View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

 

MINUTES OF THE BURLINGTON PLANNING

AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING

 

November 22, 2004

 

Council Chamber, Burlington Municipal Building

 

 

CITY MEMBERS:                                                  EXTRATERRITORIAL MEMBERS:

 

George Byrd, Chairman, Present                         Bud Apple, Present

Jim Burwell, Secretary, Present                           John Enoch, Present

Paul Cobb, Present                                               Richard Franks, Present

Lynn Cowan, Present                                           Jim Johnson, Absent

Elder Greg Hargrave, Present                               Ellis Piper, Present

Gordon Millspaugh, Present                                Bob Ware, Present

 

STAFF PRESENT:

 

Robert R. Harkrader, Planning Director

Kurt Pearson, Assistant Director of Planning Services

Haywood Cloud, Zoning/Subdivision Administrator

Dianne Fogleman, Office Assistant

 

 

       ITEM NO. 1Chairman Byrd called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m.  It is noted that Extraterritorial Commission Member Apple would recuse himself from voting on (D) of the consent agenda and therefore there would not be a quorum of extraterritorial members to vote.  It was determined that the Commission would begin with Item 4 and return to the consent agenda after the arrival of Mr. Piper, who would be needed to have a quorum.

 

       ITEM NO. 2: Minutes of the meeting held October 25, 2004, were unanimously approved.  This was a City and extraterritorial item.

 

       ITEM NO. 3: Consent agenda:  (City)

 

       (A)     Mr. Franz Holt presented an application for final plat approval of Parcel M1 and street right-of-way dedication for Mackintosh Drive and Bonnar Bridge Parkway of the Mackintosh on the Lake Subdivision.  The property is located off Danbrook Road south of Interstate 85/40 at Charlie Ingle Road as shown on plans by Alley, Williams, Carmen and King, Inc., dated October 23, 2004, and containing 42 lots.

 

       (B)     Mr. Bob Dischinger, representing D. R. Horton, Inc., presented an application for preliminary plan approval of the Ingle Place Subdivision, also known as Ingle Park, Phase 1, and Ingle Park Gardens, Phase 2.  The property is located on both the east and west sides of Springwood Church Road north of the Springwood Park as shown on plans by Evans Engineering, Inc., dated November 4, 2004, and containing 122 lots.

 

       (C)     Mr. Randy Thompson, representing CW Properties, presented an application for final plat approval of Phase 4 of Bost Manor Townhouses.  The property is located on Collins Drive between Chapel Hill Road and Parkwood Street as shown on plans by Simmons Engineering and Surveying, Inc., dated October 27, 2004, and containing four lots.

 

       Staff recommended approval of (A) contingent upon the applicant posting proper surety for any incomplete streets, curb and gutter, sidewalks, utilities and other public infrastructure pursuant to the City Subdivision Regulations.  Staff also recommended approval of (B) and (C).

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh made a motion to recommend approval of (A) with the contingency outlined by staff; to approve (B); and to recommend approval of (C). Paul Cobb seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of (A) contingent upon the applicant posting proper surety for any incomplete streets, curb and gutter, sidewalks, utilities and other public infrastructure pursuant to the City Subdivision Regulations; to approve (B); and to recommend approval of (C).

 

       Consent agenda:  (Extraterritorial)

 

       Commission Member Apple asked that he be recused from voting on (D). Commission Member Cowan asked that she be recused from voting on (E).  Commission Member Millspaugh made a motion to allow Mr. Apple to abstain from voting on (D) and Ms. Cowan from voting on (E).  Paul Cobb seconded the motion. The Commission voted unanimously to allow Mr. Apple to abstain from voting on (D) and Ms. Cowan from voting on (E).

 

       Commission Member Franks made a motion to remove (D) from the consent agenda and vote on it separately.  Paul Cobb seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to remove (D) from the consent agenda and vote on it separately.

 

       (E)     Ms. Lynn Cowan, representing the Historic Preservation Foundation of North Carolina, Inc., presented an application for final plat approval of the Glencoe Mill and Mill Village Subdivision.  The property is located on River Road northeast of NC Highway 62 North as shown on plans by Boswell Surveyors, Inc., dated August 27, 2004, and containing six lots.

 

       (F)      Mr. Jimmy Collins, representing Concept Builders, presented an application for final plat approval of the Abbington Place Townhome Development.  The property is located on the western side of the Western Loop approximately 1,000 feet north of its intersection with Rural Retreat Road as shown on plans by Fleming Engineering, Inc., dated November 5, 2004, and containing two lots.

