Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

going, you know, towards the gas station. How do you make a a left talking to couple board people about that today? The HOA board is like we got sorry I just came from another meeting. Maybe a new swing set and stuff playground. You're important. You're important. Invocation. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. I'd like to call this meeting to order. Item number one is the agenda approval. I move we approve the agenda. Second. All in favor? I. Item two, approval of minutes 20th, 2025. Move we approve the minutes for May 20th. A second. All in favor? I. I. Okay. Item three, general resoning RZ 25.03s. 01 0 Lawrence Daniel Drive. Davis Marsh requests a general resoning of zero Lawrence Daniel Drive from MU2 to MFTt. Okay. All right. So, this is a general resoning application for um Zero Lawrence Daniel Drive. Um, this request is to reszone from mixeduse 2 to multif family transitional. Um, and I want to make

that clear that it doesn't actually allow multif family housing, only single family detached homes. Um, it used to in the past, but not anymore. Um, and then so on April 29th, we had a neighborhood meeting and some of the residents from the adjoining neighborhood came out and voiced some concerns about traffic and noise. Um, and I'll address those a little bit later in the presentation as well. Um, so you can see the aerial view on the left shows the parcel connecting to the Woodbridge neighborhood. Um, it connects onto the culde-sac at on Lawrence Daniel Drive. And this parcel used to be larger but has since been subdivided for this reasonzoning. Um, and then on the right side you can see the street view um where just the woods are now uh is the parcel that we were talking about during this resoning. And then some history about the property. Um, as you can see in the image, the parcel has been subdivided. This resoning only concerns that front portion that connects to Lawrence Daniel Drive. The rear portion is mostly flood plane which cannot be developed on. So they subdivided the property to make it easier to put homes on that property. Um and then a little bit more history. It was last reszoned in 2018 when the town did their mass resoning. Um, it was originally R10, which was just a residential zoning district, and is now mixed use 2, which allows for a variety of commercial uses as well. Um, previously, this property was the exact same zoning as

the rest of the Woodbridge neighborhood. Um, but that Woodbridge neighborhood has since been resoneed to MFTt. Um, and this on the right you can see the current zoning which shows in the green the mixed use 2 zoning district. And um I also wanted to make it kind of just give you some background on what could actually be built on this property if it was to be reszoned to MFT. Um that's a single family residential zoning district. So, all it would allow to be built are single family homes. Um, based on uh the fact that the applicant does not want to go through the major development review process, they could build up to four homes on the lot. Um, but just depending on choice of the applicant and some utility easements, they might not be able to do all four, but it could be up to four homes built on that property that could be accessed through a private drive. And then um in our comprehensive land use plan, we have a future land use map that shows this area as being single family neighborhood um as well as the entire neighborhood of Woodbridge. And another approved um plan we have or adopted plan we have is for uh the ID Wild Road small area plan which also shows this neighborhood as single family detached homes. Um you can see in the red circle there. Um but staff does recommend approval of RZ250301 to reszone this property to multif family transitional. Um this would be consistent with the future land use plan and the small area plan and it would

make a seamless transition transition in between the um Woodbridge neighborhood and would allow to keep that Woodbridge neighborhood the character protect the character of that neighborhood. Um but so that way no commercial developments could be built attached to that culac. Um, and we did address some concerns from the residents about traffic. Um, they also talked about their property values. Um, but we do believe that this resoning will allow the greatest use of that land without hurting the surrounding neighborhood. Do you have any questions about that? Said it was going to be uh once they would build the four the four up to the four homes, it would be accessed by a private drive. Yes. Where would that come in from? from the entrance to the subdivision that's next to it. Yes, the um that culde-sac. Um so right here, it touches the culde-sac wide enough for a drive to be put in. And so they could have one that stems off of that and supplies up to four houses. Okay. for the current zoning. What are some there's um I forgot the number, but it's a lot of uses. It's like 70 something, 80 something uses, and it could be like bars, restaurants, um pretty much most commercial uses can be built on that lot currently by right. So, they're just trying to, you know, protect the neighborhood and only allow single family homes to be built there instead of having a bar become your new neighbor. There'd be potentially worse traffic if commercial development were there than residential. Would the houses going in there be of a similar style to what is in the Woodbridge neighborhood? Do you know?

