoned R-I0, which is within the current City limits. Planning Director Herron stated that the site plan indicated that the access road coming from the Food Lion Shopping Center is a 36-foot wide pavement section that connects into a 24-foot pavement section going up to Highway 75. This would allow two access roads coming into the school site, and the layout of the school site consists of two driveway points off of the new proposed road. There would be one driveway entering the site that would access parking for parents and 124 e e e e e teachers, and there would be a loop for student drop-off. The second driveway access would be for bus parking and bus access. Planning Director Herron pointed out the color codes for the school (brown), sidewalks (orange), and playing fields/recreation area (green). The Planning Board has reviewed this request and recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. The development of the tract shall proceed in conformity to all development plans and design features submitted as part of the Conditional 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 as defined in Section 156. 185(D)(2); and 2. The petitioner shall complete all purchases and transfers and submit copies of recorded deeds to staff as evidence of land ownership prior to the recordation of a Conditional Use Permit; and 3. Additional screening materials shall be installed and inspected around the perimeter of the site to meet the intent of Section 156.060 of the City of Monroe Zoning Ordinance prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. The petitioner shall provide a copy of the approved Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan from the Mooresville Regional Office of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources prior to commencing with any land disturbing activity; and 4. A registered professional engineer in the state of North Carolina shall provide certification prior to the issuance of a Building Permit that said development will not cause increased off-site flooding, drainage, or erosion problems. The determination of impact shall be based on hydrologic and hydraulic engineering studies extending downstream to a point where the proposed site development represents less than 10 percent of the total drainage area. The study shall be based on an analysis of both two and ten-year storm events. If it is determined that the development of the site does increase the peak discharge rate, then storm water quantity control improvements must be implemented. Storm water quantity control improvements must limit the two-year and ten-year post-development feed discharge rates to a predevelopment peak discharge rate to minimize flooding, drainage, and erosion problems. These improvements may consist of nonstructural approaches such as natural swells, depressions in the land, and other natural approaches, or structural approaches such as detention structures, wet and dry basins, extended detention facilities, and alternative best management practices (BMPs) with provisions for storm water quantity control. A combination of nonstructural and structural approaches is encouraged; and 5. A Traffic Impact Study is requested prior to the issuance of a Building Permit to determine the impact of the proposed development on existing traffic patterns within the area. The traffic engineer, who is registered as a professional engineer in the state of North Carolina, shall conduct the traffic study. The study shall address what impact the school site, as proposed, with drive connection to NC Highway 75 might have. Mitigation measures are to be recommended to minimize the project's potential impact on the surrounding street system; and 6. A driveway permitfrom the NCDOTis requiredfor the street connection to the NC Highway 75; and 7. The preliminary site plan shows two proposed roadways, one with 24-feet of pavement and the other with 36-feet of pavement. Roadway construction shall be in conformance with the City of Monroe Standard Specifications and Detail Manual and requirements established for the planned unit of development. The City of Monroe does not currently have a detailfor a three-lane, 36-foot section as shown on the plan. Staff will work with the developer to create a typical section required to 125 e e e e e accommodate utilities, sidewalks, and street trees. It is requested that the developers submit the proposal to the Engineering Department for coordination with other City departments; and 8. The water and sewer main to the site shall be designed by Union County Public Schools. Fundingfor the extension will be by the City of Monroe; and 9. Over-sizing of sewer main extensions shall require participation of the developer; and 10. All on-site and off-site easements for water and sewer main extension shall be acquired by Union County Public Schools; and 11. The City of Monroe Standard Specifications for water and sewer main extensions shall be applicable to this project; and 12. It shall be determined whether an 8-inch water main is sufficient to provide adequate fire protection to the school. A larger diameter water main, or loop connection of the water supply, may be required. Planning Director Herron further advised that, with these conditions, staff felt that this was an approvable, appropriate development in accordance with the City of Monroe's Ordinance requirements and standards. Both the Engineering and Planning Departments have visited the site and studied the City's regulations and requirements and have therefore concluded that all regulations and requirements may be met and can be approved based on the layout and topography of the site prior to a Building Permit being issued. Council Member Kilgore inquired about what would happen if the study of traffic patterns was found to be inadequate. Planning Director Herron responded that the Traffic Impact Study would first be submitted to the NCDOT. If all the mitigation measures could be implemented to the satisfaction of the DOT and the City of Monroe, then the Conditional Use Permit would be recorded and the City would proceed to a Building Permit. However, if the Traffic Impact Study was not approved and the mitigation measures could not be implemented, such as turn lanes or deceleration lanes, the Conditional Use Permit would not be recorded and therefore would not be a valid permit. In keeping with the required findings of fact for a Conditional Use Permit, Mayor Davis asked the following questions of David Burnett, Facilities Planner for Union County Public Schools: Mayor Davis: Is it your opinion that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety iflocated where proposed and developed according to plan? Mr. Burnett: That is correct. Mayor Davis: Is it your opinion that the use meets all required conditions and specifications? Mr. Burnett: That is correct. Mayor Davis: Is it your opinion that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property? Mr. Burnett: That is correct. 126 Mayor Davis: e Mr. Burnett: Mayor Davis: Mr. Burnett: Mayor Davis: e Mr. Burnett: Mayor Davis: Mr. Burnett: 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 the Monroe Land Development Plan? That is correct. Is it your opinion that the proposed use will be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is to be located with respect to the location of the structures, and the location and design of parking and service areas? That is correct. Is it your opinion that the streets and driveways as proposed provide adequate circulation for on-site and off-site circulation for vehicular and pedestrian movement consistent with the safety of the students and staff? That is correct. Is it your opinion that the existing infrastructure, including but not limited to streets, water, and sewer, is adequate to serve the site and will not be adversely impacted by the proposed use? That is correct. Joe Copley, 1906 Weddington Road, addressed Council and reported that his residence was a historic property in the neighborhood of the proposed school. Mr. Copley reqùested clarification as to the reasons for the consideration of this property when it was his understanding that a site had been purchased on Lancaster Avenue for the construction of the new Walter Bickett Elementary School. Mr. Burnett responded that this property provided the Board of Education with options, and if the site was approved, then the Board would have one year to pursue the site given the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. e Dana Kerr expressed a concern relating to the safety of the children and the close proximity of the new school to a commercial development. Gary Moore, who lives in the Brooks Farm area, expressed his concern that the proposed road entering the property would become a cut-through for people coming from the Parkwood area, which may cause traffic pattern problems and endanger children playing in the neighborhood. Planning Director Herron responded that this has been addressed and staff plans to recommend that all cut-throughs and connections be eliminated on the Planned Unit Development plan. Council would be asked to adopt this change at a later date as part of the master plan. e Council Member Smith questioned the proposed distance between Franklin Avenue and the school, specifically how far off Highway 75 the driveway would be located. Mr. Burnett estimated that it would be approximately 850 feet. Laura Davidson, who lives on Waxhaw Highway between the proposed school and Highway 75, noted her concern regarding the two proposed roadways and stated that these roadways would not adequately improve the traffic situation on Highways 75 and 84. e Mary Marshall Nash, who lives on Waxhaw Highway, questioned whether the roads could be impacted at the intersection of Highways 75 and 84 since they were historical properties. 127 e e e e e Planning Director Herron stated that he was unsure of the answer, but staff would review the findings of the Traffic Impact Study with the Engineering Department and NCDOT and would then do field investigations to determine whether the recommended improvements could be completed prior to the Conditional Use Permit being recorded. The school system would be involved with this negotiation. There being no other speakers, either for or against the proposal, Mayor Davis closed this public hearing. Mayor Davis advised that the School Board requested that a vote be taken after the public hearing due to another meeting that would be occurring that night. Mayor Davis requested a motion to come out of the Public Hearing Session and go into Regular Session to take a vote on the Conditional Use Permit request. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore moved to come out of Public Hearing Session and go into Regular Session. Council Member Keziah seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore moved BE IT ORDAINED that the Conditional Use Permit be adopted in all respects: THE CITY OF MONROE. NORTH CAROLINA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP # 02-100-00002 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): Union County Board of Education Property Location: Intersection of Wax haw Hiehwav (Hwv. 75) & Weddineton Rd. (Hwv. 84) Tax Map & Parcel #'s: 09-321-004 (portion) Acreage: 25 Acres Deed Reference: BOOK PAGE Type and Intensity of Use: 80,785 square foot Elementary School (New Walter Bickett) Meeting Date: November 20,2001 Approval Date: November 20,2001 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, considering compliance with the conditions imposed below, the following findings are made: 1. The use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to plan; and 128 e e e e e 2. The use meets all required conditions and specifications; and 3. The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting 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 the Monroe Land Development Plan; and 5. The proposed use will be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located with respect to the location of the structures, and the location and design of parking and service areas; and 6. The streets and driveways as proposed provide adequate circulation for on-site and off-site circulation for vehicular and pedestrian movement consistent with the safety of the students and staff; and 7. The existing infrastructure, including but not limited to streets, water and sewer is adequate to serve the site and will not be adversely impacted by the proposed use. SECTION 2. CONDITIONS: Now, therefore, the application to make use of the above described property for the pmpose 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. The development of the tract shall proceed in conformity to all development plans and design features submitted as part of the conditional 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 as defined in section 156.185(D)(2); and 2. The petitioner shall complete all purchases and transfers and submit copies of the recorded deeds to staff as evidence of land ownership prior to recordation of the conditional use permit; and 3. Additional screening materials shall be installed and inspected around the perimeter of the site to meet the intent of section 156.060 of the City of Monroe Zoning Ordinance prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy; and 4. The petitioner shall provide a copy of the approved erosion and sedimentation control plan from the Mooresville regional office of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources prior to commencing with any land disturbing activity; and , 5. A registered Professional Engineer in the State of North Carolina shall provide certification prior to the issuance of a building permit that said development will not cause increased offsite flooding, drainage or erosion problems. Determination of impacts shall be based on hydrologic and hydraulic engineering studies extending downstream to a point where the proposed site development represents less then ten (10) per cent of the total drainage area. The study shall be based on an analysis of both two and ten-year storm events. If it is determined that the development of the site does increase the peak discharge rate, stormwater quantity control improvements must be implemented. The stormwater quantity control improvements must limit the two-year and ten-year post-development peak discharge rates to pre- development peak discharge rates, to minimize flooding, drainage, and erosion problems. These improvements may consist of nonstructural approaches such as natural swales, depressions in the land and other natural approaches, or structural approaches such as detention structures (wet and dry basins), extended detention facilities, and alternative best management practices (BMP's) with provisions for stormwater quantity control. A combination of nonstructural and structural approaches is encouraged; and 129 e e e e e 6. A Traffic Impact Study shall be required prior to the issuance of a building permit to determine the impact of the proposed development on existing traffic patterns within the area. A Traffic Engineer who is a registered Professional Engineer in the State of North Carolina shall conduct the Traffic Study. The study shall address the impact of the school site at its proposed drive connection to North Carolina Highway 84/75. Mitigation measures are to be recommended to minimize the project's potential impact on the surrounding street system; and 7. A driveway permit from the NCDOT is required for the street connection to North Carolina Highways 84/75; and 8. The preliminary site plan shows two proposed roadways, one with 24 feet of pavement, and the other with 36 feet of pavement. Roadway construction shall be in conformance with the City of Monroe Standard Specification and Detail Manual and requirements established for the Planned Unit Development. The City of Monroe does not currently have a detail for a three lane (36 feet) section as shown on the plans. Staff will work with the Developer to create the typical section required to accommodate utilities, sidewalks and street trees. It is requested that the Developer submit his proposal to the Engineering Department for coordination with other City Departments; and 9. The water and sewer main to the site shall be designed by Union County Public Schools. Funding for this extension shall be by the City of Monroe; and 10. Oversizing of sewer main extension shall require participation of developer; and 11. All on-site and off-site easements for water and sewer main extensions shall be acquired by Union County Public Schools; and 12. The City of Monroe standard specifications for water and sewer main extensions shall be applicable to this project; and 13. It shall be determined whether an 8-inch water main is sufficient to provide adequate fire protection to the school, a larger diameter water main or looped connection of the water supply may be required. 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 155 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 February 19, 2002. Council Member Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: 130 e e e e e Council Member Keziah moved to go back into Public Hearing Session. Council Member Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: B. Proiect # 01-130-00010 - Zonin2 Map Chan2e Request - R-40 (Low Density Sin2le- Family Residential) to R-20-SU (Low/Moderate Densitv Residential Special Use) - Secrest Shortcut Road - 48.49 acres - Walt Perry Realtv. 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 B. and C. as one public hearing. The public hearings were held together and action was taken separately. C. Proiect # 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 Realtv. 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 noted that Council heard part of this request at the October 2, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting and several people had been sworn in at that time. The following additional people were sworn in: Jake Helder and Joe Fielden. Planning Director Herron advised that this was a rezoning request for property on Secrest Short Cut Road from R-40 to R-20-SU, with the Special Use being a 70-10t cluster subdivision. Planning Director Herron informed Council that the Green Sheet included in their Agenda Packets contained the details pertaining to this request. On October 2, 2001, Council continued the public hearing until the petitioner could provide a Traffic Study. The Traffic Study has been submitted and reviewed by the City's Engineering Department, and staff was in agreement with the findings noted in the Traffic Study. Planning Director Herron reported that the recommended improvements were included in a revised staff report provided to Council. Planning Director Herron directed Council to the final page of the Traffic Impact Study under the conclusions. In addition to several findings made by the Traffic Engineer, the last sentence detailed the recommendations and stated, "By constructing a 150-Joot left-turn lane and a deceleration lane, this will effectively enhance traffic flow through this area, equivalent of the future three-lane section. " Planning Director Herron reiterated that, with the recommended improvements and the Engineering Department's acceptance of the Traffic Study, staff recommended approval of the rezoning request. The 11 conditions were read into the record at the October 2, 2001 meeting. The Land Development Committee has also reviewed this request and recommended approval of this subdivision for 70 lots. Due to concerns regarding traffic on Secrest Short Cut Road, the Land Development Committee further recommended a policy of no further special use rezoning considerations on the Secrest Short Cut Road area until such time as road improvements are made to the road. Currently, the City Manager has forwarded a letter to the City's Department of Transportation representatives requesting the improvements to Secrest Short Cut Road. 131 e e e e e Applications or recommendations for rezoning in the Secrest Short Cut Road area will not be accepted until such time as road improvements can be made. Council Member Jordan inquired how people would be notified of the new rezoning policy for property on Secrest Short Cut Road. Planning Director Herron replied that this would be done with press releases to the newspapers, meetings with professional groups, and by notifying the limited number of property owners in the Secrest Short Cut area. Council Member Smith stated that this was like closing the barn door after the cows got out. Mayor Davis advised that the findings of fact were addressed at the October 2, 2001 Regular City Council meeting. Attorney Jake Helder represented the petitioner and spoke in favor of this request. Attorney Helder advised that he became involved after the meeting was adjourned on October 2,2001 in order to allow for a Traffic Impact Study. Attorney Helder noted that Council was provided with the Traffic Impact Study and had an opportunity to review it. Furthermore, Attorney Helder reported that, according to the Study, Secrest Short Cut Road was about at 70 percent capacity at the present time, with around 5,800 cars per day. Based on NCDOT criteria, the current capacity of Secrest Short Cut Road was about 9,000 vehicles. Attorney Helder stated that one thing Council considered at the previous meeting was the possibility of improvements to the road, which could increase the capacity of the road up to 12,000 - 14,000 vehicles per day. Attorney Helder noted that as far as the criteria of DOT, the road was well within its standard containment, as far as the number of vehicles per day that it could handle. Attorney Helder introduced Mr. Fred Gore, who was