      

       Staff recommended approval of (E) and recommended approval of (F) contingent upon the developer posting proper surety with the City of Burlington for completion of street construction prior to recording the plat and contingent upon street plans and profiles, water and sewer plans and storm drainage plans being submitted to the City Engineering Department and approval of same by the Engineering Department.

 

       Commission Member Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of (E) and to recommend approval of (F) with the contingency outlined by staff.  Bob Ware seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of (E) and to recommend approval of (F) contingent upon the developer posting proper surety with the City of Burlington for completion of street construction prior to recording the plat and contingent upon street plans and profiles, water and sewer plans and storm drainage plans being submitted to the City Engineering Department and approval of same by the Engineering Department. Commission Member Cowan abstained from voting on (E).

 

       Consent agenda item (D) was considered separately.  Commission Member Apple, who lives on adjoining property, recused himself from voting.

 

       (D)     Mr. Bob Dischinger, representing Performance Properties, presented an application for preliminary plan approval of the Hawthorne Subdivision.  The property is located on the north side of Timber Trail approximately 400 feet from its intersection with NC Highway 49 as shown on plans by Evans Engineering, Inc., dated October 28, 2004, and containing 105 lots.

 

       Mr. Dischinger stated that the property is zoned R-9 and there will be a 50-foot buffer on each side of the stream measured from the center of the stream.  In addition, part of Timber Trail will be resurfaced; however, NCDOT is not requiring any changes on Highway 49.

 

       Mr. John D. Kinney, 2547 Timber Trail, stated that he lived in the Grove Park area for 35 years and moved to his current home on Timber Trail eight years ago because the Grove Park area became so densely populated.

 

       He read the following letter from him and residents and homeowners of Timber Trail and Highway 49 South addressed to the City of Burlington Planning and Zoning Commission:

 

       “As property owners and residents of both Timber Trail and of that section of Highway 49 that connects to the property being considered for use as a subdivision, we are hereby united in our opposition to the proposed Hawthorne Subdivision.  Understandably, this property is prime for development; however, we are in complete agreement that the current plan as presented, for a dense concentration of homes on this designated land parcel will adversely affect our neighborhood, the environment and property values.  A more acceptable plan is one that would restrict the number of new homes that could be built on this parcel to not exceed 35 in number. 

 

       For many years Timber Trail has been a nice, quiet street in a pleasant neighborhood, made up of folks who enjoy their privacy and the natural beauty that surrounds them.  Needless to say, this current plan to “clear cut” + 35 acres in order to build a 105-house subdivision will ruin the tranquility we value so highly and will leave many of us with absolutely no buffer for privacy from this encroachment.  Construction of Hawthorne Subdivision will also subject us to undesirable traffic problems and environmental damage to surrounding property, not to mention noise pollution, higher crime rates and increased traffic deaths to local wildlife.

 

       Our first concern is to determine if there was any prior consideration as to the adverse effects of such development as it relates to the proximity of the Great Alamance Creek.  Our reasoning here is that the extensive forests and “wild” lands that surround the Great Alamance, from its point of origin as it then feeds Lake Mackintosh and on to the point where it enters the Haw River, this is probably one of the least spoiled or polluted major streams in our county. Primarily because of limited construction and farming along the creek, it remains clean and vital to the high concentration of wildlife that is also part of our neighborhood.  Keeping this natural state of our neighborhood is important to maintain the delicate balance associated with such an environment. 

 

       We believe that because the development would be built within 1,500 feet of Alamance Creek that this will cause irrevocable damage to the creek environment as well as our properties that surround this site.  The Hawthorne site is the highest point in our neighborhood.  In its present condition, storm runoff from this area at times reaches a high velocity, and we are certain that once the trees and natural buffering are removed, excessive amounts of water will gain even more momentum that will probably lead to additional flooding and erosion damage to the bordering properties as well as increased amounts of pollution into the Great Alamance Creek.  Properties bordering on the east and south would be highly affected, and those to the west would be impacted as well. Any additional pollution that enters in the Bellemont area of the creek can hamper the diluting ability of the Alamance at the waste treatment facility further down stream.