Yes, they would have to complement the Woodbridge neighborhood. And would that the existing culde-sac remain and this would just stem off of the culde-sac? Yes. Yeah. It would not affect the actual flow of the culde-sac that served by the sewer system or septic. I am not sure about that one. And the applicant is here as well if you have questions for them. And how many how many homes again? It can be up to four. Um but that's not set that they will build four. I could build one but up to four. Any other questions? N motion for I move that we uh approve the request and find that it's uh consistent and reasonable with the land use plan. Second it. All in favor? I I just item four, conditional reszoning CZ 25.02.01 Mil Creek Residential. Opkin is requesting an annexation and zoning change from HC Union County zoning to CZ-MU-2 to allow for the development of a 324 unit multifamily residential developments. Mr. Max, thank you. Plan board. Um, I just wanted to show the statement and consistency and reasonable for the previous general reasonzoning just so that um just for the record, just wanted to show it. Um, give me just one second to pull up. Yes, here it is. All right. So, this is conditional resoning application CZ250201

for Mil Creek um multifamily residential. So the applicant Morren Van Allen which who is assisting Mil Creek requested an annexation and a conditional zoning to conditional zoning mixed use 2 for the area off of Highway 74 that's 12.57 acres in size. I'll show you the aerial in the next slide. Um the proposed development includes 300 to 324 unit multif family residential communities community and has a possibility of a 6,000 foot commercial on one of the site plans. Um I did want to let you know that planning board will not be making a recommendation on annexation. They're only making you're only making a recommendation on the conditional zoning today. The annexation goes to council. Um so this existing parcel is located in Union County um and it's zoned highway commercial HC. It does not permit residential development by right. So they will this is why they're doing the annexation and the conditional zoning to multif family. Um the aerial on highway 74 um so the site's wooded um and it's one of the last parcels on Highway 74 um up for annexation along Stallings and Indian Trail. Um, as you can see in the picture to the right, Stallings is in pink and Indian Trails in blue. Um, very close to the fitness connection area with the Cookout and the Biscuitville, uh, Starbucks. It's very close to that parcel on Highway 74. um they've submitted multiple site plans and I did want to show you two site plans along with their uh submitt and I want to I want planer board's recommendation on what they want to see as well. So the submitted site plan that they originally submitted had 324 multifamily units. Um it didn't include any commercial staff since the very beginning has been pushing them on

commercial um along Highway 74. we see that that's the development pattern along Highway 74. Um, and so site plan A is just residential only. Um, I did want to show you site plan B as well. And site plan B is a little bit larger, more detailed because it's a newer site plan and it incorporates in the red a 6,000 foot retail building and it reduces the units from 324 to 300 units. Um, staff does like the site plan better. Um, but we would still like to see a more commercial. Um, here's an elevation concept. Since this is conceptual, just wanted to make sure you saw what the product may look like. Um, some just additional information for the project summary. Uh, the adjacent zoning is C74 commercial and they would be required to do open space of 10% which they're providing 12. They would be required to do tree save which they are of 6% which they are requiring. That TV just turned off so I apologize. Um I have to look at this one now. They are in the watershed crooked creek wershed. Um which is one of the most difficult waterersheds. It's a with capacity. Um but Union County does control sewer there and um I would save sewer capacity questions for the developer if possible. Um there's no small area plan for the area. Um but I will have a slide on it um coming up. The future land use for this property. So we adopted the future landing use and comprehensive land use plan in 2017 which is uh honestly a very different time. Uh it shows office center suburban office center on the site. And as you can see it's surrounded by suburban office center as well. At the time, Highway 74 did not have the bypass and it we didn't know how the the future of the bypass was going to or the

expressway was going to affect um the town. We also um see the there's less need for office spaces as well after uh certain times. So, um, we we staff does see this as an outdated future land use, but just wanted to let you know that it was, uh, comprehensive land use plan was adopted in 2017 for suburban office center on the site. Um, it is consistent with our greenway master plan as well. The site doesn't have isn't in our greenway master plan, but they are providing a greenway along the frontage. Um, I believe that they've changed the location and and widened it on the second site plan, but um I I'm forgetting the numbers at this point and I can't see the screen, so I apologize. I should have had a print out in front of me and I'll if the developers can mention it. Okay, thanks. Um, we also adopted a new small area plan for the Highway 74 corridor. Thank you. Um, that incorporates the Silver Line plan. Um, this site is circled in red. It's not, it wasn't incorporated in the study area, but across the street, across from Highway 74, it does show an employment district um that is accessible with the Silver Line in the future. We had uh a few meetings on this already. Uh we did all the resonings per state statute or excuse me, the notifications per state statute and the ordinance. We had a meeting on March 6. Uh we did not have anybody from the public come to that meeting. And I do believe it's because there's no uh residential uh within 500 ft of this development. And we had a subcommittee meeting which is a council uh not open to the public meeting with three council members um where they did discuss the proposal. And tonight's the planning board meeting and the town council hearings on July 14th. And I put TVD