instrumental in the Traffic Study, and requested that Council direct questions to him regarding the Study. Attorney Helder further advised that another issuè raised at the previous hearing was the prospect of giving up one of the last segments of R-40 zoning within the municipality. Attorney Helder reported, "R-40 zoning comes as a result of what is safe, sanitary, and whatever for the population. You generally have R-40 zoning where you do not have water and sewage services available. You simply need to have 40,000 square feet of property to safely contain a well and a septic tank: on a housing unit so that they will not be so close together that you could have contamination from the septic tank: to the well. When you have either water or sewer available, it takes away approximately 50 percent of that land area that is needed; therefore, where you have either water or sewer available, it is generally considered that you only need about one-acre or 20,000 square feet. When you have both of them available, it is generally considered that 10,000 square feet is sufficient." Attorney Helder expressed his understanding of the desire of local residents to have large lots, but it was not a good land use according to state government reports. Attorney Helder stated, "In terms of smart growth, where you have wide open, large lots, this leads to urban sprawl and actually creates more of a problem than when you have smaller lots in planned areas like the developer is planning to do. You are able to have your housing units in one area with easy access to shopping or whatever, which this locality does have." 132 e e e e e Attorney Helder advised that it was not his intention to belabor all the points raised at the previous hearing. Attorney Helder stated that Rob Morrison's report spoke to the property values in the area, and led to the conclusion that there was no adverse effect to the adjoining property owners. Attorney Helder concluded by asking Council for a favorable consideration of this request. Pat Secrest, adjoining property owner, spoke in opposition. Mr. Secrest expressed his appreciation for the Council's consideration of the DOT Traffic Study. Mr. Secrest noted that the traffic count for the Traffic Study was located by Kmart, which does not accurately count the traffic and cut-through that occurs on Secrest Short Cut Road due to the lack of a bypass. Mr. Secrest reiterated his concern regarding the traffic and the safety of the road. Council Member Smith responded to Attorney Helder's statements by stating that people make a choice to live on R-40 property, which may contain a high percentage of wooded area. Council Member Smith expressed his understanding of urban sprawl and noted that only two or three subdivisions in the City of Monroe are zoned R-40; therefore, the City of Monroe could never be accused of having this kind of land use plan. Attorney Helder referenced a map that showed specific locations where counts occurred for the Traffic Impact Study, not just the Kmart area. Council Member Smith reported that he lived on the busiest cut-through in Monroe, and any truck or construction person who wanted to go from Highway 74 to Secrest Short Cut Road would come right in front of his subdivision. Council Member Smith noted that, despite what the traffic counts showed, traffic was substantial around his property. Joe Fielden, 3517 Secrest Short Cut Road, spoke in opposition to the request. Mr. Fielden questioned the validity of the traffic count, especially around Fowler Road. Mr. Fielding further noted his resentment that he could no longer rezone his property due to the new rezoning policy for Secrest Short Cut Road. Furthermore, Mr. Fielden expressed a concern regarding the noise level of the traffic using the road. Council Member Kilgore asked for clarification as to whether Mr. Fielden was for or against not being able to rezone his property under the new policy. Mr. Fielding stated that he was opposed to the rezoning policy. Attorney Helder responded to a comment made by Council Member Jordan at the previous hearing. Attorney Helder referenced the fact that the petitioner had followed all the rules, had provided all the required information, and had abided by all the requirements of staff. Thus, it was a logical thing that the developer should be able to expect that this petition would be approved. Attorney Helder concluded that the petitioner's request should be approved in accordance with Council Member Jordan's statement. There being no other speakers, either for or against the proposal, Mayor Davis closed this public hearing. 133 D. Proiect # 02-12000004 - Zonin2 Text Chan2e Request - Addition of Planned Unit Development District Re2ulations - City of Monroe. Mayor Davis opened this duly e advertised public hearing. Planning Director Herron briefed Council as Mr. Fencl located the sites on a map. Planning Director Herron reported that in February of this year, the Land Development Committee discussed a possible neo-traditional Ordinance for the City. The proposed Ordinance would allow more flexibility in lot sizes, density, right-of-way and road widths, and proposed uses within a defined area. e e e e Staff was recently directed to consider and draft a more broad approach to the Flexible Development Ordinance that may be applied jurisdiction wide. Staff drafted an Ordinance and is proposing a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) Special Use District. This new Ordinance was designed to address two issues at one time. A PUD Ordinance allows a mix of uses and a range of different amenities and requirements for a development that the City's standard Zoning Ordinance would not allow. A traditional neighborhood Ordinance is often incorporated into a PUD or sometimes they stand alone, but they allow developers to create more traditional neighborhoods of the past. Staff has attempted to combine the two to create an Ordinance where a developer would have the flexibility to create a traditional neighborhood if desired, or simply layout a PUD of mixed uses. Staff proposed a new Planned Unit Development Special Use District. The new proposed district would allow developers greater latitude in layout and design, while maintaining the City's desired design standards and guaranteeing a product that would be better than could be provided by utilizing the City's traditional subdivision and cluster provisions. The approval process for the new zoning district would allow for the developer to present a master plan for rezoning and then apply for Special Use Pennits for each individual phase. There would be a public hearing for a master plan upfront, where Council would get an idea of the overall uses and layout. Then, each phase would require a public hearing whereby Council would look at the definitive layout of the streets, the lots, and the locations of utilities, lighting, and landscaping. The Ordinance allows for all residential, all commercial, or mixed-use developments. Reduced right-of-ways and street widths are also allowed. Sidewalks are required on both sides of all streets, and trees are required throughout the development. The goal is to create a development that is far superior to what traditional regulations would allow, while also pennitting certain increases in density as a bonus. The Planned Unit Development District would only be available to property that is or will be included in the corporate limits of the City due to the urban densities that are being proposed. Planning Director Herron advised that the Planning Board reviewed this document and recommended approval. Planning Director Herron noted the details of the document and explained what the Ordinance would do for the City of Monroe. Planning Director Herron referred to a revised document provided to Council and noted that the colored section on the 134 e e e e e cover of the Ordinance was an example of a Planned Unit Development located in Chapel Hill. Planning Director Herron utilized the Chapel Hill PUD to illustrate the approval process and what it can do. Planning Director Herron advised how the plan would have been presented to Council. Initially, there would have been a rezoning to PUD, and the development would have laid out areas entitled single-family, multi-family, and commercial. Staff would review this with the Council and hold a public hearing to obtain input from neighbors and concerned citizens. A decision would then be made to determine if this was an appropriate location for a PUD, and if the phases fit together properly. Planning Director Herron stated his desire to go through the Ordinance to explain specifically what was being proposed and what the City of Monroe would look for in PUDs that may be located within the City. Planning Director Herron reported on who would be impacted by the proposed Ordinance. The City is continually looking at flexible and innovative ways of regulating land use and providing quality land developments, not only for the citizens and neighbors, but for developers. This started with the Land Development Committee, who has been studying innovative ways to provide mixed-use development. The Planning Board reviewed this earlier in the month and recommended approval. It is now at the City Council level, where public input is received and a legislative decision is made to determine the next step for Planned Unit Development in the City of Monroe. Planning Director Herron addressed what the Planned Unit Development was in relation to the proposed Ordinance. The PUD is an Ordinance that provides an innovative approach to mixing uses. Normally, the City's standard zoning does not mix uses. The PUD allows for a mixture of uses that may work together and provide a cohesive neighborhood where people could possibly walk to certain businesses, walk to parks, or just simply walk for recreational activity. There may be a school, neighborhood businesses, or a number of things to bring the neighborhood together to offer a higher quality of life than if it were a standard subdivision or development. The flexibility is what makes the PUD attractive as it allows for creativity in road design, lot layout, and provision of open space. Furthermore, it allows for a mix of uses, but on a neighborhood level and concept. The proposed uses of the proposed Ordinance allow for standard single-family uses, town homes, condominiums, and apartments - which are standard PUD uses. There are also certain nonresidential uses that are standard in a lot of PUDs, such as golf courses, several infrastructure uses that go along with the provision of utilities, churches, cemeteries, libraries, and day cares - which are also standard neighborhood uses. There are several commercial uses noted, most of which are of neighborhood-type scale. Highway uses are not sought for inclusion in a PUD. The purpose is to provide uses that would normally be used on day-to-day goings and comings, such as a gas station or small food mart. On a neighborhood scale, gas stations would be limited to a six-pump station to eliminate large convenient stores, such as those found on the highway. In addition, restaurants would also be allowed; however, they would be sit-down places and would not include drive-thrus. One use that is not allowed is duplexes, since it is not a standard multi-family, single-family detached, or normal commercial use that could mix in with community uses. The City would require amenities that would provide the aesthetics and quality of life desired for the citizens and neighbors. 135 e e e e e Planning Director Herron reported on what the City would require and how a PUD works. First, to do a PUD, a developer would apply for rezoning. With the rezoning, a master plan would be provided, and it would show the placement of residential uses, such as single-family, multi- family, and commercial. There would be a layout presented for defined areas for each of these residential uses. This would allow the City Council and the citizens to view the master plan to detennine if it was an appropriate mix of uses to make it a cohesive neighborhood and whether it would blend in with the surrounding area. Another consideration would be whether it offered a higher quality of life than the City's nonnal Zoning Ordinance would provide. The master plan would not only include the layout of the general uses, but would also include the densities, which would be defined by acre. The defined acreage for the residential area would be defined and laid out at that point in time. At the rezoning process, if ten acres were shown, then they would have a 40-unit limit on residential. However, they do have flexibility as to how the units are laid out, but there would be a 40-unit limit. On commercial, there would be a limit of 28 percent floor area for whatever acreage was provided. Planning Director Herron further reported that, once the master plan and rezoning were approved, each one of the areas shown on the master plan would be considered a phase. Each time the developer was ready to develop a phase, he would submit a Special Use Pennit, which would require a public hearing. Planning Director Herron noted that the Special Use Pennit may or may not come right away. The overall master plan, once rezoned, does not require the developer to Come back at any period of time, which is part of the flexibility. Market conditions control a majority of what happens with the development; therefore, the developer comes back at an appropriate time when market conditions are favorable. The layout for the development, in its entirety, would be reviewed for each specific phase of the development to detennine if it was appropriate and whether it met the findings of the Special Use Pennit and the findings laid out in the PUD Plan. If it met all the findings, Council would issue the Special Use Pennit; however, if Council did not approve it, the developer must re-evaluate or Council could choose to deny the developmental phase. In summary, there would be control at each phase whereby staff, Council, and the developer could negotiate and discuss what is appropriate for the development and the City of Monroe. Planning Director Herron advised Council of the locations in the Ordinance that address the neighborhood character of the Planned Unit Development Plan. Each PUD shall be a minimum of 25 acres. There cannot be a good mixed-use development with anything smaller than this acreage, and most developments would probably run in the hundreds of acres. This would be a type of development that is seen once every-so-often, not on a daily basis, due to the high amount of acreage involved. Planning Director Herron reviewed density: (a) residential is four units per acres; (b) commercial density being 28 percent floor area; and ( c) a density bonus if property is donated for a public use, such as a school or library. This density could be transferred into a residential area, not a commercial area. Commercial use would also be limited to a maximum of 15,000 square feet to ensure neighborhood-scale sized development. The issue of grocery stores was addressed, and Planning Director Herron advised that most retail chains do currently provide neighborhood-scale stores as it is a necessity in many larger cities. 136 e e e e e Planning Director Herron referenced page five to discuss streets and sidewalks. Developers would be required to provide sidewalks along both sides of all streets, with the exception being if a developer provided a greenway. For every linear foot of greenway, sidewalk could be reduced on one side of the street somewhere in the development. If the sidewalk was reduced on one side of the street or an alley was provided, parking could be provided on one side of the street, which would be similar to the traditional neighborhood-type development. If parking was provided on the street, there are restrictions included in the proposed Ordinance that would set a two-story limit on all structures to allow for fire department access in case of an emergency. Another requirement is that all utilities must be underground, which is another common feature of modem developments. Planning Director Herron addressed area requirements: "Each lot must be of sufficient size and dimension that it can support the structure proposed to be located on it, consistent with all other applicable requirements of this Ordinance." Planning Director Herron stated that this basically means that the lot must be designed to handle the structure being built, according to the building code. The inclusion of this wording is to place no minimum lot size requirements in this Ordinance. The developer would have the flexibility to design lots and place houses on them to meet market standards. Planning Director Herron noted that street trees would be required at the ratio of four for every 1 00 linear feet of road, and there would be a master landscape plan required that detailed the types, species, and locations of street trees. The Tree Board would review tree plans to ensure that appropriate species were planted for the particular area. In addition to the master landscape plan, each time a phase was submitted, there would be a specific landscape plan submitted. Planning Director Herron reviewed the Building Design Requirements. The first section pertained to the single-family detached dwellings, which was of most interest to citizens. In the proposed Ordinance, all homes must be a minimum of 1200-square feet, but at least 50 percent of the homes must be over BOO-square feet. This requirement is a minimum, and developers are allowed to go as high as the market would bear. Because of the additional amenities required, it is hoped that a higher-quality product would be provided and necessary in a development of this nature. There is a requirement stated that all homes must have a two-car garage, with the exception being that the developer may choose to build a carport if parking is in the rear of the house. If parking is provided on the side, there must be a two-car garage. Porches would also be required on all homes detached that are built within a PUD, which is another common element in most PUDs and traditional neighborhood Ordinances around the country. Planning Director Herron advised that an element included in the draft presented to Council was that all homes built detached must have a 25 percent minimum brick front, and every yard must have a minimum of two trees. Specifications for the diameter and caliber of trees are laid out in the proposed Ordinance. Planning Director Herron directed Council to the section pertaining to all other residential dwellings and commercial buildings. There is a signage requirement included to ensure that provided signage is of a higher quality and standard than what may be provided in a normal traditional setting. Exceptions noted include businesses within the development that have at least 137 e e e e e 80 linear feet of frontage within the development. These businesses would be eligible for their own free-standing sign; smaller shops would need to be included on the directory sign. A signage plan would have to be submitted and reviewed as part of the development review process. Planning Director Herron pointed out one key component regarding the importance of the special use process. There are four findings that would be used, in addition to the four standard findings, for Special Use Pennits. The findings are: (a) The application of Planned Unit Development requirements to the property will produce a development of equal or higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application of district regulations that would otherwise govern; and (b) The application of Planned Unit Development requirements to the property will encourage innovative arrangements of buildings and open spaces to provide efficient, attractive, flexible, and environmentally sensitive design,· and (c) The application of Planned Unit Development requirements to the property will produce a development functioning as a cohesive, unified project; and (d) The application of Planned Unit Development requirements to the property will not substantially injure or damage the use, value, and enjoyment of surrounding property nor hinder or prevent the development of surrounding property in accordance with the adopted plans and policies of the City. Planning Director Herron addressed where the PUD might be located within the City of Monroe. Planning Director Herron pointed to several locations on a zoning map to illustrate potential locations for a PUD. The areas designated would generally be within the R-20 area, the business zones, and potentially in the City's industrial zones. Planning Director Herron stressed that a PUD needs to be located along a major traffic route. Planning Director Herron briefed Council regarding why the proposed Ordinance was designed and advised that there was a market for this type of development for all age groups and for businesses. Planned Unit Developments are strongly encouraged through language included in smart growth state legislation. Furthennore, several recommendations have been made in accordance with smart growth, and this method of development was used as a way to deal with urban sprawl from 1900-1950. The development during this period of time was compact, which led to a cost savings due to houses being clustered around utilities and the decrease in travel to obtain daily services. Council Member Smith inquired about the translation of density bonus. Planning Director Herron replied that it would be four units per acre of donated property. The overall bonus for the PUD would be four units per acre, which is equal to slightly more than an R-10 development. R-10 would be about 4.3 units per acres, if zoned straight R-lO. To do a PUD, it would go from R-40 or R-20 (one to two units per acre) to four units per acre. The overall bonus, therefore, would be increasing homes by about two units per acre. The current PUD under consideration is zoned R-20, which would be two units per acre, and would go to four units per acre under the proposed Ordinance. Council Member Smith clarified his question by asking what the density would be if a school was removed from the PUD. Planning Director Herron responded that the school would be a 20-acre site, which would be an additional 80 units that could be provided into the major development. There would be 983 units allowed with the school, and there would be a total of 920 units provided in the PUD without the school density bonus. 