Courtyards at Kinnamon Park Sketch Plan

Courtyards at Kinnamon Park Sketch Plan Staff Analysis

11-18-14

of 9

Courtyards at Kinnamon Park Sketch Plan

PART 1: PROJECT SUMMARY

**This subdivision request is being concurrently reviewed with R14-05

conditional district rezoning plan for the NR portion of the project.

The application is Attachment A. The rezoning site plan is Attachment B. The

applicant’s statement of purpose is Attachment C.

Applicant: EPCON Communities

Property Owner: Johnsie M.

Kinnamon Heirs, Douglas and Jo

Anne Adkins, and Poly-Tech

Holdings

Property Address: 12900 & 12998

McCoy Road and 13245 Lindley

Drive

Project Size: 39.13 acres

Parcel Number: 01717301,

10717302 and 01718501

Current Zoning: Neighborhood

Residential (NR) and Corporate

Business (CB)

Current Land Use: single-family

residential and vacant commercial

property.

Proposed Land Use: Develop a

retirement community made up of

94 single family detached units. The

units will not be on lots; rather,

they will all be on land owned in

common. The parcels in the Park—

Huntersville will be divided into

two lots and are requesting

100,574 sq ft of commercial use.

PART 2: SITE PLAN DESCRIPTION

1. Adjacent Properties:

North: Corporate Business (CB), office: The Park Huntersville

South: Corporate Business (CB), vacant: The Park Huntersville

East: Corporate Business (CB), vacant: The Park Huntersville

West: Neighborhood Residential (NR) residential and vacant: large lot single family

2. A neighborhood meeting was held on September 24, 2014. The meeting minutes are Attachment D.

3. This plan is being reviewed in conjunction with a conditional district rezoning plan for the residential portion of

the request. The parcel in the Park does not require rezoning, but is shown as a part of the sketch plan for office

uses.

4. The proposed project is in the Mountain Island Lake Protected Area -2. The maximum percentage of impervious

area is 70% using the high density option. The proposed impervious area is 37.6%.


11-18-14

of 9

PART 3: SITE PLAN ISSUES

The site plan does not meet several Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. In some instances, the applicant is

requesting modifications to the established standards per Zoning Ordinance Article 11.4.7.k as a part of their conditional

rezoning. Below are the issues that do not have modification requests associated with them.

1. Zoning Ordinance Article 7.4, Tree Save/Subdivision Ordinance Section 6.200.5, Mature Trees and Natural

Vegetation

STAFF COMMENT: The site plan only shows information for tree canopy. The plan does not include any

information regarding heritage or specimen trees. In the Neighborhood Residential (NR) zoning district, a

minimum of 100% of heritage trees, 10% of specimen trees and 10% of tree canopy are required to be saved.

Tree save is not required per the 1991 Huntersville Zoning Ordinance; therefore, this section does not apply to

the commercial portion of the project.

2. Zoning Ordinance Article 7.5.8, Buffer Yards

STAFF COMMENT: The ordinance states that all buffer yards shall remain undisturbed except for certain

conditions. The 20’ landscape buffer is provided, but the label does not state that the buffer is to be

undisturbed. There is a crosshatched area on the southeast corner where they are proposing an undisturbed

buffer. Staff requests an additional plan sheet to show the disturbance that will occur at all the other buffers

and an alternate buffer plan per Article 7.5.7.

Secondly, the applicant is requesting a buffer reduction for the parcels in the Park—Huntersville which is

allowed per the 1991 Huntersville Zoning Ordinance and must be approved by the Planning Board. Of the

applicable requirements for this commercial area, there is a fifty (50) foot landscaped buffer in between

commercial and residential uses. In sketch plan as submitted, it remains unclear how the required buffer is

being accommodated. It has not been delineated and in the vicinity of the zoning boundary, there are utility

easements and storm water sand filters that will not function in a required vegetated buffer.