 

       We have major traffic concerns associated with this project that must be addressed.  We shouldn’t have to point this out that Timber Trail is a narrow, light duty, state maintained, “dead end” road.  The proposed subdivision will create numerous problems when you consider that the populous of 105 homes can easily result in 200 or more vehicles that will be using our street.  Timber Trail cannot support an additional 200 vehicles on a daily basis.  With the ever-increasing traffic burden on Highway 49 South, the residents already experience enough problems when entering and exiting Timber Trail.  A number of our neighbors have experienced one or more accidents over the past years.  Due to the limited field of vision, this intersection has to be among the more dangerous in Alamance County. For instance, if a person exiting Timber Trail is of small stature (5’ 2” or less) and driving anything smaller than a SUV, she or he is virtually unable to get a clear view of any northbound traffic once a northbound vehicle clears the bridge that spans Alamance Creek.  When viewing southbound traffic, the clear field of vision is only about 500 feet (when leaves are on the trees).  Five hundred feet does not offer any cushion for safety when many of the vehicles approaching the intersection are traveling at speeds of 55 miles per hour or better.  Our point: any additional traffic on our street will create problems, but adding another 200 vehicles trying to gain exit or entry to Timber Trail during peak hours will be a nightmare and a tragedy waiting to happen especially considering the “impatience factor” of today’s society.

 

       A substantial increase in traffic coming off Timber Trail will likewise increase the probability a serious or even fatal traffic accident involving ice and snowy conditions.  The approach to Highway 49 when traveling on (and leaving) Timber Trail is downhill for the last 20 feet or so and it is nearly impossible to stop when there is ice (black ice) or snow on the roads.  Because of the shading, this will not melt soon; therefore, it packs, melts, freezes and refreezes for several days.

 

       The approach to Timber Trail, traveling either north or south on Highway 49, is up hill.  At the point one reaches Timber Trail, the driver, when turning the vehicle, has to climb yet another hill.  The residents on Highway 49 are already dealing with numerous wrecks, fences torn down, damage to lawns and ever-increasing delays getting out of their driveways.  All of this will increase even more if this subdivision is permitted to continue.

 

       We ask that the Burlington City Council: (1) to deny Performance Properties’ request to build the Hawthorne Subdivision as it is currently planned; (2) do not allow the developer to clear any more than 50 percent of the available land; (3) require that wooded areas be left intact around the perimeter of this property; and, (4) restrict access to this property via Timber Trail only if the development would not exceed 35 homes. 

 

       If construction of Hawthorne Subdivision is permitted as planned, then we request that access to Timber Trail be denied altogether and that Performance Properties acquire some other parcel that would grant access via Gardner Holt Road directly onto Highway 49 South with stoplight control or White Kennel Road.  All of these avenues would offer a safer and more reasonable solution.

 

       Please don’t make the Timber Trail and residents along Highway 49 suffer from the profitting of others.

 

       Thank you in advance for your consideration in this extremely important matter to us.  I hope that we will still have a voice in such matters.

 

       Sincerely,

 

       Residents and Homeowners of Timber Trail and Highway 49 South

 

 

       Mr. Kinney also presented to the Commission a petition signed by all homeowners who own and reside on Timber Trail that oppose the subdivision development.  A copy of that petition is attached and made a part of these minutes.

 

       Mr. Larry Lashley, 2346 Timber Trail, stated that the street cannot handle 200 additional vehicles a day and that he would like to see the documentation from NCDOT stating that road improvement will not be needed at the intersection of Timber Trail and Highway 49. He concluded that the subdivision will devalue surrounding property.

 

       Ms. Bonnie Mansfield, 3653 Maple Avenue, stated that she represented her husband and two neighbors, Ms. Frances Brown, 3643 Maple Avenue, and Ms. Edith Strickland, 3635 Maple Avenue, who are all opposed to the subdivision.  She asked if the developer had checked with the E. M. Holt Fire Department about flooding in the area.  She stated that during heavy rains, the Fire Department has had to block part of the road due to flooding, and flood waters almost reach the doors of many of their homes. 

 

       Mr. Tommy Broom, 2404 Timber Trail, also stated that floodwaters cover the road and trash from the flowing water ends up on their property.  He blamed the grading of the property for much of the problems and maintained that flooding will be even worse when some the trees are cut down to make room for the subdivision.  He noted that he had lived there since 1955 and had witnessed many vehicle accidents due to the elevated curve.  He stated that he wanted to inform the City here and now that stormwater will flow down the back of the lots and across the road once the property is cleared for the subdivision.

 

       Mr. Robert Johnson, 2375 Timber Trail, maintained that a bottleneck will be created when the subdivision is developed and vehicles try to turn onto Highway 49.  He also noted that the field of vision is also obstructed.  Mr. Johnson, who stated he had lived there since 1950, pointed out that no one had mentioned the children who will be living in the 105 homes in the subdivision.  He theorized that they will be drawn to a branch that runs through the property into Alamance Creek.