138 e e e e e Council Member Smith asked the reasoning for inclusion of the following statement: "Exterior use of masonite or other similar high-maintenance materials on walls or trim is strongly discouraged." Planning Director Herron responded that the wording was taken from the Land Development Plan but noted that the wording could be removed. Council Member Smith expressed a concern regarding the requirement that 75 percent of the residential dwellings be in vinyl. Council Member Smith further noted that the proposed Ordinance stated that all commercial buildings shall be constructed of brick, stone, or stucco, but questioned the inconsistency with regards to a nice commercial area having mostly vinyl houses constructed in the surrounding area. Council Member Kilgore shared his agreement with Council Member Smith regarding the vinyl requirement and questioned what measures would be taken to ensure that the developer actually included commercial buildings in the PUD and not just construct 1200 or BOO-square foot residential dwellings. Council Member Kilgore requested clarification as to whether the developer could simply fill the entire property with 1200 or BOO-square foot homes. Planning Director Herron responded that there were no insurances as the Ordinance is currently worded, and the developer does have the right to build the minimums. Planning Director Herron further advised that if the developer chose not to provide a mixture of uses, then they would have to return for an amendment to their master plan and that would have to be approved by Council. Planning Director Herron referenced page 12 of the proposed Ordinance which states, "Minor deviations from the master plan approved by the City Council are permissible, and the Zoning Administrator may authorize a minor deviation." The situation cited by Council Member Kilgore would not be considered a minor deviation; therefore, the master plan would need to be reconsidered by City Council in order to fill the entire development with 1200 to BOO-square foot houses. Council Member Kilgore asked how many units could be built by the developer before returning to Council with a request to build all houses. Planning Director Herron responded that the developer could return to Council at any time, from the beginning to near the end of the development construction. Council Member Kilgore reiterated his question by asking how many houses the developer could build initially before being required to return to Council for the next phase. Council Member Smith referenced Page 10 and asked for a definition of an "exposed chimney." Planning Director Herron responded that the interpretation from the Land Development Plan would be that an exposed chimney is any chimney that juts out from the house. Council Member Smith asked if chimneys for prefab fireplaces were allowed under the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Fencl advised that the interpretation would be anything that goes above the roof would be brick. If it did not go above the roof, it would be allowed in vinyl. Council Member Kilgore requested clarification regarding the chimney issue. Planning Director Herron advised that a regular fireplace would be required to have a brick chimney. If it was a prefab fireplace, the chimney could be vinyl. Mayor Davis requested clarification as to whether the current hearing was a request to rezone the property to PDU-SU and questioned whether the developer was bringing forth their consideration for a Special Use Permit at the current hearing. Planning Director Herron noted 139 e e e e e that Item 8. E. on the Agenda was the request to rezone a piece of property on Highway 75 to PUD-SU, but there have been no Special Use Permits presented and no phases presented. Mayor Davis asked if the request would come forth in phases. Planning Director Herron replied that each phase would be presented at a public hearing for approval. Mayor Davis noted that Council does have a method of recourse if the developers fail to meet the requirements of each Special Use Permit for each phase ofthe development. Council Member Kilgore inquired if each phase was to be considered in its entirety, or if the developer could present a partial phase. Planning Director Herron replied that each area was anticipated to be a phase; however, if the developer chose to submit only half of a phase, then Council had the right to review it based on the way the developer submitted it. Council Member Kilgore asked if the developer could reduce the number of phases, such as making two phases out of ten. Planning Director Herron responded that the master plan would dictate what the development area was, and if there were six phases in the development, then there would be six separate public hearings - despite the manipulation of phases by the developer. Council Member Kilgore further asked if the Special Use Permit could require that houses be 100 percent brick. Planning Director Herron advised that this would need to be included in the proposed Ordinance. This could be requested during the negotiation stages of the Special Use Permit, and if agreed upon, would be required in the developer's Special Use Permit. However, unless it is included in the up front Ordinance, it would be difficult to require that the houses be 100 percent brick. Fred Howell, 401 ~ West Franklin Street, spoke in favor of this request. Mr. Howell congratulated staff on considering this type of development and noted that improvements could be made in the proposed Ordinance pertaining to sidewalks having grass strips, the requirement for both sidewalks and walking trails, and requirements for comparable trees. Mr. Howell asked if a row of trees on the perimeter or in a wet area would alleviate the developer from planting additional trees on the streets. Mr. Howell referenced the proposed Ordinance regarding credit and Planning Director Herron responded to this inquiry. Mr. Howell suggested the following improvements: (1) All streets need to be connected; (2) There needs to be cul-de-sacs included in the PUD; (3) The roof pitch needs to be higher; (4) There needs to be more variation in housing size; (5) Changing the brick/vinyl requirement to 25 percent of the houses must be all brick; and (6) Limiting the number of cars per residence. John Menzel, 201 Grambrel Way in Brooks Farm, spoke in opposition. Mr. Menzel expressed a concern that the presentation was for an optimal situation; however, there was no mention of how the future development proposals would make the developer responsible for the upkeep of the pristine outline. From Mr. Menzel's past experiences with developments, the developer bankrupts on the landscaping if he is unable to collect the homeowners' association dues. Mr. Menzel noted that the common areas in his current development have not been mowed for six months, and no person has given him any information as to where to send his homeowners' dues since there is no homeowners' committee. Mr. Menzel concluded by requesting that the maintenance obligations for developers be included in the master plan to ensure the upkeep of the neighborhood in coming years. Terry Davidson, Waxhaw Highway, spoke in opposition. Mr. Davidson reviewed the goals and objectives of the PUD for residential use. Regardless of where the PUD would be located, 140 e e e e e market conditions dictate the immediate future only. Mr. Davidson reported that the goals and objectives needed to be for the long term. The first thing builders would do with short-term goals is to look at the return on their investment, and this would mean that multi-family and rental property, not single-family homes, would be the first to be built. Another objective outlined by Monroe Planning was to protect the integrity of established residential neighborhoods, and Mr. Davidson questioned why the PUDs were therefore proposed for the outskirts of the City, instead of the inner city and along the industrial sectors. The focal points would be on the outer areas of Monroe that have been regarded in the past as being R-20 and R- 40. Mr. Davidson recommended not changing to a PUD Ordinance but rather restricting the builders under the current zoning. Mr. Davidson stated that he would like to see the City adopt a PUD for the long-term; however, the PUD should be used for inner city growth as an investment in the City rather than in the outer lying areas. Kyle Dunn spoke in opposition. Mr. Dunn advised that he had been asked to speak on behalf of the 320 signatures on the People's Petition, which was distributed to Council. Mr. Dunn reviewed the recommendations on the People's Petition with Council. A highlight of these recommendations are as follows: 1) The Ordinance should only all the acreage of the homes and common space to be considered when determining a proposed PUD's average dwelling unit density (units per acre; 2) The PUD concept should only be applied to property that is contiguous; 3) Instead of setting the PUD maximum average density at four units per care, the Ordinance should require that the maximum average density for a proposed PUD be consistent with the average density of the existing adjacent developments; 4) In addition to minimum square footage requirements, the PUD ordinance should contain minimum average square footage requirements for the detached homes based on the PUD' s maximum average density; 5) At no time should the average density of the completed home and common areas exceed 150 percent of the maximum dwelling density limit for the entire PUD; and 6) The percentage of attached dwelling units should not exceed 33 percent of the total homes in the PUD. Jeanne Davis-Diehl, 1711 West Franklin Street, stated that she was not at this point speaking in opposition. Ms. Davis-Diehl reported that the People's Petition presented to Council was produced based on the draft copy as of Friday, November 16, 2001. Deanna Moore, 2004 Gambrel Way in Brooks Farm, questioned at what point Council would make a confirmation on the PUD plan due to a concern regarding cut-through traffic illustrated on the sample plan. Mayor Davis responded that there was no request on behalf of a developer, but rather the hearing pertained to a PUD in general. Planning Director Herron responded to the cut-through traffic concern. The current City Ordinance required the connections; however, staff has received objections and has found no reason to include them. On the master plan, the connections would be removed until a future time when the connections would be needed. At that time, the connections would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the Special Use Permit process. Mayor Davis clarified that this was a City requirement, and it has been deleted. Planning Director Herron affirmed this statement and further noted that a revised master plan would be required to be submitted if Council chose to approve a rezoning floor plan development later on and the access points were deleted. 141 e e e e e Mary Nash addressed Council with comments regarding the PUD. Ms. Nash noted that Monroe was not Chapel Hill and, in her opinion, Monroe was not ready for a PUD. Ms. Nash cited an excessive amount of public hearings that would be held in order to address the many requirements for each phase of the PUD. Furthermore, Ms. Nash expressed a concern that gas stations were not needed in every neighborhood, especially with the terrorism concern. J ames Kerr addressed Council and stated that he was not opposed to the PUD and felt it was an innovative land use. Mr. Kerr recommended that the PUD be sent back to Planning and Zoning to address the valid issues cited previously by concerned residents. Donald Streeter, 2100 Gambrel Way, questioned the number of homes that were proposed to be built and if the previously mentioned 983 units included the 80 bonus homes for the school. Planning Director Herron responded that the 983 units were proposed by the developer for the residential areas. With the bonus area for the school, the Ordinance would allow for 1,000 units for the entire development; however, only 983 units were proposed by the developer. Shannon Pressley, who lives in Brooks Farms, requested Council consider how they would feel if the PUD were built in their back yards. Randal Frattini, who lives on Franklin Street, noted that the PUD appeared to provide too much flexibility to the builders and did not appear to have adequate minimum requirements for quality in Monroe. Mr. Frattini recommended that the Ordinance be taken back and reviewed more carefully because, once passed, a precedent would be set that Monroe would have to live with for many years. Kyle Dunn expressed his concern regarding the proposed PUD Ordinance. Betty Hart, who lives in Brooks Farms, noted that there were 600 acres located behind Brooks Farms. If the proposed 300-acre PUD was approved, Ms. Hart questioned what would happen to the other 300 acres, and if a major highway would need to be built in order to accommodate the traffic that would result from the PUD. Rudy Krakeel expressed a concern regarding the impact on the school system and the quality of education. Using the national average of two children per household, this could potentially mean one PUD would result in an influx of 1,800 children to the already inundated school system. Charles Owens, 1 005 West Franklin Street, commented on the size of lots and the number of units per acre. Referencing a previous statement whereby the proposed four units per acre equaled what was presently there in R-I0, Mr. Owens stated that this was not true unless you were counting the road and sidewalk as part of the lot size. Mr. Owens recommended there be a minimum size on the lots. There being no other speakers, either for or against the proposal, Mayor Davis closed this public hearing. 142 e e e e e E. Proiect # 02-13000006 - Zonine: Map Chane:e Request - R-20 (LowlModerate Sine:le-Familv Residential) to PUD-SU (Planned Unit Development Special Use) District - 291.30 acres on the south side of Hie:hwav 75 (Waxhaw Hie:hwav) between New Town Road and Hie:hwav 84 (Weddine:ton Road) - City of Monroe - Tax ID #s 09-321-004. 09-321-002 (portion). 09-321-005. and 09-321-001. Mayor Davis opened this duly advertised public hearing. Planning Director Herron briefed Council regarding the pertinent facts for the request. Planning Director Herron advised that this hearing was for a proposed location whereby the City would like to apply the proposed Planned Unit Development Ordinance on Highway 75. The City had looked at a piece of property and proposed a map change on the south side of Highway 75, between Highway 84 and New Town Road. The request was to rezone approximately 291 acres located on the south side of Highway 75 from R-20 (Low/Moderate Density Single-Family Residential) to PUD-SU (Planned Unit Development-Special Use). The City of Monroe would like to apply the potential Planned Unit Development District to property located on Highway 75 on the south end of the City. Planning Director Herron stated that it was staffs belief that the new zoning district would provide an innovative approach to zoning that would allow for creativity in design, preserve open space and green area, and provide a neighborhood of mixed uses in a transition area. A new elementary school, as well as a new Bypass Loop, were proposed at either end of the property being considered for rezoning. Staff believed this to be an appropriate transition area to be considered for this new district and way of planning in the City. A PUD District of this type was designed to offer increased flexibility and density to the developer in exchange for a superior product for the City than could not be achieved through traditional subdivision or cluster development regulations. Planning Director Herron advised that modifications would be recommended to the master plan in accordance with previous comments by concerned citizens and as part of this rezoning. The amended recommendations included: (1) All access points to the PUD would be removed at the present time to eliminate traffic concerns for the neighbors in the area. Whenever Special Use Permits are considered, if there is a desire from the adjoining neighborhoods for connectivity, then the access would be reviewed at such time; and (2) Due to the school location and the connectivity to Stevens Street, staff proposed that this particular area revert to total residential adjacent to the school and that the commercial area be relocated to a different location within the PUD, perhaps along a major artery or a more appropriate location within the middle of the development; and (3) Staff would propose that there be a 50-foot buffer of plantings with any phase that would go into the residential phase of this location. Council Member Jordan inquired whether the limited access was a subjective measure or good, sound planning. Planning Director Herron replied that the current Ordinance required connectivity, and most good, sound planning required that connectivity be provided. However, there are situations whereby the creation of cut-through traffic would decrease the quality of life in the neighborhood. To be safe at this point, the connectivity needed to be eliminated from the master plan and studied on a case-by-case basis when Special Use Permits were submitted. 143 e e e e e Virginia Bjorlin, Chair of the Historic Properties Commission, expressed a concern regarding the proposed dense development being in close proximity to a national register historic district at the intersection of Highways 75 and 84. The district is comprised of four homes built around 1900. Ms. Bjorlin pointed to the location of the Redwine House, Heath House, Crows Nest, and Pro Adams House. These houses were built before zoning was used to protect properties from unwanted neighbors, and historic designation may be thought of as retroactive zoning to save and protect the best of older architecture. The proposed density of the proposed development and commercial zoning endangers this national register historic district. Ms. Bjorlin further stated that DOT contacted the Commission earlier regarding these houses when considering the route of the Beltway around Monroe. The map presented at the hearing was not the same map the DOT showed the Commission; their map showed the Beltway further west, past the intersection where New Town Road breaks off. Ms. Bjorlin questioned when and why the map had been changed and whether the proposed route was set. Ms. Bjorlin referenced a previous question regarding widening of roads near historic properties, and requested that local bodies take the lead to protect structures that are deemed historic. Council Member Smith asked to show the audience the location of the Western Loop. Council Member Smith advised that, according to the most recent map, the Western Loop was proposed to go west of Sherwood Forest Drive and cross Hwy. 75 before the intersection of New Town Road. Planning Director Herron reported the details of the proposed location of the Western Loop. Henry Browning spoke in opposition and stated that he owns land west of the proposed development. Mr. Browning expressed his desire that the zoning remain R-20 and noted his concern regarding excessive commercial development proposed in the PUD. Sis Dillon of the Historic Properties Commission spoke in opposition of the request. Ms. Dillon reiterated the importance of maintaining the historic properties in the current condition. Ms. Dillon further reported her desire that the PUD be smaller in size and expressed a concern regarding the impact the PUD would have on the current neighborhood. Ms. Dillon inquired if the minimum size of the initial PUD could be 25 acres, which would start at a smaller scale. Ms. Dillon further requested that past PUDs built by the developer be visited to determine how they have been maintained over the years. Ms. Dillon cited an additional concern about the lack of notification given to adjoining property owners whenever new developments were planned by the City. Jeanne Davis-Diehl, 1711 West Franklin Street, distributed a letter to City Council addressing specific issues pertaining to the rezoning and the PUD. Ms. Davis-Diehl read a letter detailing the specific concerns of the persons in opposition: The homeowners along Highway 75 and in the Weddington-Waxhaw Historic District at Hwys. 75 & 84, adjacent to the proposed TCG Southwind PUD-SU, contend that the plan is not even consistent with the Preamble of the Ordinance to amend Title XV, Chapter 156: Zoning Code of the City of Monroe Code of Ordinances. It is inconsistent with the Purpose of a PUD-SU as stated in 4A and with the Required Findings in sections 4D, 5E, 4a, c & d of the Application Procedures. 