3. Zoning Ordinance Article 5, Street Regulations, Summary

STAFF COMMENT: The site plan is showing two cul-de-sacs. Per the ordinance, “Culs-de-sac shall be allowed

only where topographical and/or lot line configurations offer no practical alternatives for connections or

through traffic.” The lot configurations to the north prevent the applicant from making a connection. Staff

received a subdivision sketch plan on November 3, 2014 for a project known as Crosswinds Phase 3. In this

proposed subdivision, a water quality treatment area is proposed where the southern cul-de-sac of Courtyards

at Kinnamon Park might connect. At this time staff would support the use of a cul-de-sac in this location.

As a part of the conditional rezoning, the applicant is requestion several modifications to the Zoning Ordinance. Article

11.4.7 k, states, “in approving a conditional zoning district, the Town Board may modify standards established in the

zoning or subdivision ordinance provided the spirit of the regulations are maintained.” The applicant is requesting a

modification to the standards of the Zoning Ordinance for the following requirements:

1. Article 8.16.1, Standards for Residential Garages and Parking in Residential Districts. “On lots greater than 60

feet in width, front loaded garages shall be recessed at least 10 feet behind the primary plane of the front

façade of the structure.”

Requested Modification: The applicant is proposing three different housing types that have two to three

different layouts (total of 8 layout types). The applicant is removing any frontloaded garages that are forward of

the primary plane (heated square footage) from consideration. The architectural elevations are Attachment F.

STAFF COMMENT: Since its adoption in 1996, over 5,000 homes built in Huntersville have been able to meet

this requirement. A front loaded garage is recessed for the purposes of guaranteeing that cars parked in the


11-18-14

of 9

driveway will not block the sidewalk and for aesthetic reasons. The ordinance does allow a front loaded garage

to be flush with the front façade when the homes are 1,400 square feet or less. The Courtyards at Kinnamon

Park are proposing homes over 2,000 square feet. A modification was granted for Courtyards at Huntersville on

NC 73. The applicant is proposing the same elevations as were proposed for Courtyards at Huntersville. Staff

continues to find this modification request is not in the spirit of the Ordinance.

2. Article 4, Civic Building Type, Building Placement/Parking/Vehicle Access

Requested Modification: The clubhouse is being used as a terminated vista to help delineate the commercial

from the residential uses. It is a civic building and is surrounded by streets on three sides. The parking is 28% of

the side yard. The ordinance states, “parking shall be located to the rear of the building; sideyard parking shall

occupy no more than 25% of the primary frontage line and shall not be placed in any sideyard abutting an

intersecting street. Where dimensions of exiting lots restrict parking behind buildings, the limitations on

sideyard parking may be modified.”

STAFF COMMENT: There are two options for compliance. First, the clubhouse could comply with the ordinance

by moving the clubhouse to the corner. However, that would mean that the parking would become the

terminus to the vista at the round-a-bout. Second, the clubhouse could remain in its current location and the

parking be moved to the rear of the building resulting in a loss of lots. Staff supports this request because of the

terminated vista that the applicant is creating by using a building, but the parking needs to be heavily buffered

from view and this has not been shown.

Staff would also like to highlight an additional issue regarding the site plan for Courtyards at Kinnamon Park. There is a

60’ private access easement known as Kinnamon Road that has not been incorporated into this rezoning plan. There

are eight (8) parcels that are accessed on this easement of which two (2) are parcels associated with the Courtyards at

Kinnamon Park (see map on the next page). If approved, portions of the easement and the associated driveway that

access McCoy Road would no longer exist and access to McCoy Road for the lots on the west side of Kinnamon Rd.

would change or disappear. Staff has requested from the applicant documentation that the easement holders are

aware of the changes to their access easement and agree to have their access modified. The applicant has not

provided the staff the requested documentation. Staff has received one letter from an easement holder, Claudia Craig

(parcel 3 partial, parcels 4 & 5) stating that they do not intend to agree to eliminate the easement and this letter is

Attachment G. UPDATE: Per the applicant’s comment response letter for the rezoning request (Attachment H), the

easement agreement with Ms. Craig is being negotiated.

The map on the following page depicts the lots that use Kinnamon Road and the driveway for access to McCoy Road.

