2018Petition Information: A request by Todd Harrison to amend Section 6.4 TP:Thoroughfare Protection
Overlay District of the Town of Waxhaw UnifiedDevelopmentOrdinance (UDO) by adding text to provide an exception from lot widthrequirements when lots are served by a single development entrance, rather thandirect access to NC 16.Financial Impact: N/AAction Requested: Staff recommends a motion for a favorable recommendation tothe Board of Commissioners.Presenter: Alexandra Beesting, AICPPetition TA-007726-2018
I. ADJOURNMENTPage 1 of 22Public comment (up to 3 minutes) is allowed on any item on the agenda and
islimited to residents of the Town or persons having a material interest in theTown.Town Hall, 1150 North Broome Street, Waxhaw, NC 28173 704-843-2195Page 2 of 22MEETING TYPE: Planning Board - RegularMEETING DATE: 17 Sep 2018
DESCRIPTIONThoroughfare Protection Overlay District Text Amendment Petition TA -007762-2018Petition
Information: A request by Todd Harrison to amend Section 6.4 TP: ThoroughfareProtection Overlay District of the Town of Waxhaw Unified DevelopmentOrdinance (UDO) by adding text to provide an exception from lot width requirements when lotsare served by a single development entrance, rather than direct access to NC 16.Financial Impact: N/AAction Requested: Staff recommends a motion for a favorable recommendation to the Board ofCommissioners.Presenter: Alexandra Beesting, AICPPage 3 of 22 Text Amendment Cheat Sheet Text amendments are a change to the Unified Development Ordinance language and apply to all applicable properties that fall under the regulations and are not tied to a specific property. Legislative Process The purpose of the hearing is to inform the elected officials of the nature of the proposed action and to allow members of the public to express their views on the matter directly to the decision makers. Ex Parte Communication Communication between the Planning Board, Town Board, applicant and public outside the meeting is allowed. Sworn Testimony Not required.Statement of Required. Must describe how proposal is Reasonableness & consistent or inconsistent with plans and why Consistency decision is or is not reasonable and in the public interest. Notice Two legal advertisements in a newspaper of general circulation within 10 to 25 days of public hearing date. Conflicts of Interest Planning Board and Town Board members must abstain from vote only if there is a direct, substantial and readily‐identifiable financial interest. Public Comment Time limitation can be imposed on public speakers. Vote Simple majority.Findings of Fact Does not require findings of fact.
TA-007762-2018Staff AnalysisPB September 17, 2018Text Amendment TA-007762-2018Thoroughfare Protection Overlay District
EXPLANATION OF THE REQUESTPetition TA-007762-2018 is a request by Todd Harrison to amend
Section 6.4 TP:Thoroughfare Protection Overlay District of the Town of Waxhaw Unified DevelopmentOrdinance (UDO) by adding text to provide an exception from lot width requirements when lotsare served by a single development entrance, rather than direct access to NC 16.
REQUESTED UDO CHANGESExisting LanguageThe minimum Lot Width of all lots located wholly or in part wi
thin the TP Overlay ZoningDistrict shall be 150 feet.Proposed LanguageThe minimum Lot Width of all lots located wholly or in part within the TP Overlay ZoningDistrict shall be 150 feet, with the exception of all new lots, p arcels, or divisions of land that areprovided access to the thoroughfare by means of a subdivision street or entrance.