144 e This PUD-SU clearly does not produce a development of equal or higher quality than otherwise required by district regulations that would otherwise govern as required by 4D, 5E, 4a. All of the surrounding area is zoned R20 with residential density limited to two units per acre. Nine hundred eighty-three (983) "living units" in 200 acres is not reasonable. There should be a mix of low and moderate single family density housing, consistent with the area, in growth to support a new school. This PUD-SU plan does not provide an attractive and environmentally sensitive design as required by 4D, 5E, 4c. This plan shows acres of strip malls in place of our current natural drainage as well as the drainage for what was the farmland on the hills above us. e This PUD-SU plan literally screams at the requirements in 4D, 5E, 4d that state "it will not substantially injured or damage the use, value and enjoyment of surrounding property nor hinder or prevent the development of surrounding property in accordance with the adopted plans and policies of the city." We should be able to expect development surrounding The Weddington - Waxhaw National Historic District to blend into the landscape and conscience of the historical nature of the very entrance to Monroe. But this plan surrounds the historic site and other existing homes with Business zoning for strip malls. It positions more than 30 of 40 acres of the new Neighborhood Business zoning smack up against the existing homes, still even more at the two new entrance roads off of 75, while positioning literally none within the body of the proposed new community. e Section 4D, 3c requires local streets should not encourage through access, but the roads give access through Southwind to Lancaster from 75 via Brooks Farms. The traffic from 983 units, 40 acres of business and a school will be overwhelming to the entire area. None of the few existing large, old trees adjoining existing properties, nor the existing creeks or 100 and 500-year flood plains are shown on the site plan in accordance with 4D, 5a. Overall this plan is not in accordance with the proposed City Ordinance, abuses the surrounding residents, decreases their property values, detracts from a significant National Historic District that is currently applauded by historic professionals statewide. It is harmful to the City, inconsistent with it's policies on historic preservation and should not, as it stands, be the precedent for PUD-SUs in Union County. e We urge the City Council not to approve this plan as it stands. We request that the City Council revise the PUD-SU Ordinance as specified in our petition that focuses on residential zoning with the site ... and to also consider the following specific concerns of the citizens whose homes are contiguous to the site: The PUD-SU Ordinance allows locating any business and any mixture of business listed in 4C2 to about the existing National Historic District, as well as the other existing residence. Clearly not all the 30+ acres will be gas stations off of back and side yards, but any location can be. And the current plan shows every inch abutting our properties as business; any mix of business, be it day care, restaurant or gas station. e There are only two places in the proposed Ordinance where any restrictions apply to PUD-SU site abutting existing residential sites and this plan bypasses both of them. 145 e e e e e On the surface, 4D, 4a seems to offer some restriction by requiring at least some side and rear setbacks for boundary-adjacent residential lots, but there is no requirement that any residential lots be situated adjacent to current residence, and none are. TCG Southwind PUD- SU plan avoids even this minimal restriction by placing only business on the perimeter of the PUD-SU that abuts the current residences. Section 4D, 5e requires a 50 ft. planted buffer where any multi-family or non-residential abuts a single-family use outside the PUD-SU area. This plan meets that by locating tree lined service roads between our homes and the business dumpsters. The only Green Space reference (of 40%) is in 4D, 5 and addresses screening and buffering between land uses within the PUD-SU. Clearly our R20 neighborhood needs some relief from this plan as it stands and some protections that R20 zoning was meant to provide. A significant buffer some should separate the Historic District as well as all of the existing homes of the adjacent residential district from the PUD-SU. And no business should be allowed adjacent to these areas. One cannot locate a gas station or surround an existing adjacent R20 neighborhood with business today but when a PUD is adopted all of the protections against R20 neighborhood are gone. The Ordinance and the plan should be changed to restrict this. We ask that City Council not approve this plan as it stands. We invite you to come out and see our area and work with us to find alternatives that give us some relief and protection. Albert Diehl, 1711 West Franklin Street, commented on the statement made regarding no commercial buildings being located within 800 to 900 feet of the school. The rezoning as a PUD-SU should not be addressed at this point since the definition of PUD has not been established. Rudy Krakeel, who lives in Brooks Farm subdivision, stated that his subdivision directly abuts the proposed development. Mr. Krakeel reiterated that the rezoning to a PUD should not be considered at this time because there was no PUD, according to definition. Regardless of how the property was zoned, Council should give consideration to buffered zones in existing neighborhoods. In addition, there needs to be more definitive guidelines met, especially with regards to business locations, before a decision was made regarding rezoning. Laura Davidson questioned if the proposed PUD would be considered inside the corporate City limits. Ms. Davidson stated that the PUD currently stated that you could not obtain a Special Use Permit unless you were in the corporate City limits. Since the neighborhood currently did not get City water, sewer, fire, or voting rights, there was a problem then with the City Council deciding whether to rezone the property around their houses. Ms. Davidson asked that this request be postponed until the property was actually within the corporate City limits. Terry Davidson reiterated that the property was initially zoned R-20, and the long-range outlook for Monroe showed serious traffic concerns, especially on Highway 75. Mr. Davidson stated that he did not feel that this property needed to be rezoned as a PUD at this time and requested it be developed as the current R-20 zoning. 146 e e e e e Council Member Smith clarified that a developer did not have to ask Council for anything if it was zoned R-20, thus allowing them to do anything they desired. As long as the developer met the R-20 guidelines, there was no conditional use or special use hearing in R-20. Bob Glendy, 304 Stevens Street, stated that his lot was adjacent to the southeast comer of the proposed project. Mr. Glendy reported on the history of zoning issues in his neighborhood and expressed the need for more schools if the proposed development was approved. Mr. Glendy noted his dissatisfaction with making Stevens Street a through street and expressed a further concern pertaining to increased traffic on Franklin Street. The current infrastructure did not support this type of development, especially traffic and schools. Mr. Glendy expressed his desire for fair treatment and noted that an R-20 development would be adequate for this neighborhood. Tom Cook, Church Street, stated that he was the incoming president of the Old Monroe Homeowners' Association. Mr. Cook noted that he had only been a resident of Monroe for 11 months and was attracted to the area because of the neighborhood and climate. On behalf of the Association, Mr. Cook expressed his disapproval to the PUD rezoning. Bonnie Elber, 504 West Franklin Street, requested that Council assist her and her neighbors in their effort to maintain the dignity and quality of life in the Downtown Monroe neighborhood. James Kerr, 804 West Franklin Street, asked Council to consider 1,800 students in schools that were not built, 2000 more cars on roads that could not handle current traffic, a Zoning Ordinance that was incomplete, approving a subdivision that you did not know how it would look at the end, the quality of life for Downtown Monroe, and the maintenance of the historical atmosphere of Downtown Monroe. Roberta Herrholz questioned the reasoning for discussing this issue when the PUD Ordinance had not been passed. Ms. Herrholz expressed a concern for her mother and her being completely surrounded by commercial area if the PUD rezoning was passed. Furthennore, Ms. Herrholz reported that the property value of her mother's property would undoubtedly decrease due to increased traffic, lights, and noise. Joe Copley asked if the public hearing pertained to changing the zoning to special use. Mayor Davis advised that the hearing was a request to change the zoning on the property from R-20 to PDU-SU, not rezoning for any particular person or purpose. Mr. Copley asked if the master plan needed to be approved separate from the rezoning request. Planning Director Herron clarified that there would not necessarily be a new hearing on the master plan unless there was a change that was defined in the Ordinance requiring the hearing. Each phase would require a separate hearing as it was submitted. Council was considering the concept of the layout and would therefore be accepting commercial on the highway, multi-family in the center, and single-family at the rear of the PUD, if they approved the rezoning of the property. If there was any major change in the master plan, then the developer would need to return to Council for a public hearing. No Special Use Pennits have been issued, but rather this was a rezoning that required a Special Use Pennit application for each phase. 147 e e e e e Mayor Davis stated that every phase in the PUD needed a public hearing to obtain a Special Use Permit. In addition, Mayor Davis noted that, if Council was dissatisfied with the way Phase I was completed, they would have recourse during a public hearing for future phases. Mary Nash, Waxhaw Highway, stated that her neighbor did not ask to be rezoned, but her property was included in this rezoning request. Ms. Nash questioned the legality of this process as a citizen of the City of Monroe. Since this was a City application for the rezoning, Planning Director Herron advised that, according to the Zoning Ordinance, Council may choose to consider rezoning for any parcel within the City's zoning jurisdiction. Therefore, it would be legal to have this consideration, and the City followed the notification procedure for property owners within the proposed rezoning area. Hilma Walewski noted that she did not receive any notification regarding the rezoning. Planning Director Herron advised that the Certificate of Service was included in Council Agenda Packets, which contained a list of people and addresses notified. Planning Director Herron confirmed that Ms. Walewski was mailed notification on November 8,2001 according to the address on the tax records, which was 2301 Waxhaw Highway. The mailing was prepared by an administrative assistant, Mary Ann Brown, attested by Lottie Watkins, and verified by Mr. Fencl. Sis Dillon wondered what would happen to the school property if Council did not approve the rezoning. Laura Davidson cited a concern regarding notification principles. Ms. Davidson reported that the letters were only sent to people who had adjoining properties, which left out a substantial amount of property owners who have vested interest in the rezoning. Ms. Davidson advised that signs needed to be posted perpendicular to the road so people could see them as they are driving, not just facing the road. There being no other speakers, either for or against the proposal, Mayor Davis closed this public hearing. F. New Downtown Incentive Pro!!rams. Mayor Davis opened this duly advertised public hearing. Economic Development Director Platé presented two new incentive programs for the Downtown Monroe area, particularly the Central Business District. The first program, the Development Incentive Grant (DIG), would be established to entice developers and investors to initiate projects within the Central Business District of Downtown Monroe. The grant targets investments made on vacant land or where dilapidated buildings cannot be restored and requires complete replacement. Unlike other programs in Downtown Monroe, this grant would have a minimum threshold of $1 million of investment. Any potential developer who has a plan of investment to locate within the Central Business District may apply for a DIG subject to the following: (1) The building scheme must match the existing composition of structures within the Central Business District; (2) The proposed project must meet all applicable zoning requirements; (3) The developer must be in good standing with the City of Monroe for all services, taxes, utilities, etc. (4) The existing building, if done to an existing building, may be considered for complete replacement if the DMI Design and Restructuring Committee judges the property needing replacement, the City of Monroe Building Standards Department determines 148 e e e e e the structure cannot be structurally renovated, and/or an appraisal or study of the structure shows the existing damage to the structure is so severe that it cannot be economically rehabilitated. There is one caveat to this in that ifthere is an existing structure that exceeds 20,000 square feet and would require complete restoration of the interior, but the exterior can be saved, City Council could give special consideration under this program. One example of this situation would be the Allen Overall Building. Examples of eligible projects would be office buildings, hotels, residential condominiums, bed and breakfasts, convention centers, parking decks, and manufacturing! distribution facilities. Certain guidelines must be met and include: (1) Must be constructed with respect to the architectural and historical integrity of the area; (2) All proposals must meet the Code requirements of the City of Monroe; (3) All projects must be completed within two years of the date of the award (may apply for an extension through the DMI Design Committee and approved by City Council); and (4) Must only be applied to new construction, with the one caveat of 20,000 square feet or larger. City Council must approve all applications. Upon completion of the project, they would then apply for the monies. A maximum grant is capped at two percent of the total investment of the project and distributed over a five-year period. The procedure is to apply through the DMI Office and submit several materials, such as architectural drawings and site layout. The recommendation would then be submitted to Council for approval. Economic Development Director Platé presented the second program, the Residential Investment Grant (RIG). This program is designed to assist building owners with the rehabilitation of their existing structures into residential units. The areas targeted are the upstairs of the existing structures along Main, Hayne, and Jefferson Streets. RIG would provide a cash grant up to fifty percent of the project expense, but no greater than ten percent of the property's assessed value. The total rehabilitation expense must exceed two times the amount of the grant, and the project must be completed within 12 months. Applications for extensions follow the same process as the DIG program. This grant would be paid no later than two weeks after the completion of the project or may be paid in quarters. The property owners within the Central Business District may apply for the RIG subject to the following conditions: (1) Grant portion of the project must be for the interior renovations of an existing building; (2) The proposed project must meet all applicable zoning and required permits; and (3) Project must meet the guidelines of renovations for historic structures. Eligible construction projects include rental or apartment housing, condominiums, development for sale, and hotel development. All applications must be approved by City Council. Council Member Jordan asked if this was based on tax value of the building. Economic Development Director Platé responded that it was based on the assessed value currently on the tax books. Council Member Jordan questioned whether appraised value had been considered versus assessed value. Economic Development Director Platé replied that appraised value was not considered after review of other programs; however, staff would consider this as an option if Council desired. Sis Dillon stated that the grants sounded great. 149 e e e e e Council Member Smith stated that his dream has been for people to live in the Allen Overall Building, and these programs are an impetus that could spark greater downtown development. There being no other speakers, either for or against the proposal, Mayor Davis closed this public hearing. Item No.9. Action from Public Hearin2s. A. Project # 02-10000002 - Conditional Use Permit - New Walter Bickett Elementarv School- 25 Acres on South Side of Hi2hwav 75 (Waxhaw Hi2hwav) Between New Town Road and Hi2hway 84 (Weddin2ton Road) - Union County Public Schools - Tax ID # 09- 321-004 (portion). Action was taken under Item 8. A. B. Project # 01-130-00010 - Zonin2 Map Chan2e Request - R-40 (Low Density Sin21e- Familv Residential) to R-20-SU (Low/Moderate Density Residential Special Use) - Secrest Shortcut Road - 48.49 acres - Walt Perry Realty. Inc. on behalf of Robert M. Powell. Arthur K. Cates. J.W. Burchfield. and Tommv L. Broome - Tax Parcel #'s 09-256-165 and 09-265-167. Council Member Keziah moved BE IT ORDAINED that this property be rezoned from R-40 (Low Density Single-Family Residential) to R-20-SU (Low/Moderate Density Residential Special Use). Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore seconded the motion, which passed with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Keziah, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis Council Members Kilgore and Smith NAYS: C. Project # 01-110-00006 - Special Use Permit - 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 Tommv L. Broome - Tax Parcel #s 09-256-165 and 09-256-167. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore moved BE IT ORDAINED that the Special Use Permit be adopted in all respects: THE CITY OF MONROE. NORTH CAROLINA SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROJECT #: 01-110-00006 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): Robert M. Powell. Arthur K. Cates. J.W. Burchfield. and Tommv L. Broome Property Location: West side of Secrest Shortcut Road between Dusty Hollow Road and Roanoke Church Road Tax Map & Parcel # 09-256-165 & 09-256-167 Acreage: 48.49 Deed Reference: BOOK BOOK 963 1260 PAGE PAGE 703 597 150 e 1. 2. e 3. 4. e Ie e Type and Intensity of Use: 70 lot R-20 cluster subdivision Meeting Dates: October 2.2001 & November 20.2001 Approval Date: November 20.2001 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. The petitioner shall 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; and 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; and 3. The petitioners shall 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; and 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 151 e e e e e 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 homeowner's 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 homeowner's association board of directors; and 5. The petitioners shall submit detailed plans for all recreation area improvements, including playground equipment, walking path cross section, stream crossing data and fitness station equipment prior to recordation of the final plat. Walking path improvements shall comply with all ADA requirements; and 6. The recorded articles of incorporation and by-laws shall require the homeowner's association to submit a copy of the names, addresses and phone numbers of all duly elected members of the homeowner's 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; and 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; and 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 Shortcut Road, including sidewalks and the proposed left-turn lane; and 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; and 10. The petitioner shall submit a Floodplain Development Permit Application and receive approval from the Department of Planning and Development prior to any filling or land disturbing activity within the 100-year floodplain; and 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. 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 March 1,2002. Council Member Keziah seconded the motion, which passed with the following votes: 152 e e e e e AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Keziah, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis Council Members Kilgore and Smith NAYS: D. Proiect # 02-12000004 - Ordinance - Zoninl! Text Chanl!e Request - Addition of Planned Unit Develoument District Rel!ulations - City of Monroe. Council Member Smith made a suggestion pertaining to Items C. and D. Council Member Smith reported that the Ordinance needed some more work, and if staff was going to do additional work to the Ordinance, then more work needed to be done to the zoning map request. Furthermore, streets not having access and strips of grass between the road and sidewalk needed to be addressed in the Ordinance. Based on these changes, Council Member Smith recommended continuing the public hearings. Mayor Davis advised that the public hearing had been closed. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore inquired if sidewalks could be inserted when the developer returned to Council for a Special Use Permit. Planning Director Herron replied that the grass strip and sidewalks previously discussed were already a part of the Detail Manual and were already a requirement of the City of Monroe. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore asked how many feet were required in the grass strip. Planning Director Herron responded that the requirement was five feet. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore further stated that, even when developed, the developer still had to come back and get permission; therefore, this added up to little more than a concept. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore recommended taking action on this issue and then moving to the next level, which would give people the opportunity to voice their opinions in a public hearing. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore recognized and respected everything that had been said and noted that it was all valid information. When the developer returns to Council for permits, then the issues of concern could be inserted. Council Member Smith noted that it was unknown whether there was going to be a Homeowners' Association in this PUD. The swimming pool, roads, chimney, masonite siding, and average minimum square feet were all issues that were open-ended items that needed to be addressed prior to approving an Ordinance. Council Member Smith moved to delay action on the Ordinance and the Planned Unit Development until changes were made. Council Member Kilgore seconded the motion and suggested that the City take what they could from the proposed Ordinance by taking everything that was said into consideration. If it could be compiled for the better of the PUD, then it should be included. If it was not for the betterment of the PUD, then it should be left out and reviewed at a later time. The motion received the following votes: AYES: NAYS: Council Members Kilgore and Smith Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Keziah, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis The motion failed due to lack of a majority. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore moved to approve Ordinance 0-2001-48 with the understanding that when the developer comes back for the permits, Council could correct some ofthe issues: 153 e e e e e AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE XV, CHAPTER 156: ZONING CODE OF THE CITY OF MONROE CODE OF ORDINANCES 0-2001-48 Preamble Pursuant to authority conferred by Chapter 160A-381 of the North Carolina General Statutes, as amended and for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the inhabitants of the City by lessening congestion in and around the streets; securing safety; preventing the overcrowding of land; avoiding undue congestion; and facilitating the adequate provision of transportation, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONROE THAT TITLE XV, CHAPTER 156: ZONING CODE, OF THE CITY OF MONROE CODE OF ORDINANCES BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. TEXT AMENDMENT Section 2. Section 3. Section 4. AMEND Chapter 156.006 to ADD: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A tract ofland developed under single ownership or unified control, which includes one or more principal buildings or uses and is processed under the Planned Unit Development provisions of this ordinance. The tract of land is planned as a single unit, rather than an aggregate of individual10ts, with design flexibility from traditional siting regulations (such as side yards, setbacks, and height limitations) or land use restrictions (such as prohibitions against mixing land uses within a development). AMEND Section 156.015 to ADD: PUD-SU Planned Unit Development Special Use District AMEND Section 156.016 to ADD: (U) Planned Unit Development Special Use District. The PUD-SU is intended to accommodate a mix of residential housing types (i.e. single-family detached, single- family attached, townhomes, apartments, and condominiums), neighborhood scale businesses, and institutional uses permitted in all residential zoning districts. The PUD- SU district encourages innovation and allows for flexibility in design and layout requirements to achieve a greater choice of living and working environments. AMEND Section 156.039 to ADD: Section 156.039 PUD-SU PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL USE DISTRICT (A) Purpose. The purpose of establishing the planned unit development special use district is to provide for and encourage the development of planned communities of varying scale, in accordance with the Land Development Plan of the city, characterized by efficient and environmentally sound land use and which incorporates a full range of housing types, employment opportunities, supporting commercial and institutional 154 e services designed primarily for the residents of the community, but intended to incrementally enhance the livability of the city as a whole. The district is further intended to promote high quality design, ingenuity, and imagination reflecting advances in land development practices. This district provides flexibility from the strict application of conventional permitted uses and dimensional requirements normally required in the city's zoning districts. Through excellence in design, innovation in arrangements of buildings and open space and sensitivity to natural environmental systems, a high standard of physical development and community character is achieved. (B) General Requirements. (1) A planned unit development is the only use permitted in the PUD-SU district, and planned unit developments are permitted only in such zones pursuant to a special use permit. e (2) Planned Unit Development Special Use Districts are permitted only within the corporate limits of the City of Monroe. Any area rezoned for PUD-SU that is not located within the corporate limits, must be voluntarily annexed into the corporate limits before any special use permits for any phase may be approved. (C) Uses. (1) Permitted temporary uses. (Permitted following approval of a PUD Master Plan and in accordance with Section 156.066). e Residential and Nonresidential Areas (a) Contractor's office/equipment shed. (b) Satellite real estate office. Designated Residential Areas (a) Temporary residential unit. e Designated Nonresidential Areas (a) Arts and crafts sales. (b) Carnivals, circuses, and fairs. (c) Christmas tree lots, pumpkin sales lots, and seasonal plant sales lots. (d) Outdoor religious events. (e) Produce sales. (f) Promotional sales. (g) Temporary nonresidential unit. (2) Permitted Uses. (Following issuance of a Special Use Permit) e Residential (a) Single-family dwellings (detached). (b) Single-family dwellings (attached). (c) Townhomes. (d) Condominiums. (e) Apartments. (f) Group Homes for up to six clients and provided such group home is not located within a one-half mile radius from an existing group home. (g) Nursing homes, rest homes, homes for the aged, group care facilities. 155 e Non-Residential Uses (a) Golf courses, country clubs, parks, playgrounds, and community recreation centers. (b) Water storage wells and above ground water tanks. (c) Pump stations. (d) Telephone repeater stations and transmitting facilities. (e) Public utility facilities. (f) Public safety stations. (g) Churches, including parish houses, educational buildings, convents, and similar buildings. (h) Cemeteries. (i) Day care centers. (j) Private Residential Quarters in accordance with § 156.068 (F). (k) Public and private elementary schools. (1) Libraries. e e Commercial Uses ( a) Financial institutions. (b) Funeral homes. (c) Laboratories (Medical, Dental, Optical, and Research). (d) Offices and agencies (Business, Professional, Medical, and Public). (e) Studios for artists, designers, photographers, musicians, sculptors, dance, gymnasts, potters, wood, leather, and glass craftsman. (f) Post offices. (g) Retail sales establishments. (h) Restaurants (excluding restaurants with drive-through windows). (i) Service establishments. (j) Barbershops and beauty salons. (k) Fitness and tanning centers. (1) Laundromats. (m) Dry Cleaners (drop-off and pick-up only). (n)Photocopying and offset printing services. (0) Gas Stations, including those with convenience stores, but limited to no more than six (6) pump islands. (P) neighborhood grocery stores ( q) Shopping Centers e (2) Accessory Uses (a) Noncommercial greenhouses. (b) Private garages and carports. (c) Storage buildings. (d) Swimming pools. (e) Tennis Courts. (f) Customary Home Occupations (D) Site Development Requirements (1) Minimum Area. The minimum area that may be considered for a Planned Unit Development Special Use District is 25 acres. e (2) Density. Each planned unit development shall not exceed the following density requirements: 156 e (a) Residential Density. Density in designated residential areas shall be limited to 4 units per acre. The density shall be calculated based on the amount of acreage designated for residential uses within the development. (b) Commercial Density. Density in designated commercial areas shall be limited to a maximum of 28% total floor area per acre. The density shall be calculated based on the amount of acreage designated for commercial uses within the development. No single commercial use or tenant may exceed 15,000 square feet of total floor area. (c) Density Bonus. Subject to the other provisions of this ordinance, if the owner of the tract with the concurrence of an approved public body, dedicates to the public body a portion of the tract or property, the remainder of the tract that is developed for residential purposes may be developed at a density that uses a total acreage figure that includes the dedicated acreage as if it were still part of the lot or parcel proposed for development. e (3) Streets, Sidewalks, Utilities, and Pedestrian and Motor Vehicle Access. e (a) Driveways and Street Access. All lots within the development shall be accessed solely by interior streets, except that lots used for churches, public safety stations, schools, and commercial developments may also have driveway access to adjacent thoroughfares if approved by the Department of Engineering. (b) Primary access to the development site shall be from a state or city maintained thoroughfare capable of handling the projected increase in traffic generated by the proposed development. The developer shall be required to provide turn lanes, deceleration lanes, and other off-site transportation improvements to ensure safe and adequate access. A traffic impact study shall be conducted by a traffic engineer who is a registered Professional Engineer in the State of North Carolina. The study shall address the impact of the proposed development. Mitigation measures are to be recommended to minimize the project's potential impact on the surrounding street system. Street Layout. Local streets shall be located and designed so that they do not encourage through access by traffic with origins and destinations outside of the development. Pedestrian Friendly Design. All areas within the planned unit development shall be designed to be easily and safely accessible by pedestrians and persons traveling on non-motorized vehicles. Street and Right-of-Way Width. Streets and rights-of-way that do not meet the standards of the City of Monroe Standard Specifications and Detail Manual may be provided. All proposed streets must demonstrate that there is adequate width within the street right-of-way and adjacent easements to provide for required utilities, curb and gutter, sidewalks, and street trees. In no circumstance shall the minimum right-of -way be less than forty (40) feet and the minimum street pavement width be less than eighteen (18) feet. (f) Sidewalks and Greenways. Sidewalks shall be required along both sides of all streets within the development. In cases where greenways and paved walking trails are provided, the developer may reduce the amount of sidewalk by the same amount provided that each street has sidewalk on a minimum of one side. Sidewalks shall not be required on cul-de-sacs serving six (6) or less lots. (g) Alleys. Alleys may be utilized in any planned unit development. Alleys must meet the minimum design standard as required in the City of Monroe Standard Specification and Detail Manual. If an alley is utilized, on street parking may be provided on an adjacent primary street. If on street parking is provided, no e (c) (d) (e) e 157 e building fronting the street may exceed 24 feet in height for proper fire access and protection. (h) Dedication of Land for Planned Thoroughfares. Wherever a tract of land is to be developed as a planned unit development and the tract includes or adjoins any part of a planned thoroughfare or collector street, as designated by the Thoroughfare Plan, that part of such proposed public right-of-way shall be dedicated as public right-of-way on the subdivision plat in the location and to the width recommended by the Plan or the Standard Specifications and Detail Manual. (i) Utilities. All utilities shall be located underground. Utility easements may be required along rear property lines if alleys are not provided. e (4) Area Requirements. In a Planned Unit Development Special Use District (PUD- SU), the developer may create lots and construct buildings without regard to any minimum lot size, lot width or setback restrictions except that; (a) The setback of the principle structure on any residentiallot in the development adjoining the perimeter boundary with a residential district shall be set at no less distance than the minimum setback for principle structures on residential10ts in the adjacent residential district. This provision shall only apply to the yard (side or rear) that abuts the boundary. (b) Each lot must be of sufficient size and dimensions that it can support the structure proposed to be located on it, consistent with all other applicable requirements of this ordinance. e (5) Green Space and Landscaping. Within a Planned Unit Development, screening, buffering, landscaping, and preservation of wooded natural areas shall be integral parts of the master plan. Existing vegetation and new plantings shall be utilized to perform the combined functions of acting as buffers between different land uses, facilitating control of storm water run-off and soil erosion and providing recreational opportunities and aesthetic benefits. Topography, natural site features, earth berms, walls and fences may also be utilized in the plan for vegetation and screening. The master plan shall show screening provisions as specified in this section and also screening requirements outlined in Section 156.060. e (a) The total residential green space (area not subject to building or parking) shall be a minimum of 40% of the total acreage designated for residential uses within the development. (Within a state designated water supply watershed, density and impervious surface area limits listed in Chapter 155 - Watershed Ordinance shall apply). (b) The total commercial green space shall be a minimum of 27% of the total acreage designated for commercial uses within the development. (Within a state-designated water supply watershed, impervious surface area limits listed Chapter 155 - Watershed Ordinance shall apply). (c) Four (4) canopy/shade trees, a minimum of eight (8) feet tall and two (2) inch caliper shall be planted per one hundred (100) linear feet of street right-of-way. (d) One (1) canopy/shade tree shall be provided within 65 feet of every parking space for non-single-family detached residential buildings and commercial uses within the planned unit development. A landscape plan shall be required to determine compliance prior to Planning Board review of special use permit requests. e 158 e e e e e (e) A fifty (50) foot planted buffer shall be provided in accordance with the standards outlined in Section I56.05I(B)(8) where any multi-family or non- residential use abuts a single family use outside the PUD-SU area. (f) Prior to fmal approval of a special use permit for any phase of the PUD, the master landscape plan must receive approval as well as a detailed landscape plan being submitted for each phase or special use permit, reviewed and approved by the City of Monroe Tree Board. The plan shall meet all requirements noted in Section (E) of this section as well as the following: Trees in Parking Areas Approval of a landscape plan is required for all new vehicle accommodation areas (parking areas), with the exception of single family homes. The landscape plan shall contain the following information: (1) Existing and proposed landscaping, including landscaping and screening required by this article; the location, species, size in circumference one half (1.5) foot above grade, and height of new trees in the planting area that will comply with this section; the location and dimensions of planting areas, street yards, and parking areas; and the number, spacing, size and species of planting material, an indication for watering, soil stabilization, plant protection and maintenance access; The number, location, species, height and size in circumference four and one half (4.5) feet above grade of existing natural trees between the principal building and public street right-of-way which are to be maintained or preserved for credit; and (2) All parking areas, temporary or permanent (not including parking structures) shall provide and maintain landscaped planting areas within the interior of or adjacent to, or both, the parking area. Landscaped planting areas are to be located within or adjacent to the parking area as tree islands, at the end of parking bays, inside seven (7) foot wide or greater medians, or between rows of cars. The number and shape of landscaped planting areas shall be at the discretion of the owner; however, no parking space shall be located farther than sixty five (65) feet from the trunk of an overstory tree. Trees and shrubs required for parking areas may be planted within buffer yards or street yards. (1) Trees shall be required at a minimum rate of one (1) for every two thousand (2000) square feet of total parking area. Shrubs shall be required at a rate of one (1) shrub per seven hundred fifty (750) square feet. All trees and shrubs are to be planted within landscaped planting areas that are a minimum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet with a minimum dimension of seven (7) feet. Trees, existing or planted, must be a minimum of eight (9) feet tall, six and one quarter (6.25) inches in circumference and two (2) inches in caliper measured six (6) inches above grade. Expected height at maturity shall be thirty-five (35) feet with a crown width ofthirty (30) feet or greater. Shrubs, existing or planted, must be a minimum of eighteen (18) inches tall and must reach a minimum height of thirty (30) inches within three (3) years. There shall be no gaps greater than ten (10) feet between required shrubs. No more than forty percent (40%) of the shrubs may be deciduous. (2) Parking areas, unless located on or within a structure, shall be separated from the exterior wall of a structure, exclusive of pedestrian entrance ways or loading area, by a landscaped planting area of at least four (4) feet in width. Shrubs shall be required within the area at a minimum rate of one (1) per six (6) linear feet, eighteen (18) inches minimum height at planting and reach a minimum height of thirty (30) inches within three (3) years. No more than forty percent (40%) may be deciduous. The use of understory or ornamental deciduous or evergreen trees is encouraged in appropriate situations. 159 The permit recipient shall be responsible for ensuring that all existing trees, specifically shown on approved plans as being retained to provide screening or shading, are protected during construction from removal, destruction, or injury. The permit recipient shall ensure that, before any excavation takes place on the site, a barrier is erected around the drip line of all such trees sufficient, and to put on notice all construction personnel that the area within the drip line of such trees is not be to disturbed. e If a violation of Subsection (a) occurs, and as a result a tree is removed or dies within two years after a certificate of occupancy is issued for that portion of a development where such tree is or was located, then the permit recipient (or his successor) shall be required to replace the three with one at least of equal diameter, up to a diameter of four (4) inches. Such replacement must take place within one (1) year after the death or removal of the tree occurs, and this obligation shall be a continuing condition of the validity of the permit. . e (D) Building Design Requirements. (1) Single-Family Detached Dwellings. e (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) e (h) (i) (j) (a) Minimum Size. Fifty (50) percent of all houses shall have a minimum heated floor area of 1,300 square feet (exclusive of any garage, porch, or similar appurtenance). All homes shall have a minimum heated floor area of 1,200 square feet (exclusive of any garage, porch, or similar appurtenance). (b) Garages and Off-Street Parking. All houses shall have a standard two-car garage except that a carport may be allowed if the required off-street parking is provided in the rear yard. No garages or carports attached or detached, which extend in front of the front wall of the dwelling shall be permitted. Side and rear load garages are strongly encouraged. Off-street parking shall be provided to the side or rear of residential units. Porches. All houses shall have a front porch, a minimum six- (6) feet in depth. Foundation Walls. Any house built on a slab foundation shall have a minimum four (4) course masonry veneer skirt (of standard brick size) extending up the face of the slab. Articulation. The wall of the architectural front of the dwelling shall not run unbroken (unarticulated) for a distance greater than twenty-four (24) linear feet. Orientation. All dwellings shall be oriented so that the front of the structure is facing a public-right-of-way. Exterior Materials. The exterior materials of all dwellings (excluding trim) shall be made of wood, brick, stone, stucco, or vinyl. All exposed chimneys shall have a brick veneer. The exterior use of Masonite or other similar high maintenance materials on walls or trim is strongly discouraged. A minimum of twenty-five percent of the architectural front wall area (including windows and doors and excluding foundations) of any house constructed of vinyl should have a brick, stucco or stone finish. Roof Pitch. The majority of all roof areas on any dwelling shall have a minimum 6/12 roof pitch. Trees. The yard of each lot shall contain at least two (2) trees, suitable for healthy growth in our climate, each with a minimum caliper of one and one-half (1 Yz) inches measured at height of six (6) inches above the ground. (2) All Other Residential Dwellings. e (a) Building articulation. No wall of a building visible from a public right-of-way shall run without wall offsets (unarticulated) for a distance of more than twenty- four linear feet. All wall offsets shall be at least twenty-four inches in depth. 