 

       Ms. Mansfield, who also owns a vacant lot in the vicinity, asked if the applicant knew where the power would go into the subdivision, and Mr. Dischinger stated that he did not know.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader pointed out to the Commission that this was a preliminary plan being presented and subsequently members will consider a final plat that will then be considered by City Council for approval.  He stated that the plan meets R-9 zoning density requirements and that staff recommends approval of the preliminary plan.  He pointed out that if the petitioner meets all requirements of the Subdivision Regulations, staff and Commission members are bound to approve the presented plat.

 

       Mr. Harkrader noted that there could be landscaping and other changes when the final plat is presented for approval; however, NCDOT would have control over any turn lanes needed off NC 49.  He also stated that R-9 zoning is not a bad zoning for the subdivision and shared that he lives in R-9 zoning.

 

       Commission Member Apple, who lives on adjacent property and recused himself from voting on the item, stated that neighbors who complained about the already-present stormwater problems were right  -- that there is a tremendous water problem in the area.

 

       Commission Member Enoch asked if neighbors would be able to see the finalized plans and was told that they would.  He stated that remedies to the stormwater runoff would be defined and approved by the City Engineering Department prior to the final plat being approved.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh stated that there are several issues that need to be addressed by the Engineering Department as well as traffic concerns looked at by DOT and the City’s Technical Review Committee.  He pointed out that the property was already zoned R-9.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader noted that the developer could have more lots than are planned with R-9 zoning.

 

       Commission Member Enoch pointed out that if the City engineers are going to do everything they can to manage the stormwater runoff, the Commission would have no choice but to approve the preliminary plan.

 

       Mr. Harkrader stated that stormwater is the most difficult to deal with and that he didn’t want to minimize the fact that the subdivision development will create more impervious property in the area.

 

       Mr. Kinney stated that this sounded like a done deal to him and asked for a show of hands of those present that live on Highway 49.

 

       Commission Member Franks stated that he does not live on Highway 49 but on Garden Road and that he can relate to the problems the neighbors have shared.  However, if the subdivision meets all requirements of R-9 zoning, the Commission must approve it. 

 

       Planning Director Harkrader explained that approving a preliminary plan is different from considering a rezoning request.  For a preliminary plan, the City must approve it if all requirements are met whereas this would not be the case with rezoning requests.

 

       Commission Member Ware stated that NCDOT should take another look to see if the development will impact traffic patterns enough to warrant making changes at the intersection.  He recalled that at an intersection in his neighborhood, the grass was high enough to impede visibility, and after many phone calls to DOT, the state went out and made changes. He concluded that the proposed subdivision is not as bad as R-9 density could be.

 

       Mr. Dischinger stated that he would take another look at the intersection and make sure that there are safe site distances.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh made a motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plan.  John Enoch seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to approve the preliminary plan with the contingency that street plans and profiles, utility plans and stormwater plans be approved by the City Engineering Department prior to construction.

 

       ITEM NO. 4: Mr. M. Gray Styers, Jr., representing BellSouth Personal Communications, LLC, d/b/a Cingular Wireless, presented an application to rezone from I-2, Light Industrial District, to CI, Conditional Industrial District, to allow the construction of a 199-foot free-standing telecommunications tower. The property is located at 225 Stone Quarry Road north of Ruby Lane and northwest of the NC Highway 70 Bypass and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 13, Block 17, a portion of Lot 4B. 

 

       This was an extraterritorial item.

 

       Mr. Styers stated that BellSouth will be leasing a portion of the lot from the City of Burlington and that the lot is the site of the East Burlington Wastewater Treatment Plant, Pet Adoption Center and Police Training Facility.  Approval of the lease between BellSouth and the City of Burlington will be considered by the Burlington City Council the same time as the rezoning request.

 

       Mr. Styers displayed a map showing current BellSouth cell coverage and a map depicting coverage after the construction of the proposed tower on Stone Quarry Road.

 

       Commission Member Cobb asked if the City will be allowed to utilize the tower and was told that it would as long as the frequencies do not interfere with each other.

 

       Commission Chairman Byrd asked if the tower will have lights.  Mr. Styers explained that the FCC does not require lighting on towers less than 200 feet tall.

 

       Commission Member Apple asked how many carriers will the tower accommodate, and Mr. Styers stated that it depends on the size of the antennas; however, he estimated three or four.  Mr. Apple commented that it seems that applications for towers are being considered almost every other month.  Mr. Styers stated that 80 percent of the company’s antennas are located on existing towers.

