Plan Comm 03-11-2021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mooresville Planning Commission, March 11, 2021 Jeff Dieterlen asked Mr. Holloway about other issues brought up by the public including the southern border of the property, traffic questions, fire safety. Mr. Holloway responded that they were willing to include a chain link 5 -foot vinyl coated fence as a part of their PUD, that the traffic study done in 2006 requires passing blisters and turn lanes, but the Planning Commission may require that the study be updated. Finally, he stated the houses were 12 feet apart, not 6 feet, and "yes, vinyl melts and we have a good fire department." Mark Taylor stated that the homes in the Countryview development are all brick and the prices of the homes are $265K which is right in the middle of Mr. Holloway's pricing estimates for the Grand Oaks development. He also mentioned the public concern that Mooresville is losing families who are upgrading their housing. Mr. Holloway responded that Countryview is out in the county, and comparing the two developments would be apples and oranges. He added if there were demand for this type of housing per the 2006 PUD -R the development would've happened by now. Josh Brown asked if there would be access to Grandview, and stated that Mooresville needs growth, but needs people who will stay in the community. He stated he was more concerned about traffic on Grandview. Mr. Holloway stated that there was an entrance off Hadley and an entrance off Grandview. He restated that the plat that was already approved was the same number of lots and the same estimated number of cars. The Planning Commission can request an upgraded traffic study and suggest upgrading the boulevard, but "tonight we're talking about rezoning only." Jeff Dieterlen asked Mr. Holloway directly if there would be a need for a traffic study. Mr. Holloway's response was that the Planning Commission has the right to ask for a traffic study. Mr. Dieterlen clarified this response in his own words by saying "So, right now, we don't know." Josh Brown asked if there would be mounds on the southside of the property. Mr. Holloway's response was yes. Jeff Dieterlen called the discussion to a close by stating that the charge of the Planning Commission is to ensure that the decision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with neighboring properties. Ile pointed out that there is agriculture in the area, but the rezoning change is from PUD -R to RIC. He reminded the members present that all votes would have to be unanimous. Mark Taylor made the motion for an unfavourable recommendation to the Town Council and Perry King seconded. Four votes counted for this motion, with Robert Allenbaugh voting against. Robert Allenbaugh made the motion for a favourable recommendation to the Town Council, but received no second. Jeff Deitelen asked if any member wished to make a motion for "no recommendation to the Town Council. No member made this motion, thus discussion and decision were tabled until the April meeting by Mr. Dieterlen. Ile specifically stated that no notices nor advertisements were necessary for the April meeting. John Larrison of Holloway Engineering presented a replatting of Plat2 at 5874 East Neitzel Road. Stephen and Shirley Park are owners of the property. Mr. Park built a new home on Lot2A, which is 17.5 acres of the original 40 acres Park family farm. He would now like to block off a 2.5 acre plat on the east side of Plat 2, to create Lot2B along an existing gravel drive. Soil tests indicate that a perimeter drain will drain into the interior of lot 2A. Mr. Park has a drive on the southwest corner of the property off Neitzel Road. Changes were made to the platting to allow for the owner of Lot213 to share in the expense of a roadway that Mr. Lavallis recently built on a neighboring lot. Jeff Dieterlen clarified that Lot4 does not benefit from access to the roadway and clarified what was meant by "Lot 2B will not be responsible for expenses until improvements are made to the property." Mr. Larrison clarified that the term "improvements" is based on taxation. Mr. Dieterlen further clarified by saying that expenses were relying on the legal definition and Mr. Larrison said yes, the definition is property with a