160 e (b) Building location. Buildings containing dwellings shall be set back a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from internal driveways and parking areas. (c) Building orientation. Any building lying within 75 feet of a public street shall be oriented so that the front of the building is visible from the public right-of- way or, in the alternative, the building shall be so designed so that the side which faces the public street appears to be a front. (d) Building separation. A separation of at least twenty (20)feet shall be provided between all buildings on the same site. (e) Exterior Materials. The exterior materials of all dwellings (excluding trim) shall be made of wood, brick, stone, stucco, or vinyl. All exposed chimneys shall have a brick veneer. The exterior use of Masonite or other similar high maintenance materials on walls or trim is strongly discouraged. (f) Roof Pitch. The majority of all roof areas on any structure shall have a minimum 6/12 roof pitch. (g) Signs. One identification sign for each multi-family development shall be pennitted. Signage shall not exceed five (5) feet in height or more than thirty (30) square feet in area. Signage shall not be internally illuminated. Signs shall not contain a commercial message. e e (3) Commercial Buildings. (a) Exterior Materials. All commercial buildings shall be constructed of brick, stone, or stucco. (b) Parking. It is strongly encouraged that parking for any commercial use be located to both the side and front of all buildings. (c) Articulation. All wall faces visible from a public right-of-way shall not run unarticulated for more than fifty (50) feet in length. All wall offsets shall be a minimum of twenty-four (24) inches in depth. (d) Signage. A uniform sign plan for each phase of commercial development shall be included with the corresponding special use pennit application. The uniform sign plan shall consist of five elements that shall govern all signs within the development: location, materials, size, color, and illumination. One freestanding identification sign is allowed per commercial development unless the development has frontage on three or more streets, except that each business that has more than eighty (80) linear feet of building frontage may have their own freestanding sign. No freestanding sign shall be located less than sixty (60) feet from another freestanding sign. No freestanding sign in a commercial area shall exceed fifty (50) square feet in area or more than ten (10) feet in height. The total area of all wall signs on a particular wall or section of wall shall not exceed one square foot for each linear foot of building frontage. Wall signs shall be located on only principal buildings. No wall sign shall project above the highest point of the building wall on the same side of the building as the sign. On a multi-occupancy building each occupant with an outside entrance serving the general public may have a separate wall sign. Comer tenants with a door or window on their side walls and tenants with a separate outside entrance serving the general public where such entrance is in a different exterior wall from any other entrance for such tenant shall be allowed one additional wall SIgn. e (4) Institutional Buildings. e (a) Parking. It is strongly encouraged that parking areas for institutional uses be located to the front and side of any building. 161 e (b) Signs. One freestanding sign is permitted per institutional use. No freestanding sign shall exceed five (5) feet in height or more than thirty (30) square feet in area. (E) Application Procedures. Submission requirements to obtain complete reVIew and approval of a planned unit development shall include: e (1) Sketch Plan. Submittal of a sketch plan to the Planning and Development Department for preliminary review by the City Planning, Engineering, Water Resources, Energy Services, and Fire Departments may be submitted at any time. The sketch plan shall schematically show the proposed uses, major buildings, type and density of development, major site amenities, general street layout and configuration of open space. (2) Rezoning and the Master Plan. Following review of the sketch plan, an application to rezone to a PUD-SU district may be submitted in accordance with the rezoning procedures outlined in Section 156.186 of the Monroe Code of Ordinances. In addition to the submittal requirements of Section 156.186, a Master Plan for the site shall be submitted with the rezoning application that depicts the general organization of and location of land uses within the PUD-SU, and shall consist of one or more plan sheets showing: e (a) property lines of the overall tract; (b) proposed divisions of the property by land use with approximate dimensions and area; (c) total number of residential units proposed; (d) open space plan showing its area, location, configuration, existing and proposed trees, and recreational areas and facilities; (e) existing streets, showing access to the project, proposed roads and parking areas; (f) existing and proposed streams and lakes, including 100 and 500-year floodplains. e Minor deviations from the master plan approved by the City Council are permissible and the Zoning Administrator may authorize a minor deviation. A minor deviation is defined as having no substantial impact on neighboring properties adjacent to the PUD-SU zone, the general public or previously recorded phases of the planned unit development. All other requests for changes, including any changes in proposed density for the planned unit development shall be processed as a new application. (3) Special Use Permits. Special use permits shall be issued prior to commencing with any land disturbing activity within the PUD-SU district. Special use permit applications may be submitted in conjunction with or following a request to rezone property to PUD-SU. All special use permit applications shall be submitted in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section 156.188 of the Monroe Code of Ordinances. e (4) Required Findings. In considering applications for a Planned Unit Development District Special Use Permit, the City Council shall hold a public hearing and shall be approved only all of the following findings offact are made: 162 e e e e (a) That application of planned unit development requirements to the property will produce a development of equal or higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application of district regulations that would otherwise govern; and (b) That application of planned unit development requirements to the property will encourage innovate arrangements of buildings and open spaces to provide efficient, attractive, flexible, and environmentally sensitive design; and (c) That application of planned unit development requirements to the property will produce a development functioning as a cohesive, unified project; and (d) That application of planned unit development requirements to the property will not substantially injure or damage the use, value, and enjoyment of surrounding property nor hinder or prevent the development of surrounding property in accordance with the adopted plans and policies of the city. (F) Relationship To Other Applicable Provisions. Except as provided by this section and § 156.188, development in a PUD-SU district shall be subject all of the applicable standards, procedures, and regulations in other sections of this chapter. Adopted this 20th day of November, 2001. Council Member Jordan asked if the text change was the issue being voted on. Mayor Davis confinned that the vote was only for the text change. Mayor Pro Tem Bazemore restated his motion to grant this text change. Council Member Hargett seconded the motion, which passed with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Keziah, Mayor Pro Tem Bazemore, and Mayor Davis Council Members Kilgore and Smith NAYS: Council Member Smith noted that he was not voting against the Ordinance or the PUD, but rather against action being taken at that time. E. Project # 02-13000006 - Zonin2: Map Chan2:e ReQuest - R-20 (Low/Moderate Sin2:le- Family Residential) to PUD-SU (Planned Unit Development Special Use) District - 291.30 acres on the south side of Hi2:hway 75 (Waxhaw Hi2:hway) between New Town Road and Hb!hway 84(Weddin2:ton Road) - City of Monroe - Tax ID # 09-321-004. 09-321-002 (portion). 09-321-005. and 09-321-001. Council Member Keziah moved BE IT ORDAINED that this property be rezoned from R-20 (Low/Moderate Single-Family Residential) to PUD-SU (Planned Unit Development Special Use). Mayor Pro Tem Bazemore seconded the motion, which received the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Keziah, Mayor Pro Tem Bazemore, and Mayor Davis Council Members Jordan, Kilgore, and Smith NAYS: e Council Member Kilgore requested that the vote be clarified for Council and the public. City Attorney Milliken stated that, in order for an Ordinance to pass on the night it was introduced, 163 e e e e e there must be a 2/3 vote in favor. If the 2/3 vote was not achieved, then the Item must be carried over until the next meeting for a second reading, whereby a simple majority vote could approve the Ordinance. F. New Downtown Incentive Prol!ram - Resolution to Adopt Development Incentive Grant. Council Member Hargett moved to approve Resolution R-2001-55: Resolution to Adopt the Development Incentive Grant Program for Downtown Monroe R-2001-55 WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the creation of a new incentive program for the development of new structures in the Central Business District; and, WHEREAS, the Downtown Monroe, Inc.'s Board of Directors voted unanimously in favor of the creation of the Development Incentive Grant; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds the need for the creation of a new incentive to induce new investment on downtown sites; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined the Development Incentive Grant program will create increased Ad Valorum taxes; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Mayor and City Clerk are authorized and directed to execute the creation of the Development Incentive Grant for the City of Monroe. ADOPTED this 20th day of November, 2001. Council Member Keziah seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: The Development Incentive Grant is hereby incorporated as a part of these Minutes as "Exhibit A". G. New Downtown Incentive Prol!ram - Resolution to Adopt Residential Investment Grant. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore moved to approve Resolution R-2001-56: Resolution to Adopt the Residential Investment Grant Program for Downtown Monroe R-2001-56 WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the creation of a new incentive program to entice residential development within existing structures in the Central Business District; and, WHEREAS, the Downtown Monroe Inc.'s Board of Directors voted unanimously in favor of the creation of the Residential Investment Grant; and, 164 WHEREAS, the City Council finds the need for the creation of a new incentive to induce new e investment within the existing structures of downtown; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined the Residential Investment Grant program will create increased Ad Valorem taxes; and, e e e e NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Mayor and City Clerk are authorized and directed to execute the creation of the Residential Investment Grant for the City of Monroe. ADOPTED this 20th day of November, 2001. Council Member Hargett seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: The Residential Investment Grant Program is hereby incorporated as a part of these Minutes as "Exhibit B ". H. Proiect # 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 (Public Hearin!! Completed on October 2,2001). Council Member Keziah moved to table the request until December 3, 2001. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: Item No. 10. Public Input Meetin!!: - Resolution to Approve Transportation Improvement Pro!!:ram (TIP) Recommendations for 2004-2010. Planning Director Herron presented the 2004-2010 proposed Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) priorities. Each year, the NCDOT holds meetings in each division across the state to listen to concerns of local governments and interested citizens and what the priorities should be for funding for state roads in North Carolina. This is the time of year when the City of Monroe likes to receive input and have Council consider and adopt the priorities for the City of Monroe for submission to the NCDOT as to the important needs for the City of Monroe. The City of Monroe 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program Priorities packet was provided to Council prior to the meeting. The state has started going to a six-year program cycle, and they have tried to be more in line with listing items in the TIP for which they know that funds will actually be put aside for. In years past, more projects were included in the TIP than there were actually funds for. To be more realistic about timing, scheduling, and funding, they have made it so that if you get in the TIP, you can almost guarantee that you will receive some level of funding in the years that are scheduled and noted in the plan. 165 e e e e e Planning Director Herron advised that on page one of the TIP Proposal packet was a list of highway improvements, aviation improvements, and future needs that have been recommended by the Transportation Committee. Planning Director Herron recognized Council Member Kilgore, Chair of the Transportation Committee, to comment on any recommendations included in the document. Council Member Kilgore had no comment. Planning Director Herron advised that the packet included the recommendations from the Transportation Committee concerning the TIP presentation on December 12, 2001 in Monroe for the NCDOT. The first priority was the Western Loop, or the M. L. King, Jr. Boulevard. The Western Loop or M. L. King, Jr. Boulevard was actually an extension of Dickerson Boulevard. Currently, there was a two-lane section that comes off of Old Charlotte Highway and runs to Goldmine Road. The proposed route continues on from Goldmine Road to NC 84, across 75, through the property discussed earlier, and down to Highway 200 at approximately the intersection of Corinth Church Road. This project was currently in the TIP, and discussions were currently being held regarding the municipal agreement that may be sent to the City, potential right-of-way acquisition, and a potential narrowing of the proposed section in the area from a 1000-foot corridor to a 500-foot corridor. The City wants to continue to name this as a priority so that DOT is aware of Council's level of importance placed on this Loop as a major connector and thoroughfare for the City. The City's needs in this are to move traffic from south of Monroe to the commercial areas and to route traffic heading north and west, where the majority of the City's traffic goes. Currently, the traffic is funneling through town, and the City is looking to provide an outlet and route for that traffic to come around the western end and move on in a westerly direction. The Committee recommended that this remain the number one priority in its requests to DOT. The number two priority was Secrest Avenue Extension (U3619). There is a major industrial area on the east side of town around Roosevelt and Walkup. In addition, there is the US 74 Bypass, which is slated to go in the vicinity north of the City. A lot of the traffic would be funneling and going toward the Bypass. The City has proposed to have three major connections on the Bypass at Rocky River, Highway 601, and Morgan Mill Road. If the City could have the connection with the Secrest Avenue Extension, a lot of the industrial traffic that aims to get to the Bypass could use it as a primary connector from the industrial area. Council Member Jordan asked if the City continues to ask for consideration of improvement to Secrest Avenue due to its narrowness and the residential properties along Secrest Avenue. The industrial area referenced feeds into the residential area prior to entering the Secrest Avenue Extension. Planning Director Herron advised that the City was asking for these improvements, which were addressed in the first paragraph of the second priority in the TIP Proposal. The third priority was the Charles Street Improvement. Planning Director Herron reported that this was included since Charles Street was a short section adjacent to the Downtown area. The reasoning for this improvement was that there was a five-lane section of Morgan Mill Road that, at the stop light at Franklin Street, funneled into a two-lane section of Charles Street. This is a primary connector to Sunset Avenue, which is a major connector for east/west traffic from Roosevelt Boulevard to the west side of Monroe. 166 e e e e The fourth priority was Charlotte Avenue, and the request was from Rocky River Road to Downtown Monroe. This is a heavily traveled alternate from Highway 74, and most local residents going to and from work/home use this route to avoid Highway 74. It has been noted in the TIP report that this project was funded at one point in time; however, due to the City's desire to have the Western Loop, or M. L. King, Jr. Boulevard, moved up on the list, the City requested that the funding for this route be transferred to the Western Loop. This was a request that funding be granted once again at a future date and be included in the TIP. Council Member Kilgore inquired if any conclusion had been made regarding the traffic congestion that occurs at Concord Avenue and Charlotte Avenue. City Manager Spell advised that there have been some preliminary designs done, and there are some right-of-way issues that the City was having to obtain additional information for. City Manager Spell noted that the Engineering Department was working hard on the issue and was close to closure; however, there must be certainty before it was presented to DOT. Planning Director Herron reported the number five priority, which included two projects that were split because one could not exist without the other. Priority (5)(a) pertains to improvements on Airport Road down to Goldmine Road. Airport Road is an access to major economic and industrial areas of the City, which results in a lot of traffic to the commercial uses. Even though the improvements to Airport Road are scheduled to begin in 2002, it was important to keep this on the TIP list to ensure that DOT knows that this was a priority of the City. Priority (5)(b) was Rocky River Road to Charlotte Avenue. The Rocky River Road connector needs to be improved in order to facilitate the funneling of traffic to the industrial areas and the airport. Council Member Kilgore asked if this priority would move up on the list or if they would do this when the Bypass went through and the cloverleaf was built on Rocky River Road. Planning Director Herron stated that he was unsure if the priority would move up. In discussions with the Chamber's Transportation Committee, this section was a high priority, and the Chamber therefore included this section in support of the City. Their rationale was that if the idea of the ramp and Bypass were approved, this would need to be a totally improved stretch to facilitate movement to the airport. Planning Director Herron presented priority six as US 601 North. The City's request was to maintain support for US 601 from Highway 74 up to the proposed Bypass, which was also included in the TIP. DOT did hold a meeting at Benton Heights Presbyterian Church last month to receive public comments and was continuing with the planning stages of the design, cross- section, and right-of-way acquisition for US 601 North from Highway 74. The final road priority included was the Northern Loop, which was a section that picks up from Bivens Road and connects at Olive Branch Road on Morgan Mill Road. Even with the Bypass, this has been designated as a major artery in this area, which would continue the effort to create a loop around the City. e Planning Director Herron addressed other categories and stated that