PLANNING STAFF ANALYSISAccording to Section 6.4 of the UDO, “ The purpose of the TP, Thoroughfare Pr
otectionOverlay Zoning District is to provide for the protection and preservation of thoroughfare streetsto avoid undue congestion and significant deterioration of service levels. It applies to propertieslocated on the Highway 16 corridor north of Waxhaw Parkway.” The overlay district applies toproperties with frontage along Highway 16/Providence Road. The purpose of the 150 feetminimum lot width is to reduce curb cuts and points of conflict along Highway 16 thatcontribute to congestion and increased risk of collisions.The language in Section 6 of the UDO for minimum lot width is as follows:“The minimum Lot Width of all lots located wholly or in part within the TP OverlayZoning District shall be 150 feet”The applicant proposes the following language , with red text being the a dditional text:“The minimum Lot Width of all lots located wholly or in part within the TP OverlayZoning District shall be 150 feet, with the exception of all new lots, parcels, or divisionsof land that are provided access to the thoroughfare by means o f a subdivision street orentrance.”What results from the proposed language is if lots are provided access by a subdivisionentrance, and not directly on to the thoroughfare, lot widths can be reduced from 150 feet to thelot development requirements of the underlying zoning district. This maintains the integrity ofthe Thoroughfare Protection Overlay District by restricting the number of curb cuts and pointsof conflict resulting from the development.Page 7 of 22 TA-007762-2018Staff AnalysisPB September 17, 2018The figures below are graphic illustrations of the implications of the proposed text amendment.To illustrate, the figures represent R-4 (Single-Family Residential) zoning. In R -4 districts, theminimum lot width is 60 feet according to UDO Section 11 Lot Development Requirements .Figure 1 depicts a typi cal R-4 zoning district with lots not subject to the ThoroughfareProtection Overlay District. With this zoning, 300 feet of roadway frontage could be developedto five 60-foot lots. This creates five driveways on to the thoroughfare.Figure 1: R-4 Lot Development RequirementsFive driveways pose potential conflicts and add to potential congestion . The ThoroughfareProtection Overlay District was created to minimize these points of conflict to avoid unduecongestion. As the overlay requires lots be a m inimum lot width of 150 feet, the same 300 feetof roadway frontage provided in Figure 1 could only be developed to two lots with a minimumlot width of 150 feet, as shown below in Figure 2. This reduces access to th e thoroughfare fromfive to two, which i s the intent of the Thoroughfare Protection Overlay District.Figure 2: R-4 Thoroughfare Protection Overlay District Lot Development RequirementsFigure 3 illustrates the impact of the proposed text amendment to the Thoroughfare ProtectionOverlay District. In this graphic, a single subdivision entrance is provided for the development.Page 8 of 22 TA-007762-2018Staff AnalysisPB September 17, 2018Lots are provided access through an internal street network, as opposed to direct access on tothe thoroughfare. Therefore, f or the same 300 feet of roadway, only one point of access on tothe thoroughfare is created. The intent of the Thoroughfare Protection Overlay District ismaintained through the proposed text amendment which provides an exception to the 150 -footminimum lot width when lots are provided access to the thoroughfare by means of a subdivisionstreet or entrance.Figure 3: R-4 Lot Development under Proposed Thoroughfare Protection Overlay DistrictText AmendmentStaff researched six other municipalities in the area to determine lot development standards onmain thoroughfares. A table summarizing the development regulations of the surroundingmunicipalities is provided following this staff report.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONPlanning Staff supports TA-007762-2018. Staff research shows that
the proposed textamendment reducing the minimum lot width for lots within the Thoroughfare Protection OverlayDistrict from 150 feet to that of the underlying zoning district wlots are provided access tothe thoroughfare by means of a subdivision street or entra nce, preserves the intent of the 150 -foot lot width.
REASONABLE AND CONSISTENCY STATEMENTReasonableness and Consistency Statement: The Text Amendment req
uest is consistent with theComprehensive Plan and future planning goals of the Town of Waxhaw is reasonable and i n thepublic interest as the text amendment is in keeping with the C omprehensive Plan and serves theintent of the Thoroughfare Protection Overlay District.OrReasonableness and Consistency Statement: The Text Amendment request is not consistent withthe Comprehensive Plan and future planning goals of the Town of Waxhaw, is not reasonableand in the public interest as it… ( state reasoning).OrReasonableness and Consistency Statement: The Text Amendment request amends theComprehensive Plan and a change in conditions results in the request meeting the developmentneeds of the community as it… ( explain change in conditions ).Submitted by: Alexandra Beesting, AICPPage 10 of 22 Lot Development Standards Purpose StatementsJurisdiction Source Applicability(New Lots/Overlay Districts) (if applicable)Minimum lot width for single-family attached is 24 feet; single-family detached isConcord Avenue Overlay 36 feet. Minimum street setback is 20 feet except 3 feet in Sub-district B.Monroe, NC Residential(CA-O) District Minimum building setback from perimeter lot lines of multi-buildingdevelopments is 20 feet.For lots for single-family detached or attached dwellings, multi-family dwellings,and all other lots not bordering directly on Highway NC51, the requiredminimum lot area of the underlying district shall apply. Protecting the public investment andlengthening the time during which the highwaycan continue to serve its functions withoutHighway NC-51 Overlay All nonresidential lots bordering on Highway NC51 shall be at least two (2) Residential &Matthews, NC District (HO) acres in size, except that lots may be smaller: i) when those lots are contaiNon-Residential expansion or relocation by