Parcels 1 and 2 are the proposed Courtyards at Kinnamon Park. The applicant is accommodating the driveway of parcel

3 by not building one unit (Courtyards at Kinnamon Park plan, unit 21) until such time as parcel 3 (PIN 01717203)

redevelops or alternate access is provided. Access to the property will be provided on a new street within the proposed

subdivision connected by a driveway through unit 21.

Parcels 4 and 5 are being provided access through a new public street. There is a driveway shown at the southern cul-

de-sac to parcel 5. Parcels 3 and 7 could be accessed using existing streets. Per the proposed site plan, parcel 6 and

parcel 8 would be landlocked. If the applicant can secure approvals of the easement holders and accommodate access

to all parcels, safety would be improved as the intersection angle of Kinnamon and McCoy Road is not desirable.

As of November 3, 2014, Bowman Development submitted a sketch plan proposal for parcels 6-8 known as Crosswinds

Phase 3. In that site plan30’ of the Kinnamon Drive easement is incorporated into the design and the lots are accessed

through the existing Crosswinds subdivision. As the developer proposes to incorporate the Kinnamon Road easement

into Crosswinds Phase 3, staff would view this action as no longer claiming the right to access McCoy Road by way of

the Kinnamon Road easement for parcels 6-8.


11-18-14

of 9

PART 4: TRANSPORTATION ISSUES

A 94 unit senior adult housing development would be anticipated to generate 46 AM peak-hour trips, 43 PM peak-hour

trips, and 447 daily trips. Based on this anticipated traffic generation, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was not warranted

per the requirements of Article 14. Additionally, access to the site is proposed via both a connection to Lindley Drive

and Gilead Grove Road.

PART 5: ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES (APF)

Under the provisions of the APF Ordinance, all residential development greater than twenty (20) lots are required to

receive a “Determination of Adequacy (DOA)” for the following public facilities: fire vehicles, fire station, police station,

police vehicles, indoor park and recreation facilities, parks acreage. A DOA letter has been issued for all of the facilities.

PART 6: PLANNING STAFF ANALYSIS

Section 6.200 of the Subdivision Ordinance outlines the “general requirements and policies to be used in the design,

review, and approval” of subdivisions in the Town of Huntersville. The following staff findings are provided for the

Board’s consideration of the Subdivision Sketch Plan.

1. Consistency with adopted public plans and policies.

The following sections of the 2030 Huntersville Community Plan apply to this request:

Policy H-1: Development Pattern. Continue to follow existing residential development pattern as reflected

in “Map of Zoning Districts,” focusing higher intensity development generally within two miles of the 1-

77/NC 115 corridor and lower development from the east and west of this corridor extending to the Town

boundaries.

AND

Policy H-9: Future Residential Development. Higher intensity residential development will be focused

generally within two miles of the I-77/NC-115 corridor and at future mixed use nodes in the eastern and

western areas of Huntersville’s zoning jurisdiction.

Comment: The proposed rezoning is located in an area where either high intensity development is

appropriate based on the 2030 Community Plan Vision which is illustrated on the map on the next page.


11-18-14

of 9

Map I-4: Future Land Use, 2030 Community Plan, pg 12

Policy H-5: Senior Housing. Encourage housing options which accommodate senior citizens (e.g. age

restricted/retirement communities, congregate care/assisted living facilities) which are integrated into the

community and allow for “aging in place.”

STAFF COMMENT: The proposed development would serve a 55 and older population.

Policy E-3: Environmental Regulations. Support and enhance environmental regulations pertaining to tree

preservation, buffer yards, open space, water quality, wetland and stream protection.

Comment: The 50’ SWIM buffer on the property is being preserved and a 5’ walking trail is proposed

through the undisturbed area. The applicant is preserving 10% of the tree canopy, but they have not

provided a tree survey. See Part 2 for further explanation.

Policy E-5: Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT). Support reduction in vehicle miles travelled (VMT), through

capital investments in sidewalks, greenways, enhanced connectivity and mass transit (bus & rail).

Comment: Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the streets. They are also proposing to build a sidewalk

along Vanstoy Drive across the frontage of PIN 01718503 owned by Poly-Tech Holdings. The proposed

development is 0.8-1 miles from retail uses found at Gilead Road and Boren Street.