these included aviation improvements. The Monroe Airport is a critical link in the transportation network from 167 MonroelUnion County and is a major economic generator for the City. In addition, it helps recruit and attract business and industry, and the state has been very supportive in terms of e funding and assistance with design and expansion. A future need included in the TIP is the Allen Street Connector, which is rrom Johnson Street over to Allen Street. This is an important link due to trains causing a cut-off of emergency services to that part of town. The Allen Street Connector would provide an additional connection that emergency vehicles and citizens could use to Downtown across the railroad tracks in that area. e e e e Planning Director Herron cited one final inclusion in the TIP as City-selected endorsements for recommendations by the County. The first endorsement was the Monroe Bypass rrom Forest Hills School Road westward to the Charlotte Loop, which would be the entire length of the Bypass. The portion that was funded and was currently under design was Segments B and C, rrom Forest Hills School Road to just west of 601 near the Benton Heights Presbyterian Church. The next phase is to accelerate the segments running westward rrom 601 to the Charlotte Outer Loop as much as possible. Currently, these sections are not funded nor designed. Segment C pertains to implementing improvements to Rocky River Road to enable this road to facilitate the movement of traffic rrom US 74 to the Bypass. The Segment endorsement rrom the County Thoroughfare Plan is to realign NC 75 rrom east of Waxhaw to the South Carolina state line to connect the new SC 75 to 1-77 in Rock Hill. Mary Nash commented that her home was being threatened by the Western Loop and requested Council consider moving it further west. Chuck Mimms, 2323 Concord Avenue North of Monroe, asked Council to consider several things pertaining to the Northern Loop. With some engineering, the City could make it without the Northern Loop being built since the proposed Northern Loop was close to the Bypass location. Mr. Mimms requested that Council consider the citizens who were trying to preserve a way of life that involved wildlife, nature, and rreedom rrom traffic and noise. Dale Hargett asked what the plan was for Charlotte Avenue. Planning Director Herron responded that Charlotte Avenue was to be widened to accommodate current and future traffic, and the plan did not stipulate the number of lanes. Ms. Hargett addressed the Loop and stated that its original location in 1959 was one mile outside the City limits. Today, most of the shopping is located within a several block radius of the Loop, which results in 48,000 cars per day passing the intersection. Ms. Hargett reported that the original Loop was designed to take traffic around the City; however, it is currently about six miles inside the City limits. Ms. Hargett expressed a concern regarding the tremendous flow of traffic in this area, and the concern for businesses in the area. Mayor Davis expressed appreciation for the work done by Council Member Kilgore and the Transportation Committee in preparing the TIP recommendations. Council Member Kilgore moved to approve Resolution R-2001-53: 168 e e e e e RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONROE 2004-2010 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS R-2001-53 WHEREAS, the City of Monroe has invested substantial time, money, and effort in the development of a thoroughfare plan for the City; and WHEREAS, development and improvement of the City's transportation network is vital to the continuing economic prosperity of the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Monroe has presented a concise, well drafted list of recommended priorities to NCDOT for years which have been consistent with past requests and the City's Thoroughfare Plan adopted by both the City Council and NCDOT; and WHEREAS, the attached list of recommendations represents the careful thought and work of council, staff, and citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council requests that NCDOT make all effort to include the attached recommendations for the City of Monroe in the 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program. Adopted this 20th day of November, 2001. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: The 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program is hereby incorporated as a part of these Minutes as "Exhibit C". Item No. 11. ADDointments - Economic DeveloDment Commission. Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore moved to reappoint Charles Cobb, Al Lyerly, and Doug Reece to full tenus on the Economic Development Commission. Council Member Hargett seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: There being no further business, Council Member Jordan moved to adjourn. Council Member Kilgore seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with the following votes: 169 e e e e e AYES: Council Members Hargett, Jordan, Keziah, Kilgore, Smith, Mayor Pro Tern Bazemore, and Mayor Davis None NAYS: The Regular City Council Meeting of November 20,2001 adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Attest: ~D~C4kk- - Minutes prepared and transcribed by Donna Helms, Office Administration Contractor 11-20-01 170 e e e e e Exhibit A City of Monroe- Downtown Enhancement Programs Development Incentive Grant (DIG) DOWNTOWN MONROE INCORPORATED e BRMU Programs: DIG - Development Incentive Grant The Development Incentive Grant (DIG), has been established to entice developers and investors to initiate new projects within the Central Business District of Downtown Monroe. This grant targets investments made on vacant land or where dilapidated buildings cannot be restored and require complete replacement.t Unlike the other grant programs, this grant has a minimum investment of $1 million. The purpose of this threshold is to ensure quality development. The structures that will be developed under the program will most likely be well above the given threshold. e Any potential developer with planned investments located within the Central Business District (CBD) of the City of Monroe may apply for a DIG subject to the following: 1. e 2. 3. 4. e The building scheme must match the existing composition of structures in the CBD. The proposed project must meet all applicable zonmg requirements. The developer must be in good standing with the City of Monroe for all services, taxes, utilities, etc. An existing building may be considered for complete replacement if: (a) the DMI Design and Restructuring Committee judges a property needing replacement; and (b) the City of Monroe Building Standards Department determines the structure cannot be structurally renovated; and/or (c) an appraisal/study of the structure shows that the extent of damage is so severe that even if it could be structurally renovated the cost is determined to be prohibitive to its rehabilitation. t If an existing structure exceeds 20,000 square feet and requires complete restoration of the interior, but the existing shell can be saved, special consideration may be given to the project by the City Council. Examples of Eligible Projects, include: e · Office Buildings; · Hotels; · Residential Condominiums; · Bed and Breakfast; · Conference Center; · Parking Deck; · Manufacturing Facility; ~~,.r '- . . . established to entice developers and investors to initiate new projects within the Central Business District. . . Downtown Enhancement Programs e e e e e Guidelines: 1. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards and the Supplementary Requirements for Development in the Central Business District [City of Monroe Code of Ordinances Title XV, Chapter 156.054] will be used as guidelines for awarding project reimbursements. 2. Construction in the Central Business District should be considered a contemporary solution, which respects the architectural and historical integrity of the entire area while retaining those elements that enhance the surrounding buildings. 3. All design proposals must meet with the code requirements of the City of Monroe. 4. All projects must be completed within two (2) years of the date that the grant is awarded. Any extension beyond two (2) years must be requested by the owner and approved by the DMI Design Committee and the Monroe City Councilor the funds may be rescinded. 5. DIG's may only be used to finance new construction. 6. Monroe City Council must approve all DIG applications. 7. Upon completion, the improvements will be inspected and approved by the DMI staff for determination of compliance as submitted in the application. Selection Criteria Grants are awarded considering: 1. A maximum grant amount being no greater than 2% of the total investment per project disbursed over a five (5) year period. 2. Proposals including architectural plans, signs, landscaping, and parking that are evaluated in terms of compliance with existing ordinances, innovation, context with the surrounding environment, scale, size, horticultural value, technical merit, and any other criteria that relates to the project and the impact on the visual and functional improvement of the CBD. Projects meeting one or more of the following criteria will receive priority for funding: 1. Projects which restore or recreate the original façade of a building that once occupied the parcel. 2. Projects which front Main Street, Hayne Street, Jefferson Street, Franklin Street, Church Street, Charlotte Avenue, or Windsor Street. 3. Projects which improve the integrity of a Central Business District. Downtown Enhancement Programs e e e e e Procedure to receive a DIG DIG applications may be submitted to the DMI office at any time. City Staff will be available to discuss and review proposals prior to the submission for application approval. 1. The property owner must submit a completed application; architectural drawings, site layout, site plan, parking plan, renderings, cost proposals, and other relevant documentation to the DMI Design and Restructuring Committee. This package must be complete in order to qualify for funding. 2. Once the DMI Design and Restructuring Committee reviews the project, the applicant will be notified of the status of the application. Monroe City Council must approval all DIG applications following a public hearing. Construction may not begin until the project has been approved. 3. This is a grant program. Grant monies will be distributed on an annual basis for a five (5) year period, following the completion of the project. The work needs to be substantially completed and conform to the pre-approved plans, in order to fully satisfy all the terms of the grant agreement. Downtown Enhancement Programs Authorized Corporate Signature: e Please Print Name and Title: e e e e Developer Name: Date: Address: Project Start: Project End: Company Representative: Title: Capital Investment: (spedfy if more than one phase) Land: Cost $ Equipment: $ Acres Description: Building(s): Cost $ Sq. Ft. Building Description (attach separate sheet, if necessary) Building Location Please attach samples of exterior and interior finishes, architectural drawings, renderings, site layout, site plan, parking plan, and other relevant documentation. Utility Information: Water Usage (gpd): Wastewater Usage (gpd): Natural Gas (therms): Electric Usage (kwh): Electric Load Factor: Vehicles per Day: By providing this Grant Payment Request to the City of Monroe, I hereby certify for the company that all the information provided is true and correct. The company also agrees to cooperate with the City of Monroe by providing such information and such access to our records as may be necessary to verify the enclosed information. I also understand that any facts found to be incorrect or false, will be grounds for termination of the incentive grant agreement. Date: City ofMonroe-Downtowll Monroe, Incorporated / /3 West Morgan Street· Monroe, North Carolina 28112 e e e e e Exhibit B City of Monroe- Downtown Enhancement Programs Residential Investment Grant (RIG) DOWNTOWN MONROE INCORPORATED e e e BRMU Programs: RIG - Residential Investment Grant The Residential Investment Grant (RIG), assists with the development of residential uses in the upper levels of the buildings that reside within the Central Business District. It will encourage the inhabitation of this unused space within the downtown area and serve as a catalyst to preserve the structures that give Downtown Monroe its uniqueness. This grant can significantly reduce the costs associated with the rehabilitation of an income producing structure by providing $10 per $100 (10%) of the assessed tax value. Basing the grant on an assessment per $100 of actual value assures that the incentive operates within the context of the building's local real estate market. The rehabilitation of the structure must be substantial. The total rehabilitation expense must exceed a value two (2) times the amount of the grant and be completed within a 12-month period from the award date of the grant. Qualified rehabilitation expenses include costs incurred in work upon or within a structure. Expenses that do not qualify include the cost of acquisition or personal property. Grant monies can be paid at the completion of the project or distributed in quarters, based upon the percentage of project completion and verification of expenditures via receipts. If the project is not 100% completed, a lien can be placed on the property for the portion of outstanding monies. Any property owner of a building within the Central Business District of the City of Monroe may apply for a RIG subject to the following: 1. e 2. 3. 4. e The grant portion of the project must be for the interior renovation of an existing building only. The proposed project must meet all applicable zoning requirements. All required permits (i.e. zoning, building, etc) must have been obtained. The proposed project follows the guidelines for renovation of historic structures or structures within historic districts as outlined herein. This grant can significantly reduce the costs associated with the rehabilitation of an income producing structure. . . Downtown Enhancement Programs i e Examples of Eligible Projects, include: · Rental or Apartment Housing; · Condominium Development for Sale; · Hotel Development. Guidelines: e 1. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and the Supplementary Requirements for Development in the Central Business District [City of Monroe Code of Ordinances Title XV, Chapter 156.054] will be used as guidelines for awarding project reimbursements. 2. Rehabilitation of a structure in the Central Business District should be considered a contemporary solution, which respects the architectural and historical integrity of the entire building while retaining those elements that enhance the building. All rehabilitation design proposals must meet with the code requirements of the City of Monroe. All projects should be completed within one (1) year of the date that the grant is awarded. Any extension beyond one (1) year must be requested by the owner and approved by the DMI Design and Restructuring Committee and Monroe City Council, or the funds may be rescinded. RIG's may only be used to finance interior improvements. Upon completion, the improvements will be inspected and approved by the DMI staff for determination of compliance as submitted in the application. 3. 4. e 5. 6. Procedure to receive a RIG RIG applications may be submitted to the DMI office at any time. e 1. The property owner submits a completed application, photographs, drawings, plans & specifications and contractors cost proposals to the DMI Design and Restructuring Committee. The package must be complete in order to qualify for funding. 2. Once the DMI Design and Restructuring Committee reviews the project, the applicant will be notified of the status of the application. Monroe City Council must approve all RIG's following a public hearing. Construction may not begin until the project has been approved. e 3. This is a grant program. Grant monies can be paid either upon completion of the project as certified by the DMI Design and Downtown Enhancement Programs e e e e e Restructuring Cpmmittee that the work completed substantially conforms to the pre-approved plans and the project is eligible for the grant payments; or Grant monies can be distributed in quarters, based upon the percentage of project completion and verification of expenditures via receipts. If the project is not 100% completed, a lien can be placed on the property for the portion of outstanding monies. It takes approximately two (2) weeks after approval of the project to receive the grant monies. Questions about the RIG Program: What is RIG? RIG, the Residential Investment Grant, is an incentive to taxpaying entities who contribute to the residential rehabilitation of buildings in the Central Business District of Downtown Monroe. RIG provides $10 per $100 (10%) of assessed value, which assures that the incentive operates within the context of the building's local real estate market. Who may apply for the grant? Taxpaying entities that own an eligible structure(s) located within the Central Business District of Downtown Monroe. What buildings are eligible? All existing buildings within the Central Business District of Downtown Monroe that have the ability to convert into multiple residential units are eligible. What rehabilitation expenditures qualify? Interior improvements that meet the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation" and the City of Monroe's Design Standards. Includes: rehabilitation costs, construction interest and taxes, architectural and engineering fees, legal and professional fees, developer's fees and general administrative costs. Does not include: acquisition costs, enlargement costs, acquisition interest and taxes, Realtor's fees, paving and landscaping costs, sales and marketing costs, or new building construction costs. When can a taxpayer claim the grant? Only after the completion of the project are grant payments made and the audit of the expenditures performed. What other restrictions apply? The Board of Directors of DMI and the Monroe City Council must approve the project. Approval of applications must occur prior to the commencement of any work. Downtown Enhancement Programs e e e e e Example: 2000 assessed total value $114,222 Grant value is $10.00 per $100 (10%) of the property's assessed total value RIG Value = $11.422 Minimum Private Investment: ($11,422 x 2) + 1 = $22.845 Total Investment: $34.267 Downtown Enhancement Programs e e e e e Owner's Name: Date: Owner's Mailing Address: Phone: Building Name: Building Address: Building's Physical Address: Project Start: Proj ect End: Project Description: Project Cost: Please Attach the Following: 1) Color photographs of existing conditions of proposed 4) Written specifications outlining scope of work improvement area 2) Samples of paint and wall coverings and floor coverings 5) Drawings of proposed renovations 3) Description of appliances, light fixtures, etc. to be installed 6) Contractors estimate and NC License Number Tenant's Name: Phone: Business Name: By providing this Grant Application to the City of Momoe, I hereby certify that all the information provided is true and correct. I also agree to cooperate with the City of Momoe by providing such information and such access to my records as may be necessary to verify the enclosed information. I also understand that any facts found to be incorrect or false, will be grounds for termination of the incentive grant agreement. Authorized Signature: Date: Please Print Name and Title: City ofM01zroe-Downtown Monroe, J¡zcorporated 113 West Morgan Street· Monroe, North Carolina 28112 Exhibit C e City of Monroe North Carolina e e 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program Priorities e e Presented to theN .C. Board of Transportation Public Meeting in Monroe, NC - December 12, 2001 City of Monroe 2004-2010 TIP Priorities e e e e e INTRODUCTION Located in the strongest growth corridor of the Charlotte metropolitan region, Monroe is experiencing unprecedented growth and development. Accompanying this growth is a need for the infrastructure to support it. Congested streets and thoroughfares have becòme common in the city as traffic counts continue to soar. Although much of the traffic is generated locally, a significant portion of it can be attributed to the fact that Monroe lies at the crossroads of several important state maintained thoroughfares: U.S. 74, U.S. 601, NC 75, NC 84, and NC 200. These thoroughfares serve as important truck routes funneling large amounts of traffic through the city daily. The construction of the 74 bypass will relieve some of the east- west traffic congestion, but improvements still need to be made along other roadways to move traffic efficiently, safely, and effectively. The City of Monroe respectfully submits the following roadway and aviation improvement recommendations for the 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program Update. These recommendations represent the outcome of careful planning and consideration and are, by all estimates, necessary for the planned orderly growth of the city and the transportation network which supports it. The list of priorities for Monroe are: Hi2hwav Improvements Aviation Improvements 1. The Western Loop (M.L. King, Jr., Boulevard) 1. 