expediting the freeflow of traffic and reducing the hazards arisingwithin a unified multi-lot development plan which is part of a conditional district from unnecessary points of ingress, egress andzoning process; and ii) where shared driveway access is used; and iii) where cluttered roadside development.no more than one (1) driveway for a minimum five hundred feet (500’) offrontage along Highway NC51 will exist.These regulations will facilitate the provision ofAll new lots, parcels or divisions of land shall be provided access to the transportation by promoting the safe andthoroughfare by means of a subdivision street or an entrance either maintainedHarrisburg, NC Thoroughfare Overlay or approved by the State of North Carolina or approved by the Cabarrus County Residential & efficient movement of traffic and by encouragingDistrict Zoning Ordinance or Subdivision Regulations. Subdivision streets accessing Non-Residential development which reduces or eliminates visualclutter, excessive driveway cuts, and poor sitethe thoroughfare shall be located at least four (400) hundred feet apart. layout.All new lots, parcels or divisions of land shall be provided access to thethoroughfare by means of a subdivision street or an entrance either maintainedCabarrus County, Cabarrus County or approved by the State of North Carolina or approved by the Cabarrus County Residential &NC Development Ordinance Non-ResidentialZoning Ordinance or Subdivision Regulations. Subdivision streets accessingthe thoroughfare shall be located at least four (400) hundred feet apart.All lots containing principal nonresidential uses shall observe a front setback ofat least 50 feet from the edge of the road right-of-way. All structures shall be setback at least 25 feet from any side lot line. All structures shall be set back atleast 25 feet from any rear lot line.Any lot having direct access (i.e., a point of ingress and egress) onto a corridorhighway shall have a minimum lot width measured at the corridor highway right-Gaston County, Corridor Highway Overlay of-way line of 200 feet. Residential &NC District Non-ResidentialOn any lot or in any planned multi-tenant development which contains morethan one lot, no two points of ingress and egress (as measured at their closestdistance) onto the same road shall be closer than 300 feet apart. No more thantwo separate points of ingress and egress per lot or within a planned multi-tenant development shall be allowed per road front, except were included asconditional for a use which requires a conditional use permit located on a lotcontaining five or more areas.U.S. 70/401 Thoroughfare All dimensional requirements, including minimum lot area and minimum lot Residential &Garner, NC Overlay District; width requirements, are established in the underlying zones. Non-ResidentialI-40 Overlay District
A. Call to OrderChairman Morgan called the meeting to order at 6:31pm.
A roll call and determination of quorum was made.Present: Board Member Nicholas Nash, Board Member D
avid Hoechster, Board Member SeanMorris. Chairman Bob Morgan , Board Member Scott Shelton, Board Member Janos Castro.Absent: Board Member Jim Struve.Others in attendance: Staff Alex Beesting, Staff Recording Secretary Lindze Small, ScottAlexander, Diane Rivers, Russ Angelo, Wanda Fuller PE.
2503 and 2421 Cuthbertson Road. The purpose of the rezoning is permit the developmentof an Office an
d Medical Office building.Staff Beesting made a presentation (Please see attached). Staff Beesting explained theproximity of the site, its features and neighboring businesses a nd abutting uses. StaffBeesting outlined the proposed preliminary site plan. Staff Beesting outlined the proposedplantings on site, stating that the proposed plantings would be in excess of the requirementson site. Staff Beesting outlined the propose d means of ingress and egress on the site, furtheroutlining the technical memo that was done on the site. Staff Beesting stated that a TIA wasnot required for the site, based off of the technical memo that was completed and theproposed trip count for the use(s) on the site.Chairman Morgan asked if the applicant would like to speak on behalf of the case.Board Member Nash asked if the parkingis in compliancewith the ordinance. Staff Beestingstated that there is enough parking per the UDO and that the applicant requested a 20 %reduction as allowed by the UDO.Board Member Shelton asked if the existing pond towards the back was partly on theproperty. Staff Beesting stated that they do share a portion of the pond on the property.Board Member Shelton asked for clarity about the proposed turn lane. Staff Beesting furtheroutlined this process.Board Member Hoechster asked for clarity about notes #6 and #7 on the sketch plan page C1.0 of the plan set.Wanda Fuller, PE, stated that the two lots flow into the pond and that they are included inthe 90% impervious calculations and that they are working with Town Engineer Matt Hubertregarding the required as -built survey for the site. Ms. Fuller stated that when thedevelopment is done the required calculations will be run for stormwater and that a bay wasbeing added to the front of the pond for erosion control a nd for water quality measures tokeep mud and sediment from the pond. Ms. Fuller stated that if the pond doesn ’t meetrequirements that storm water measures would have to be added to mitigate this.Vice Chairman Morris asked for clarity from Ms. Fuller regarding the calculations for thesite and the current natural run off on the site. Ms. Fuller stated that ty pically stormwaterfor the first 1 inch of run off for water quality is needed and that for a wet ponstorm waterrequirements will be needed from the 10 to 25 year mark with a metric for the spill way aswell.Vice Chairman Morris asked if current road conditions will be taken into consideration. Ms.Fuller explained this process further.Vice Chairman Morris asked if there was a slow down on the site, or if this would be a turnlane on the site. Ms. Fuller stated that the State has currentlynot stated that a turn lane wouldbe required but that they are expecting this. Board Member Morri s expressed concern withcurrent traffic patterns on the site. Ms. Fuller stated that they will differ to the commentsfrom the State.