 

       Staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning contingent upon the City receiving a survey of the lease area as shown on the submitted site plan as well as the following use and development conditions submitted by the petitioner:

 

Use Condition

 

To allow a 199-foot free-standing telecommunications tower.

 

Development Condition

 

Construction shall adhere to the applicant’s Project Narrative and Statement of Compliance with the following City of Burlington Zoning Ordinance regulations: Section 32.7A, Subsection D.2; Section 32.7:C by reference under Section 32.7A, Subsection D.2; Section 32.9, Table of Permitted Uses; Section 32.10:HH, Telecommunications Towers; Section 32.10:RR; and Section 32.19:F.2.a. and c.

 

       Commission Member Franks made a motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning with the contingencies outlined by staff.  Bob Ware seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request for rezoning contingent upon the City receiving a survey of the lease area as shown on the submitted site plan as well as the use and development conditions submitted by the petitioner.

 

       ITEM NO. 5: Mr. Jim Bennett, representing Atlas Lighting Products, Inc., presented an application to rezone from I-2, Light Industrial District, and I-3, Heavy Industrial District, to CI, Conditional Industrial District, to allow the construction of an enclosed connector between two existing buildings. The property is located on the southeast corner of West Fifth Street and South Worth Street as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 19-66, Lots 116, 117 and 118. 

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Mr. Bennett stated that the company had purchased the former Piedmont Metals building and since there cannot be construction across lot lines, Atlas needs to construct a short enclosed connector between the company’s existing building and the Piedmont Metals facility. The Piedmont Metals building will be used for shipping and receiving as well as office space.

 

       Commission Member Cobb asked why couldn’t the lots be joined or combined.

 

       Mr. Bennett explained that while the company owns both buildings, they are owned by two different LLC’s (Limited Liability Corporations), and to protect the two LLC’s, the company wants to build a connector rather than combine the buildings.

 

       Commission Member Enoch asked if staff proposed any contingencies for the approval of the request.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that use and development conditions were listed on the application form.

 

       Commission Member Cobb commented that the two LLC’s could idemnify each other and another LLC could be formed. In addition, it seems that there would be a lot of wasted space.

 

       Mr. Bennett stated that he had talked to Attorney Tom Steele who informed him that the entire property would have to be re-surveyed if the lots were re-combined and there would be some expense to that and the company was also concerned about environmental issues with the previous Piedmont Metals building. Mr. Bennett also explained that time was important and this appears to be the easiest and quickest way to combine the buildings.  Also, the connector only needs to be large enough to accommodate a forklift.

 

       Staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning with the following use and development conditions submitted by the petitioner:

 

Use Condition

 

Existing buildings to be used as a warehouse and for product shipping and distribution.

 

Development Condition

 

Lots 116, 117 and 118 shall have zero lot lines to allow the applicant to construct an enclosed connector between two existing buildings.

 

       Commission Member Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.  Gordon Millspaugh seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request for rezoning with the use and development conditions submitted by the petitioner.

 

       ITEM NO. 6: Mr. Rick Gunn, representing Carolina Tank Lines, Inc., presented an application to rezone from B-2, General Business District, to CB, Conditional Business District, to allow for the assemblage of heat/air ductwork for off-site installation.  The property is located at 3410 Maple Avenue (NC Highway 49) at the southeast corner of Monroe Holt Road as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 6, Block 1, Lot 20A. 

 

       This was an extraterritorial item.

 

       Commission Member Hargrave asked if the entire building would be included in the rezoning request or a portion.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader explained that up to 10 percent of the building could be used for the requested purpose; however, all uses allowed in B-2 zoning would be permitted.

 

       Commission Member Apple asked if there would be any assembling outside, and was told that there would not be.

 

       Mr. Gunn informed the Commission that the shop area had been used similarly in the past.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader explained that the Conditional zoning was necessary because this was more of a manufacturing than retail use.  He stated that staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning with the following use and development conditions submitted by the petitioner:

 

Use Conditions

 

1.    All uses permitted under the current zoning classification, B-2, General Business District, shall remain applicable.

 

2.    Conditional use request will permit assemblage of heat/air ductwork for off-site installation.

 

3.    Assemblage of ductwork will occur in shop area that consists of only 10 percent of the building area as shown on the submitted building plan.

 


Development Condition

 

No additional improvements will be added with the exception of proper fencing.

 

       Commission Member Burwell made a motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.  Gordon Millspaugh seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning request with the use and development conditions submitted by the petitioner.

