The Mooresville Town Council on May 5 adopted Ordinance 3-20-26, rezoning the Arbenheim/ Hopkins property as a planned unit development (PUD) that the council recorded as carrying binding development commitments.
The ordinance authorizes a mixed-use PUD that, as presented, caps residential development at 210 units and limits commercial space to not exceed 10,000 square feet, concentrated in later phases. Council members heard from the project presenter (addressed in the meeting as Ross), who said the PUD includes a 20% reduction in required parking but that the developer has committed to provide a minimum of 500 parking spaces overall.
The council was told the development would include a mix of cottages, townhomes, villas and apartments, with some units configured for senior housing on ground floors. Exhibit materials attached to the PUD application include seven pages of photographs illustrating the intended look and feel; the presenter stressed the images are illustrative, not final facades.
Council members focused questions on stormwater and infrastructure costs. The presenter said preliminary calculations indicate the existing detention basin will need to be expanded likely roughly doubled from its current size and that the project will rely on mechanical water-quality devices (identified in the presentation as Aqua Swirl/AquaShield units) and, where feasible, bioswales or rain gardens to meet discharge limits. He warned that if detention needs push costs higher, the number of units or parking spaces could be reduced to maintain project viability.
The presenter said interior streets will be private and maintained by a homeowners association and that pavement width and fire-department concerns were addressed in the commitments (minimum pavement 20 feet, and the developer consulted the fire department). Commercial parking will follow the town's UDO standard (one space per 200 square feet); residential parking allocation will follow the phase-by-phase table in the commitments.
After the presentation and questions, a council member moved to approve Ordinance 3-20-26; the motion was seconded and the ordinance passed by voice vote, 4-0.
Council members said they appreciated the plan commission's unanimous recommendation and emphasized that, because the PUD carries explicit commitments and exhibits, the town can enforce the agreed development standards and uses recorded with the county.
The council did not set a construction start date in the meeting; the presenter described a phased build sequence and said work would begin where infrastructure costs and drainage allow.