2Page 14 of 22Vice Chairman Morris asked who owns the pond. Staff Beesting stated that As htonProper
ties owns the pond.Vice Chairman Morris asked if this was a land lease. Ms. Fuller stated that this is a separateparcel and that their water drains into the pond and that an agreement is currently under wayfor maintenance.Ms. Diane Rivers stated that the property was foreclosed upon.Vice Chairman Morris asked about signage for the site. Ms. Fuller outlined the proposedlocation of the sign, stating that this would be outside of the site triangle.Board Member Castro expressed a concern about the Lowe’s entrance going towards theWalgreen’s entrance during school hours, with a short traffic light (unlighted intersection)and traffic congestion in the area. Ms. Rivers stated that the specific risk had not beenaddressed but that Kimley Horn had reviewed the tra ffic calculations of the site and that thesite should be very low impact.Staff Beesting stated that Town and NCDOT standards do not require a TIA but that theTown advised the applicant to pursue a technical memo to vet traffic calculations on the site.Board Member Castro expressed concern about the traffic in the mornings on the site,particularly during the school year. Ms. Fuller stated that traffic times for the site will differfrom the school site.Mr. Alexander stated that the traffic to this site would be minimal.Board Member Shelton stated that employee’s will want to cross the street and that acrosswalk or handicap ramp on the opposing side should be addressed. Ms. Fuller statedthat there are no safe are as to cross the sidewalks. Board Member Shelton stated that a crosswalk or other safety measure would be helpful in that area to protect works on the site.Vice Chairman Morris asked if there would be an extension would be 22 feet and still allowfor enough room on the site.Vice Chairman Morris expressed further concern about the proposed runoff on the site. Ms.Fuller stated that this would be addressed.Mr. Alexander asked how common this flooding is. The Board members expressed concernabout flooding in this area, stating that it was common . Ms. Fuller stated that the volumewill be checked.Board Member Shelton asked if the site is balanced or if it would be brought in. Ms. Fullerstated it would need to be brought in.Board Member Shelton asked if there were retaining walls proposed. Ms. Fuller stated that
3Page 15 of 22 Chairman Morgan asked for a motion for the case with the proposed condit ion: “Thed
evelopment will comply and adhere to the architectural requirements per Section 20 of theUDO as it exists at the time of approval by the Board of Commissioners ”Board Member Castro made a favorable recommendation for the motion.Seconded by Board Member Nash .The vote carried in the affirmative (5 -1) with Vice Chairman Morris dissenting. BoardMember Morris made a dissenting opinion wanting a recommendation from the state,wanting a follow up on traffic for a slowdown and a mandate for construction re gardinghours of construction on the corner as well as the type of construction and how the turn lanewill be engineered, third party for the run off calculations.Chairman Morgan asked fo r a motion for the Reasonableness and Consistency Statement.Board Member Castro made a motion for the Reasonableness and ConsistencyStatement: “The Conditional District Rezoning request is consistent with theComprehensive Plan and future planning goals of the Town of Wax haw and isreasonable and in the public interest as it will a llow for commercial uses to continue asrecommended by the Waxhaw C omprehensive Plan for the X2-Existing CommercialCenters sector.”The vote carried unanimousl y (6-0).
G. Minutes for Correction and Approval :Chairman Morgan asked for a motion for the June 18, 2018 mee
ting minutes.Board Member Hoechster made a motion to approve the minutes as presented.Board Member Nash seconded the motion.The vote carried unanimously (6-0).
H. Staff Updates:Staff Beesting stated that Staff Maxx Oliver is no longer on a full time capacity w
iththe Town due to graduate educational pursuits and will currently serve in a part timecapacity only. Staff Beesting stated that due to Planning being short staffed staffwould like to evaluate whether delivered hard copy meetin g packets are of benefit ornot to the Planning Board. Board Member Nash stated that a digital copy of thepacket is sufficient for him.