 

       ITEM NO. 7: Mr. George Moon, representingMr. Ernie Koury, Jr., presented an application to rezone from I-1, Planned Industrial District, to CI, Conditional Industrial District, to allow the establishment of a private club and/or lodge.  The property is located on Industry Drive between Anthony Road and Tucker Street Extension as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 12-5C, Lot 1. 

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader pointed out that the original agenda sent to members stated that the request was to rezone from I-2, Light Industrial District, rather than the correct zoning of the lot, which is I-1, Planned Industrial District.

 

       Mr. Moon stated that a private-type club is planned at the facility and will accommodate charitable events, fundraisers, birthday parties and such. Noise will not be a problem, and he stated that he had talked with surrounding property owners who had no problems with the request.  He also pointed out that the seven-acre lot is fenced, and that overhangs will allow events to be held in inclement weather.

 

       Commission Member Cowan asked if the events will be for members only or will they be open to the public.

 

       Mr. Moon stated that anyone hosting a function at the club will have to be a member or be associated with a member.

 

       Commission Member Hargrave asked what is the distinction between a private club and a lodge.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that a lodge is usually associated with a fraternal order whereas a private club is not.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked if alcoholic beverages would be served.

 

       Mr. Moon stated that the club would apply for an ABC license.

 

       Commission Member Enoch asked if the club would be linked to any other organizations and was told that it would not be. 

 

       Mr. Moon stated that the club would be open three or four nights a week.

 

       Commission Member Cobb asked if there would be a menu and what type of entertainment will there be to attract people.

 

       Mr. Koury made it clear that there would be no illegal activities at the premises.

 

       Mr. Moon explained that there will be pool tables as well as music available.

 

       Commission Chairman Byrd inquired about the hours.

 

       Mr. Moon stated that he had not gotten that far in his planning but the hours would probably be from 4 p.m. until midnight.

 

       Commission Member Enoch asked if the club would require a business license, and Planning Director Harkrader stated that it would.

 

       Commission Member Cobb asked it there would be any topless entertainment, and Mr. Moon replied that there would not be – only pool tables – and that the club will be private and not open to the public.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh pointed out that in six months, the club could become another Dockside Dolls.

 

       Commission Member Cobb asked if that could happen.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that the current application did not address adult entertainment in the facility; however, the petitioner could amend his application with regard to adult entertainment activities.

 

       Commission Member Hargrave stated that he thought the existing language was too ambiguous and that the petitioner should add that to the application.

 

       Mr. Moon stated that he would add that no adult cabarets or adult entertainment would be offered at the facility.

 

       Staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning with the following use and development conditions presented by the petitioner with the addition recommended by the Commission:

 

Use Conditions

 

1.    Establishment of a private club and/or lodge for the purpose of serving food/beverage and possible meeting and catering space for outside groups.

 

2.    Other uses permitted in I-1, Planned Industrial District.

 

3.    There shall be no adult cabarets or sexual-oriented entertainment uses allowed on the premises.

 


Development Condition

 

Building footprint and parking will remain as is with the exception of bathroom facilities; additions will be made as required by local ordinances and the state building code.

 

       Commission Member Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning with the contingency that no adult cabarets or sexual-oriented entertainment uses be allowed at the facility.  Greg Hargrave seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning request with the use and development conditions submitted by the petitioner with the addition that no adult cabarets or sexual-oriented entertainment uses be allowed at the facility. 

 

       ITEM NO. 8: Mr. Randy Thompson with Simmons Engineering and Surveying, representing Mr. Don Wagner, presented an application to rezone from R-15, Residential District, to CR, Conditional Residential District, to allow the construction of 11 townhomes.  The property is located at the westernmost end of Oakcrest Court as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 6-47, Lot 1A.

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Mr. Thompson stated that the church (Messiah Evangelical Lutheran Church) no longer has use for part of its property and is attempting to sell it.  He pointed out that there are various zoning classifications in the area.

 

       Mr. Thompson stated that a retention area is planned on the site to accommodate an estimated increase of 25 percent stormwater runoff from the construction of the 11 townhomes.

 

       Mr. Terrell K. Duncan, 2534 Oakcrest Court, stated that he was opposed to the townhomes being built and that he wanted the property to remain zoned R-15 for single-family development.

 

       Ms. Renee Sauls, 2519 Oakcrest Court, stated that she lives beside the property and asked what kind of road will be constructed going into the development.

 

       Mr. Thompson stated that a 20-foot wide, paved and curbed on one side road is planned.