just because that um dates the future dates are always not set in stone. So staff does recommend approval of this conditional zoning. We do recommend adding a few conditions though. Um but only we're recommending approval of the site that has the commercial component. Um staff still does want to see additional commercial but um I've talked to the developer about this these conditions um and they've agreed to some and you know we will it's a moving process so they may comprom we'll make compromises u throughout the conditional zoning process but I did want to make sure that council I mean excuse me planning board saw these recommendations so you can base your decisions on what staff has recommended. Um, we do see that balconies are not located in the elevations. They did agree to balconies just not on every single side of the building. Um, we did want our architectural aesthetics including materials, building elevations to come back to planning board as a recommendation. Um, I'm not sure that the applicant wants to do that at this time. They just want to do it at staff level after if it was approved by council, but I'll let them mention that. um 18 inches of exposed brick it seems like uh is reasonable to the developer. Um and then the commercial component uh requiring to be constructed prior to the issuance of permits for more than twothirds of the residential units is still um uh not agreed to on upon excuse me. But I do believe that um council, you know, we had a conditional zoning for a different development. they wanted this condition in that development and I'm going to push for um this a certain type of condition like this going through the process. Um uh private streets maintained uh that's fine. Vested rights. I think they're asking for seven actually. I'm okay with that. And then the commercial component

not to include vape shops, tobacco retailer, smoke shops, hookah bars, and things that are like that. Um they're okay with. We're bringing a text amendment to council next week. Is it next week? Yeah. um to ex uh change where those uses are located. Um my recommendations based on the mix of commercial and residential uses um align with the uh adopted small area plan. Additionally, uh reflects the development pattern along Highway 74. Um and they also show a greenway which uh is consistent with the goals of the greenway even though that's not on our plan. Um, do you have any questions for me about what I've uh presented tonight? Is the only means of uh ingress and egress directly to Highway 74. So, that would be the main entrance. They do have uh easements on along their buffer area to connect to uh the surrounding parcels um if those were to be developed in the future. I think the one to the north is has automotive repair installings. They're not planning on connecting to that at this time. And then to the south is a commercial building in Indian Trail that's already built out. They're not uh they're just putting an easement there or and then the one to the uh which would be north actually uh on the site plan I believe is going through a reasonzoning. I'll let I talked to the developer briefly. I can't remember exactly, but that's an Indian trail. If they want to mention it, they can. Um but it's for future development to connect to. Yes. Given our our need for commercial development here is that had we looked at plans to use this area for something other than housing unit was discussed for Could you repeat your question? I apologize. You're good. Given given the our need for commercial revenue, was

there anything looked at in in the current plan that this would this port instead of being used for residential could be used fully for commercial uses? So I I have we didn't have a study showing what you're asking for. We have not looked into that. The future landings plan does show it as office. No, I meant I know right but um sorry. Yeah, we just have not done a study on the feasibility of the entire site being commercial. Um, which would likely probably be the case if we were to study it in a future lane use plan, but we don't have any data to support that at this time. Okay. Yeah. The small area plan that shows the office where the way that it's uh in the future space. So, if we were to say, okay, we move forward with this, would we want to find it inconsistent but reasonable? Yes, that that would that would be the hypothetical answer. Yes. Question two is can you explain where this fits in with you know how it ties in with I know council control the majority of this with the annexation process um and where our resoning fits in I'm assuming there's no annexation. Um well they could annex the property and not do an an re reasoning. Um but the process aligns together. So for example, they're allowed to submit the annexation request and the condition the annexation process is three meetings where the conditional zoning is four meetings minimum. So we had to make sure all those meetings aligned with each other and the planning board is kind of just stuck somewhere in the middle. Um just recommending only the conditional zoning. So those three annexation meetings only go to council. Um and annexations don't come to planning board. Does that answer your question? Yes. Okay. Sorry, I I kind of started rambling. Yes. So, essentially, Mil Creek has to have uh

seven meetings that would go beyond the tax base that would be gained from it. So, since the roads are private, no. The Well, yes, with police though. Um and then they at this time haven't submitted like any traffic impact analysis. They're not required to do so with a conditional zoning. So we don't know how um but they would be required to do so at before they do site plan review. We don't know what those recommendations would be at this point. Um but I I don't see any specific services that stallings controls that would be affected other than police. Well, difficult for the fire department to get there. Yes. But yeah, they're uh Okay, just hit this bottom button. They listed a lot of stuff. Hi, good evening. Um my name is Lisa Thompson. I'm a land use consultant with Morren Van Allen. here tonight on behalf of Mil Creek Residential.