Policy T-5: Context-sensitive Design of Streets. Continue to support “context-sensitive” design of streets

and the selection of appropriate street section designs for residential, commercial and industrial

developments applications.

Comment: The proposed development has a density of 3.18 units per acres. At this intensity, staff would

recommend some additional on-street parking throughout the development. If these units were developed

on fee-simple lots instead of condominium lots, then the lots would be less than 60’ in width and would be

Proposed Development


11-18-14

of 9

required to be served by an alley. In staff’s experience, streets in Huntersville that have lots less than 60’ in

width tend to generate greater need for on-street parking. The applicant is providing some additional on

street parking proposed adjacent to their common open space in the southern portion of the project and a

revised site plan shows an additional parking lot in the northwest corner and additional on-street spaces

along three blocks, adjacent to lots 57, 58, 66, 67, 78 and 79.

Policy T-6: Pedestrian Connections. Support the installation of sidewalks, bikeways and greenway trails

connecting residential, commercial, employment, recreational and institutional uses.

Comment: The applicant is providing sidewalks on both sides of the street and adding sidewalk to existing

Vanstoy Drive.

Policy T-8: Street Connectivity. Promote and require street connectivity in the Town of Huntersville among

residential, commercial, employment, recreational and institutional uses.

Comment: The applicant is connecting to an existing street stub at Gilead Grove in McCoy Crossing and

adding a connection to Lindley Drive. They are proposing one additional connection to the west.

Policy PF-2: Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO). Continue use of “Adequate Public Facilities

Ordinance (APFO)” to ensure that demand generated by existing and future growth and development for

police, fire and parks & recreation capital facilities can be met by available supply of facilities.

Comment: An APFO application was submitted for 94 single-family units. See Part 5 for further details.

2. Conformity.

The residential densities proposed are similar to the surrounding development. The subdivisions to the west

were developed at 3.55 units per acre (Crosswinds) and 3.47 units per acre (McCoy Crossing). The proposed

density for Courtyards at Kinnamon Park is 3.18 units per acre. See the map below for surrounding densities. As

the development densities are similar, granting the modification would be inconsistent with the 263 dwelling

units in the immediate vicinity. The existing development comply with Zoning Ordinance Article 8.16 because

they provide front-loaded garages that recess 10’ from the primary plane and/or alley access to those lots that

are less than 60’ in width.


11-18-14

of 9

Additionally, the density of the proposed development that does not provide access by means of an alley will

mean that the streetscape of Courtyards at Kinnamon Park will be dominated by concrete driveways rather than

architecture and/or front lawns. This is not consistent with the surrounding development either.

The applicant is requesting a waiver from Zoning Ordinance Article 8.16.1 in which front loaded garages are

recessed 10’ from the primary plane (heated square footage). Since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in

1996, all homes built in Huntersville have met this requirement. Those that have not been built to comply have

met exemptions in which compliance is not needed such as lots platted prior to 1996 or the Town Board

granting the waiver such as Courtyards at Huntersville.

Agreements with the adjoining property owner who use Kinnamon Road to access McCoy Road have not been

provided. Thus, the proposed development is not meeting this criteria because it is has not been “planned so as

to facilitate the most advantageous development of the entire neighborhood.” Additionally, this change in

access without consent is not in keeping with the general character of the neighborhood.

3. Access Between Adjoining Properties.

The applicant is proposing one street connection to the east and connecting to the Lindley Drive.

4. Relation to topography.

The street network is designed to respect the general topography and avoid sensitive streams and wetlands.

5. Mature trees and natural vegetation.

This criteria is not being met. The applicant is required to save 10% of the specimen trees and 100% of the

heritage trees and 10% of the tree canopy. The applicant has not provided any tree save information in order to

review for compliance.

6. Access to parks, schools, etc.

The applicant is providing sidewalks on both sides of the street for all new streets. They are also adding a

sidewalk along Vanstoy Drive across the frontage of PIN 01718503 owned by Poly-Tech Holdings.