 

       Ms. Sauls stated that she wanted the property to stay zoned R-15 and that she does not want multifamily development on the property because it could devalue surrounding property.  She stated that her father built five houses in the area. 

 

       Mr. John Tarlton, 2530 Oakcrest Court, stated that he had lived in his home since 1967 and Mr. Duncan had lived there since 1965.  He pointed to Mr. and Mrs. Charles Scoggins who own property beside the proposed entrance to the townhomes.  Mr. Tarlton stated that he opposed the construction of townhomes, that they will devalue surrounding property and that Oakcrest Court is the only area for kids to play.

 

       Mr. Scoggins added that he and his family had lived in their home for 10 years and he was opposed to the rezoning.

 

       Ms. Sauls stated that the church was “not too happy with it either.”

 

       Commission Member Cobb pointed out that the church does not have to sell the property to the developer.

 

       Ms. Sauls stated that the church “has to” sell the property.  She elaborated that the congregation is aging and it is an unhappy situation.

 

       Mr. Tarlton stated that the church is selling the property and plans to build another church in the area.  He recalled Mr. Jack McKeon living in the neighborhood and letting his kids play on the church property.

 

       Commission Member Cobb asked what will the church be used for, and Ms. Sauls could not answer the question but stated that the church just cannot afford all of the property.

 

       Mr. Tarlton pointed out that the Town and Country Subdivision had a nice, open area used as a playground and that it was given to the City; however, the lot has grown up with weeds now.

 

       Commission Member Cobb asked the acreage of the lot.  Mr. Wagoner stated that the entire tract is 4.22 acres, and the portion being sold is 2.38 acres.

 

       Mr. Tarlton pointed out that there were nice homes built in the neighborhood in the 60’s.

 

       Ms. Beverly Blackwell, 2520 Oakcrest Court, stated she purchased her home because it was located in the cul-de-sac.

 

       Mr. Wagner stated that the brick-veneered townhomes will have approximately 1,200 square feet in floor space, will be in the $150,000 price range and be single-story.  They will be private single-family townhomes – no rentals– and will be targeted to second-time homebuyers.  He pointed out that the $150,000 price will be higher than the tax values of many surrounding homes.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that staff had several issues with the request for rezoning, one being the density.  He told Commission members that originally the development had 12 townhomes but it was scaled back to 11 which meets R-9 zoning density.  He pointed out that the property could not be subdivided because there is only 30 feet of road frontage.  The only access to the proposed development would be within the 30 feet of road frontage. 

 

       Mr. Harkrader stated that the other issue with the rezoning request is stormwater runoff.  He pointed out that the developer claims there will be a 25% increase in stormwater when the development is completed, and the stormwater will naturally flow towards the Morningside Drive area, which already has a problem. He noted that the development condition submitted by the petitioner includes a provision that an on-site engineered stormwater control structure be constructed that will limit the rate of the stormwater flow from the development.

 

       Mr. Harkrader concluded that the proposed townhomes would be a suitable use for the property due to the lack of road frontage and that staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning with the following use and development conditions presented by the petitioner:

 

Use Condition

 

Construction of 11 townhomes as shown on the submitted site plan.

 

Development Condition

 

Construction of engineered stormwater control structures to be approved by the City of Burlington Engineering Department.  Such structures shall be engineered so that post-development stormwater run-off does not exceed pre-development run-off.

 

       Commission Member Ware stated residents in the western section of the City are suffering from Conditional zoning that has been dumped in their laps and that more consideration should be given to the people rather than the tax base.

 

       Commission Member Burwell asked residents if it is the idea of townhouses in their neighborhood that disturbs them the most or is the subdividing of the church property.  He pointed out that a developer could be proposing the construction of apartments rather than townhouses.

 

       Mr. Duncan stated that it is the density that bothers them the most.  He stated that the townhomes should be built to R-15 zoning density.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked if the right-of-way in the cul-de-sac had always been there and was told that it had been there a long time.

 

       Mr. Millspaugh asked if the width of the right-of-way would provide for adequate egress/ingress for emergency vehicles into the development and was told that it would.  He pointed out that the limited access to the property would prevent a lot of development from going in there.  He asked how many townhomes could be constructed on the property if it remained zoned R-15.

 

       Assistant Director of Planning Services Pearson stated that 6.9 units would be allowed in R-15 zoning.

 

       Mr. Tarlton stated that someone might want to purchase all of the property.