2. Secrest Avenue Extension 3. Charles Street 4. Charlotte Ave Sa. Airport RoadlGoldmine Road 5b. Rocky River Road 6. U.S. 601 North 7. Northern Loop Monroe Airport Identified Future Needs 1. Allen Street Connector IDGHW AY IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Priority #1: The Western Loop (U-3412) (M.L. Kin2. Jr.. Boulevard) Monroe needs the western loop as soon as possible and requests that this project remain on the TIP for 2004-2010. Currently all Traffic leaving southwestern Monroe must use Charlotte Avenue to access U.S. 74 or 601 North. Because of the absence of the western loop, downtown Monroe experiences high traffic levels including heavy truck traffic linking up with and traveling NC 75 and NC 200. The western loop would provide a direct, unimpeded route from U.S. 74 at the Monroe Mall, a favorite destination for local residents, to NC 75 and NC 200 southwest of the downtown. This would remove most of the truck traffic and many of the vehicles traveling through town from the downtown area. Traffic volume projections for the year 2020 (based on thoroughfare plan projections) show the western loop exceeding 28,000 vehicles per day even as traffic volume increases in the downtown over current traffic counts. Without the loop, traffic on critical downtown roadways could easily increase by 7,000 vehicles per day during this period rendering these roadways impassable during much of the day. City of Monroe 2004-2010 TIP Priorities e e e e e The City of Monroe has spent more than $500,000 in the past two years to improve the appearance and functionality of the downtown. Of continued concern is the large number of tractor-trailer trucks that clog downtown streets. Many of these trucks carry live poultry, poultry waste, and lumber products spreading feathers, waste, and wood debris along the streets. Tight turns on downtown streets also mean that these trucks cause traffic snarls, run up on curbs causing significant damage, and intimidate pedestrians at crosswalks. Unless the excessive truck traffic is removed from the downtown, the city's efforts to revitalize the area will have limited success. By building the western loop, the city would, for the first time, be able to declare these streets off limits to through trucks and reroute them down U.s. 74 to the western loop where they can link up with NC 200, NC 84, and NC 75 west of the city. The second section of the Western Loop, from Charlotte Avenue to Goldmine Road, has been constructed as a two-lane facility. This section was planned as a five-lane roadway and NCDOT purchased right-of-way accordingly. The City of Monroe strongly requests that the western loop, including this section, be built as a five-lane roadway. Planning for the Western Loop is in progress, with design scheduled for fiscal year 2003 and right-of-way acquisition scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2005. Partial completion is scheduled for fiscal year 2007. If the city moves to acquire the right-of-way at its expense, the project could be moved up two to three years, based on execution of a municipal agreement. Priority #2: Secrest Avenue Extension (U-3619) The extension of Secrest Avenue to the U.S. 74 Monroe Bypass has been identified for some time as a long range goal to relieve traffic congestion within the Sutton Park area of Monroe. In addition, improvements are needed to the existing section of Secrest Avenue, between US 74 and W alkup Avenue, including widening. The City of Monroe requests that this project be added to the 2004-2010 TIP and that funding for an environmental impact statement be allocated as soon as possible. The Sutton Park area has approximately 29 industries employing nearly 6,000 people located within its irnrnediate area. This results in roadways such as Walkup Avenue being choked with traffic at peak periods due to the lack of access routes. The only means to access U.S. 601 North, Secrest Shortcut and other residential areas of Union County, is to travel to U.S. 74 for disbursement. The proposed roadway, as showil by the present Thoroughfare Plan for Monroe, is recornrnended to extend across Richardson Creek, to a connection with the U.S. 74Bypass, and then continue north of the bypass to an intersection with Olive Branch Road (SR 1906). With the impending construètion of the U.S. 74 Monroe Bypass, the City of Monroe sees an opportunity to rectify traffic concerns within the Sutton Park area, as well as enhance the accessibility of the area for industrial growth. This is due to the planned extension of the Bypass onto the Charlotte Outer Belt. ,This will provide industries of the area with a "limited access" freeway to 1-77 and 1-85 to the west. Also, as an added benefit, new industrial land on the north side of Richardson Creek will become open for development. The Monroe Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is a vital part of any industrial base, is located irnrnediately downstream and will facilitate line upgrades into the area. Without the extension of Secrest Avenue, most of the industrial traffic will use Morgan Mill Road as their primary link to the planned bypass. Traffic volume projections (based on the thoroughfare plan projections) for Morgan Mill Road in the year 2020 with Secrest Avenue extension in place approach a five-lane roadway capacity. Routing the 24,000 vehicles per day expected to travel Secrest Avenue Extension to the bypass to Morgan Mill Road instead will nearly triple the projected volume of Walkup Avenue and almost double the volume of traffic on Morgan Mill Road. In addition, the availability of a City of Monroe 2004-2010 TIP Priorities e e e e e Secrest Avenue connection to the u.s. 74 Monroe Bypass will dramatically reduce the amount of travel time for the industrial traffic. Priority #3: Charles Street (U-2547) For several years, Monroe has considered the improvement of Charles Street a priority project to provide adequate capacity for existing and future traffic and to improve safety. This project was an identified future need in the 1996 TIP and included as a project on the 1997 TIP. The city requests that this. project remain on the 2004-2010 TIP. Projected traffic volumes in the year 2020 exceed 8,000 vehicles per day (based on the thoroughfare plan projections); a substantial amount for this street. The northern terminus of Charles Street is at the intersection of Morgan Mill Road and Franklin Street. Morgan Mill Road, ending directly across the intersection from Charles Street, is five lanes at the intersection and is projected to carry as many as 30,000 vehicles per day in the year 2020. Charles Street is currently a two lane local collector with varying pavement widths, alignment shifts, and carries a substantial amount of school traffic including school buses. Proposed improvements to this street include widening, straightening and resurfacing which should alleviate the safety and capacity concerns. Planning is scheduled for fiscal year 2004, with design planned for fiscal year 2006, and right-of-way acquisition to begin in fiscal year 2008. Priority #4: Charlotte Avenue (U-213) Charlotte Avenue between Airport Road and downtown Monroe is a major entryway into the city. Although the Department of Transportation shifted funding for this project to the western loop at the city's request in 1996 to reflect the loop's priority status for the city, the City of Monroe requests funding for this project in the TIP for 2004-2010. Current traffic counts along the target segment of Charlotte Avenue are estimated at 18,000 vehicles per day. Even with the western loop in place which should draw a substantial amount of traffic off of this roadway, traffic volume is projected to reach 19,000 vehicles per day {based on thoroughfare plan projections) by the year 2020. Without improvements to Charlotte Avenue, especially between downtown and Concord Avenue, traffic will exceed design standards creating long delays and safety problems. A field survey with impact on adjacent property and the costs should be completed in fiscal year 2001. Charlotte Avenue between Rocky River Road and Airport Road also serves as a major roadway connector to the Monroe Airport and corporate and industrial development along Airport Road. As development continues in this area, traffic will increase. This section of Charlotte Avenue should be widened to accommodate current and future traffic, much of which is and will be truck traffic. The intersections at Rocky River Road and Charlotte Avenue and Charlotte Avenue and Airport Road should be improved as well. Priority #5a: Airport Road and Goldmine Road (R-4050) The Development of land along Airport Road and Goldmine Road as a major corporate and industrial base for the City of Monroe and Union County, especially the highly successful Monroe Corporate Center, will continue to tax the ability of the current roadways to handle the type and volume of traffic this development demands. The City of Monroe strongly requests that NCDOT accelerate plans for City of Monroe 2004-2010 TIP Priorities e e e e e widening Airport Road to four lanes between Charlotte A venue and Goldmine Road and for similar improvement of Goldmine Road between Airport Road and Animal Shelter Road. The City also requests that NCDOT cornrnit funds for repaving, lane widening (minimum of 28' of pavement), and shoulder improvements along Airport Road from Goldmine Road to NC 84 (Weddington Road). The improvement of Airport Road was mentioned and funds promised by Senator Aaron Plyler during his July 18, 1997 welcome to and formal announcement of Coltec Industries relocation to the Monroe Corporate Center. In addition, several recent accidents along this road involving trucks which serve the industries clearly points out the need for pavement widening and shoulder improvements. Design improvements and right-of-way acquisition are in progress; construction is scheduled for fiscal year 2002. Priority #5b: Rockv River Road Rocky River Road from US 74 to Charlotte Avenue, including the intersections at either end of this segment, need to be improved to facilitate the movement of traffic between the Monroe Airport area and US 74. Recent signalization improvements at Rocky River Road and US 74 have improved traffic flow, however, current lane widths, shoulders, and turn lanes are inadequate for the increasing amount of heavy truck and passenger vehicle traffic along this segment of roadway. Prioritv #6: U.S. 601 North (U-4024) U.S. 601 will become a major corridor once the first phase of the U.S. 74 Monroe Bypass is completed. The City of Monroe requests that that portion of U.S. 601 between existing U.S. 74 and Sikes Mill Road be improved as a multi-lane facility prior to the opening of the first phase of the bypass in order to handle the increased traffic. Planning and design is in progress for this project, with right-of-way acquisition to begin in fiscal year 2003, and construction scheduled for fiscal year 2005. Prioritv #7: The Northern Loop The proposed northern loop is a vitallink in the future transportation network serving Monroe. It is part of a loop facility that, when completed, will encircle the city. The northern loop will provide local traffic with opportunities to move between residential, cornrnercial, and industrial areas in the high growth areas north of the downtown without having to move in and out of the central business district. Projected traffic volumes along the proposed roadway for the year 2020 (based on thoroughfare plan projections) vary between 5,300 and 14,000 vehicles per day. Although the proposed U.S. Highway 74 Monroe Bypass would appear to forestall the need for the northern loop, this loop will actually serve as a primary connector for local traffic traveling east and west. In fact, the existence of this loop may serve to keep local traffic from using the bypass thereby helping to protect its design integrity. AVIATION IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Prioritv #1: Monroe Airport The Monroe Airport is a critical lirtk in the transportation network of Monroe and Union County and should remain as a project on the 2004-2010 TIP. In a regional study conducted by the NC Department City of Monroe 2004-2010 TIP Priorities e e e e e .£ of Transportation, Division of Aviation comparing twelve municipal airports, the Monroe Airport was documented to have the highest annual operations (53,178) even though its operations per based aircraft (503) was only mid-range. Although some of this traffic is through traffic stopping for refueling, etc., a lot of it is driven by growth in industry in the region and by an increasing demand to serve as reliever for general aviation traffic for the Charlotte Douglas International Airport. The City of Monroe and the State of North Carolina have committed substantial funds for growth and development of the Monroe Airport. In 1996, the city adopted a resolution authorizing the issuance of $4,245,000 in combined enterprise system revenue bonds to finance a number of needed improvements at the airport. The Capital Improvement Program at the Airport, which included expanding aircraft aprons, new access roads, a hangar relocation and the construction of a new terminal building, was completed in the Fall of 1998. Land acquisition for future expansion of the airport was finally concluded this summer. Aircraft activity at the airport continues to increase and current consideration is being given to expand the aircraft apron at the new terminal to accommodate the increasing air traffic and the need for a new maintenance hangar. Planning for this expansion is currently underway with initial estimates approaching $1,000,000. City staff has consulted with the Division of Aviation on the degradation of our present parallel taxiway and has requested funds for the relocation of the taxiway and extension to Runway 23. The relocation of the parallel taxiway from 200 feet to 300 feet will enable the City and the State to fulfill a commitment made to the FAA during the commissioning of the Monroe ILS in August, 1994. The proposed project includes constructing 1,750 linear feet of new taxiway, reconstructing 1,300 linear feet of existing ramp, constructing one new cross over at the Runway 23 end and overlaying three existing crossovers. The total estimated cost of the project is $2,000,000. The City has already spent $70,000 as a stop gap measure in overlaying two sections of the present parallel taxiway that had become very brittle with age. While the work did not resolve the needed relocation, these areas were immediate safety issues and were affecting the integrity of the Airport for general aviation use. The State has contributed at least $500,000 for the past several years to assist with the Airport Capital Improvement Program completed in 1998. The City of Monroe strongly requests a continuation of this funding and consideration for the parallel taxiway improvements and additional apron expansion projects. IDENTIFIED FUTURE NEEDS Allen Street Connector A portion of the city, the Icemorlee neighborhood in particular, is separated from much of the rest of the city and emergency services by two heavily used railroad tracks. The proposed Allen Street connector, as indicated on the adopted Thoroughfare Plan for the City of Monroe, would provide unimpeded access to this part of the city. The City of Monroe requests that NCDOT undertake a feasibility study to determine if the connector can be constructed at a reasonable cost and what possible negative impacts the connector will have on the Icemorlee neighborhood. ENDORSEMENT OF SELECTED COUNTY PRIORITIES Although the recommendations as listed above are Monroe's top priorities for the 2004-2010 TIP, the city also endorses Union County's list of Consensus Priorities, especially the following items: City of Monroe 2004-2010 TIP Priorities e e e e e 1. R-2559 and R-3329, multi-lane, limited access, Monroe Bypass from Forest Hills School Road (SR 1754) westward to the Charlotte Outer Loop. R-2559 is FUNDED. a) Move segments Band C to construction as soon as possible (Forest Hills School Road to West of US 601). Widen US 601 to multi-lane from existing US 74 northward to Sikes Mill Road (US 74 Monroe Bypass). U-4024 is.FUNDED. b) Accelerate the segments running westward from US 601 to Charlotte Outer Loop as much as possible. c) Implement improvements to Rocky River Road (SR 1007) to enable this road to facilitate movement of traffic from US 74 bypass to existing US 74. 2. Realign NC 75 from east of Waxhaw to the SC state line to connect with the new SC 75 to 1-77 in Rock Hill. City o/Monroe 2004-2010 TIP Priorities e ) ) I.J > <t co œ D U Z D 5T u ~ ~ [ CS~T RR LEGEND e EXISTING PROPOSED FREEWA Y MAJOR THOROUGHFARE MINOR THOROUGHFARE INTERCHANGE -- o @ ALLEN ST CONNECTOR CITY LIMITS -- e CITY OF MONROE ENG INEERING DEPARTMENT ALLEN ST CONNECTOR MONROE THOROUGHFARE PLAN IDENTIFIED FUTURE NEED 10 SCALE HORIZ VERT " At£: M 5 lHOROUCHFARE PLAN\ THOROUGHf" ARE Pt.AN WAP.OWG ORAIWf B'r. JAM CHECKED BY: Jl. DATE: 12-18-00 , , e ".., e e / LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED e FREEWA Y . MAJOR THOROUGHFARE MINOR THOROUGHFARE INTERCHANGE WESTERN LOOP CITY LIMITS -- o @ -- e 'e< Au:: k ""..S../>ETAIlS' OROOGHfARE PlAN' OROUQif ARE PLAN AP.DWG ORA,," BY: J~ CHECKED BY: ... DAtE: 12-18-00 CITY OF MONROE. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WESTERN LOOP MONROE THOROUGHFARE PLAN PRIORITY 1 2002 TIP 10 SCALE HORI Z VER T .IIIC t '" -- e e 1:;;; 0 ,--- lJ Ifí --- e --- e LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED e FREEWAY MAJOR THOROUGHFARE MINOR THOROUGHFARE INTERCHANGE SECREST A VENUE EXT. CITY LIMITS -- o (§) -- - - FIL£: ~ "'....S..DETAIlS\ rnOOOUGHf ARE PI.AH\ THOROUGHF' ARE PLAN WAP .DWG DRAWN BY: JAU CHECKED BY: .... n.&TJ:'. 1')_IA_nn CITY OF MONROE ENG INEERING DEPARTMENT SECREST AVENUE EXT. MONROE THOROUGHFARE PLAN PRIORITY 2 - 2002 TIP 2 10 SCALE HORIZ VERT DWG t. LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED FREEWAY MAJOR THOROUGHFARE MINOR THOROUGHFARE INTERCHANGE CHARLES STREET CITY LIMITS -- o @ nlE: I: MA AILS OROUGHF ARE PlAN\ OROUGHFARE PlAN MAP.DWG DRAMf 8Y: JAM CHECKED B~ .... DATE: '2-1l1-00 CITY OF MONROE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CHARLES STREET MONROE THOROUGHFARE PLAN PRIORITY 3 2002 TIP 3 10 SCALE HORIZ VERT owo t. e () e .' ~ e LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED FREEWAY MAJOR THOROUGHFARE MINOR THOROUGHFARE INTERCHANGE HARLOTTE AVE CITY LIMITS -- o @ F1lE: . A S OUGHrARE PlAN\ OROUGHF'ARE PlAN MAP.OW ORAVIN BY: JAM QtEQ([D BY: ..... DATE: 12-18-00 CITY OF MONROE ENG INEERING DEPARTMENT CHARLOTTE AVENUE MONROE THOROUGHFARE PLAN PRIORITY 4 - 2002 TIP 10 SCALE HORIZ VERT / ,.,..,.. ..... / ~ ,/'-. MONROE I.. /<- CORPORATE .,......"..r... ...-:Jj :-ip ARK ' ./' UNDER .t" OPTION TO L.. CITY OF MONROE Got.DI./IN~ RD. LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED FREEWAY MAJOR THOROUGHFARE MINOR THOROUGHFARE INTERCHANGE - - o (§) CITY LIMITS AIRPORT ROAD GOLDMINE ROAD fll[: I: ",.,.S..DETAn.S\ IH""""'GHFAR£ PlAlt\ 111OROUGHF'AR£ PlAN MAP.DWG DRA'M\I BY: JAU CHECKEO BY: ... CITY OF MONROE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IRPORT!GOLDMINE RD MONROE THOROUGHFARE PLAN PRIORITY 5A - 2002 TIP 5 10 SCALE . HORI Z VER T .WG ~ ......... ... .. ..... ~~ ~l. ~ / <3J Jï if ~1 ~'Y ~~ / .: 8 '" ~ \ LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED FREEWA Y - - MAJOR THOROUGHFARE MINOR THOROUGHFARE INTERCHANGE 0 @ NORTHERN LOOP - -- CITY LIMITS - - F1t.E: I: MAPS...D£TAIlS\ JHOROU_ ARE Pl.,.' "'''''''''GHF ARt PlAN MAP.OWG ORA'Mt BY: JAW CHECKED 8~ J. CITY OF MONROE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT NORTHERN LOOP MONROE THOROUGHFARE PLAN PRIORITY 7 2002 TIP 8 10 n~U'. '''_'._nn erA. C' \.1('\017 \/CDT \:) -- ~ """ " LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED FREEWA Y MAJOR THOROUGHFARE MINOR THOROUGHFARE INTERCHANGE U.S. 601 CITY LIMITS -- o @ FI.E: . UA SJJ "'OACUGiI"ARE PWI\ GHF ARE PlAN UAP.D'MJ ORA,," BY: JIJ,A CHECKED B'" ... CITY OF MONROE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT U.S. 601 MONROE THOROUGHFARE PLAN PRIORITY 6 - 2002 TIP 7 10 ....,.......- 'I............. e e '" e LEGEND e EXISTING PROPOSED FREEWAY - - . MAJOR THOROUGHFARE MINOR THOROUGHFARE INTERCHANGE 0 (§) ROCKY RIVER RD CITY LIMITS - - e F1L£: I: EM. THOACUÇHF ARE ........\ ntcJROUGHf ARt PLAtt WAP.DWG ORA.... 8Y: JAt.I CHECICEO BY: ... CITY OF MONROE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ROCKY RIVER ROAD MONROE THOROUGHFARE PLAN PRIORITY 58 - 2.002 TIP 6 10 SCALE H.ORtZ VFRT """"0 1'1_1. <'I" e / e l ll"DS ..... D ,- .----)"~ " --,.. ,,\ ----- / e e LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED FREEWAY - - MAJOR THOROUGHFARE - - MINOR THOROUGHFARE - - INTERCHANGE 0 @ e CITY LIMITS - - FILE: : APS AM..S ...CUGHf .RE PlAH\ OROUQiF ARE PlAN MAP.OWC ORA.... BY; JAW OiECI<ED BY: ... CITY OF MONROE ENG INEERING DEPARTMENT MONROE . MUNICIP AL AIRPORT AVIATION IMPROVEMENT PRIORITY - 2002 TIP 9 10 "'("'AIr- I.........., -- '...; , . e r ) ( ] HGlt1lD< ST r ] w i!Í :> .. '" ~ œ CI e u z CI ST u i[ e CSX1 RR e FREEWA Y MAJOR THOROUGHFARE MINOR THOROUGHFARE INTERCHANGE CITY LIMITS e f1lE: t: S AtL THORaJGHF....E PUH\ rnOROUCHf ARE PlAN WAP.DWG MAVIN BY: JAY Di£CJ(£D BY: .... LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED - - o @ CITY OF MONROE ENG INEERING DEPARTMENT ALLEN ST CONNECTOR MONROE THOROUGHFARE PLAN PRIORITY 58 2002 TIP 10 10 c::rAJ ~ LlJ"\D," \. '.. e ) 1 1 jã 1~ )~ tS¡(1 !II! LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED . , -- FREEWA Y MAJOR THOROUGHFARE MINOR THOROUGHFARE INTERCHANGE o @ ALLEN 5T CONNECTOR CITY LIMITS -- F1lt: , lHOACUOHf" ARE ........, lHOACUOHf" ARE ........ ......0... OAAMI 8'* JAW CITY OF MONROE' ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ALLEN 8T CONNECTOR MONROE THOROUGHFARE PLAN IDENTIFIED FUTURE NEED 10 10 __......r1'II a..... .1 __.... UI"\cI7 VERT D'IIG ,.