7. Discourage through traffic.

Although the applicant will be connecting the Park—Huntersville to the McCoy Crossing subdivision, there are

several traffic calming measures that will discourage through traffic such as a traffic circle when entering from

Lindley Drive and no direct connection to Gilead Grove Road.

8. Relationship to railroad rights-of-way.

Not Applicable.

9. Half streets.

Not Applicable.

10. Parallel streets along thoroughfares.

Not Applicable.

11. Public School and Public Park Sites

The parcels associated with Courtyards at Huntersville have not been identified for a school or park site.

12. Public Facilities


11-18-14

of 9

The parcels associated with Courtyards at Huntersville have not been identified for a public facility.

13. Proposed street names

Street names are not required at this review level. They will be reviewed at the Preliminary Plan stage.

14. Easements.

Easements have been identified and the plans have been sent to the respective Engineering and Utility

Departments. Additionally, staff has requested that the applicant provide documentation that the change to the

Kinnamon Road easement is acceptable to all users of the easement.

15. Proposed water and sewerage system.

A Capacity Assurance Letter has been provided for 87 units and the applicant is proposing 94 units. In their

revision letter (Attachment H), they state that they are working on revising the letter with Charlotte-

Mecklenburg Utilities.

16. Restrictions on the subdivision of land subject to flooding.

No floodplain has been identified on this site.

17. Reserved.

18. Open Space

The urban open space proposed on this site is a “square” and is bounded by streets on three sides. According to

their landscape plan, Attachment I, they will activate the space with a bocce court (or something similar), a

gazebo and some interior walking paths.

19. Impact of Development on Public Facilities

Under the provisions of the APF Ordinance, all residential development greater than twenty (20) lots are

required to receive a “Determination of Adequacy (DOA)” for the following public facilities: fire vehicles, fire

station, police station, police vehicles, indoor park and recreation facilities, parks acreage. A DOA letter has

been issued for all of the facilities.

PART 7: STAFF RECOMMENDATION

In considering Courtyards at Kinnamon Park, staff finds:

• The application is complete.

• The application does not meet the following:

Zoning Ordinance:

o Article 7.4, Tree Save

o Article 7.5.8, Buffer Yards

Subdivision Ordinance:

o Section 6.200.5, Mature Trees and Natural Vegetation

o Section 6.200.2, Conformity

• If the modification from the conditional rezoning petition R14-05 are not granted, the subdivision sketch plan

would additionally not meet the following criteria:

Zoning Ordinance

o Article 8.16.1, Standards for Residential Garages and Parking in Residential Districts

o Article 4, Civic Building Type, Building Placement/Parking/Vehicle Access

Subdivision Ordinance

o Section 6.200.2, Conformity


11-18-14

of 9

• Although staff sees great value in providing retirement housing within the Town, Staff recommends denial of the

subdivision sketch plan because it does not comply with the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance as described in

Part 3 of this report. In addition, documentation has not been provided that states the Kinnamon Road

Easement users find the modifications to their legal right to access McCoy Road acceptable.

PART 8: DECISION STATEMENTS

In considering whether to approve an application for a subdivision sketch plan the Planning and Town Board must

complete the following. These statements are paraphrases. The full version can be found in Section 6.320.5 of the

Subdivision Ordinance.

• Is the application complete (lacking any particular requirement)? If no member of the Board moves that the

application is incomplete, then this inaction is taken as an affirmative finding that the application is complete.

• Does the application comply with all the applicable requirements? A statement must be made that the

application complies or does not comply that includes the support documentation of the particular motion.

• Lastly, the Board must make a motion to approve or deny based on the previous statements.

PART 9: ATTACHMENTS/ENCLOSURES

Attachments

A – Application

B – Site Plan

C – Applicant’s Statement

D – Neighborhood Meeting Summary

E – Capacity Assurance Letter

F—Architectural Elevations

G – Letter from Claudia Craig concerning easement

H—Applicant Comment Response Letter dated 11-7-14

I—Landscape Plan

Courtyards at Kinnamon Park Sketch Plan

Documents

Transcript of Courtyards at Kinnamon Park Sketch Plan