 

       Commission Member Cobb stated that he thought someone representing the church should be present and noted that while Ms. Sauls was a member of the church, she was present as an adjoining property owner.

 

       Developer Don Wagner stated that he had been dealing with a deacon of the church and that the church had been handling the sale of the property rather than going through a real estate agency. He added that there was a possibility that someone could come forward and purchase the entire tract.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader pointed out that the property had not yet been subdivided.

 

       Commission Member Burwell asked if the bordering properties had always been zoned R-9 and was told that they had been.

 

       Commission Chairman Byrd stated that he appreciated the concerns of the neighbors and that he would be more comfortable with less density than the townhomes offer; however, he also appreciated the efforts of the developer.

 

       Mr. Duncan asked what did Conditional zoning mean, and Mr. Harkrader explained that the request for Conditional zoning was based on a specific site plan submitted by a petitioner and the only use for the property would be the use requested on the application.  He stated that Conditional zoning is more strict than traditional rezoning that would allow any use allowed in a particular zoning district.

 

       Mr. Duncan pointed out that there are no storm drains on Oakcrest Court and that all the stormwater goes to the back of his property and that needs to be looked into.

 

       Mr. Harkrader stated that the proposed development will not impact the condition because one of the use conditions for approval states that an on-site engineered stormwater control structure will limit the rate of stormwater flow from the development.

 

       Mr. Duncan stated that more pavement means less absorption area for stormwater, and Mr. Harkrader explained that the engineered retention area will alleviate stormwater run-off from the development.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked if the townhomes would be brick-veneered.

 

       Mr. Wagner stated that while he has not gotten into the design of townhomes, he will stipulate that they be brick-veneered.

 

       Mr. Millspaugh stated that he had concerns with an above-ground lake acting as a stormwater retention area where children are concerned.

 

       Mr. Wagner stated that there will not be an above-ground lake for stormwater retention.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that if Commission members had specific concerns or were not comfortable with various design aspects of the development, they  could request that the developer add these to the development conditions on the application.

 

       Commission Member Cobb stated that he felt like a church representative should be present and made a motion to table the application until Commission members could get more information and address the stormwater situation.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh seconded the motion.

 

       The developer, Mr. Wagner, stated that the church representatives had seen the proposed site plan and had seen it even before it was presented to the City.  He stated that someone from the church would have attended the meeting if they thought there was going to be a problem or any dissentions.

 

       Mr. Wagner stated that he had no problem with a request for brick-veneering and that he would go along with tabling the item only if it were necessary.  He pointed out that the only church member present was Ms. Sauls, and she was present because she lives on adjoining property.

 

       Mr. Thompson with Simmons Engineering stated that there would not be a retention pond on the property – only a depression to slow down the water run-off.

 

       Commission Member Cowan asked if Mr. Thompson was saying that there would be no standing water on the property, and Mr. Thompson answered that there would be a small amount.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh suggested that the developer talk to the neighbors.

 

       Mr. Wagner stated that he would be happy to amend the application to include that the townhomes be brick-veneered, but he was reluctant to table the rezoning request because he and the church had arrived on a price.  Also, he and the City engineers had discussed in detail accommodating stormwater run-off.

 

       Commission Member Hargrave stated that he has compassion for the church in its need to sell some of the land; however, hearing from a church member could clear up some of the Commission’s concerns.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh stated that he wished to withdraw his motion to table the item.  Commission Member Cobb also withdrew his motion.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh made a motion to approve the rezoning request with the contingency that the townhomes be brick-veneered.  Mr. Cobb seconded the motion.

 

       Commission Member Franks pointed out to adjoining homeowners that if they think that 11 townhomes would be too dense for the property, they should consider what could be developed on the property.

 

       Voting to recommend approval of the rezoning request with the added contingency that the townhomes be brick-veneered were Burwell, Byrd and Hargrave.  Voting against the motion to recommend approval of the rezoning were Cowan, Millspaugh and Cobb.

 

 

 

       ITEM NO. 9Commission discussed its December meeting date. 

 

       This was a City and extraterritorial item.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that the fourth Monday in December would be the 27th and that the City will be closed on that day for the holidays.  Another alternative would be to move the meeting date up a week, and there was discussion among Commission members that a couple of them would not be able to attend on that date.

 

       Commission Member Cobb made a motion to cancel the December meeting.  Mr. Franks seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to cancel its December meeting.

 

       There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.

 

 

 

 

                                                                             _____________________________________

                                                                             George A. Byrd, Jr., Chairman

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                             _____________________________________

                                                                             James M. Burwell, Secretary