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

 

MINUTES OF THE BURLINGTON PLANNING

AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING

 

August 22, 2005

 

Council Chamber, Burlington Municipal Building

 

 

CITY MEMBERS:                                                EXTRATERRITORIAL MEMBERS:

 

George Byrd, Chairman, Present                            Bud Apple, Present

Paul Cobb, Secretary                                    John Enoch, Absent

John Black, Present                                     Richard Franks, Present

Lynn Cowan, Present                                   Jim Johnson, Present

Elder Greg Hargrave, Absent                        Ellis Piper, Present

Gordon Millspaugh, Present                          Bob Ware, Present

 

STAFF PRESENT:

 

Robert R. Harkrader, Director of Planning/Economic Development

Daniel Shoffner, Planner I

Haywood Cloud, Zoning/Subdivision Administrator

Dianne Fogleman, Office Assistant

 

 

       ITEM NO. 1Chairman Byrd called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  He asked for the nomination and election of Secretary to replace Jim Burwell, who resigned from the Commission.  Commission Member Apple made a motion to nominate Paul Cobb as Secretary.  Bob Ware seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to elect Mr. Cobb as Secretary.

 

       Chairman Byrd stated that the Commission appreciated Mr. Burwell’s service to the City.  He also welcomed Mr. John Black who will serve on the Commission as a City member.  Chairman Byrd stated that Mr. Black previously served on the Burlington Parks and Recreation Commission.

 

       ITEM NO. 2: Minutes of the meeting held July 25, 2005, were unanimously approved.  This was a City and extraterritorial item.

 

       ITEM NO. 3: Consent agenda:  (City)

 

(A)   Mr. Bob Dischinger, representing D. R. Horton, Inc., presented an application for final plat approval of Phase 2, Ingle Park Gardens Subdivision.  The property is located on the west side of Springwood Church Road approximately 1,600 feet north of Whitsett Park Road as shown on plans by Evans Engineering, Inc., dated August 5, 2005, and containing 52 lots.

 

(B)   Mr. Mark Reich, representing Wakefield Development Company, presented an application for final plat approval of Phase 1, Sections 1 and 2, of Mackintosh on the Lake “Avalon.”  The property is located on Bonnar Bridge Parkway, south of Interstate 85/40 and west of St. Mark’s Church Road as shown on plans by Alley, Williams, Carmen and King, Inc., dated March 11, 2005, and containing 41 lots.

 

(C)   Mr. Jimmy Collins, representing Concept Builders, presented an application for final plat approval of Phase 3, Abbington Place Townhomes, Lots 20 through 25.  The property is located on the Western Alamance Loop approximately 1,000 feet north of the intersection of Rural Retreat Road as shown on plans by Fleming Engineering, Inc., dated August 3, 2005, and containing six lots.

 

       Staff recommended approval of (A) and (C) and recommended approval of (B) contingent upon completion of street construction or the applicant posting proper surety with the City Engineering Department prior to recording the plat.

 

       Commission Secretary Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of (A) and (C) and recommended approval of (B) with the contingency outlined by staff.  Gordon Millspaugh seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of (A) and (C) and recommended approval of (B) contingent upon completion of street construction or the applicant posting proper surety with the City Engineering Department prior to recording the plat.

 

       Consent agenda:  (Extraterritorial)

 

(D)   Mr. Rodney Herring, representing Martin Marietta Aggregates, Burlington Quarry, presented an application for final plat approval of the Martin Marietta Aggregates Right-of-Way Dedication and Recombination of Lots 1 and 2.  The property is located on the east side of Huffman Mill Road approximately 3,000 feet south of Grand Oaks Boulevard as shown on plans by Simmons Engineering and Surveying, Inc., dated July 7, 2005.

 

(E)   Withdrawn

 

(F)   Mr. Jimmy  Collins, representing Concept Builders, presented an application for final plat approval of the Burchwood Commons Subdivision.  The property is located on the southwest side of Burch Bridge Road approximately 70 feet southeast of the northern right-of-way line of Old Glencoe Road as shown on a plat by Fleming Engineering and Surveying, Inc., dated July 27, 2005, and containing three lots.

      

(G)   Mr. Wayne Perry, representing Mr. Kenneth White, presented an application for preliminary plan approval of Glen Meadows Subdivision.  The property is located on the southeast corner of Old Glencoe Road and Lakeside Avenue as shown on plans by Wayne B. Perry dated June 21, 2005, and containing 10 lots.

 

(H)   Withdrawn

 

(I)    Mr. Rodney Herring, representing Keystone Group, Inc., presented an application for final plat approval of Phase 6, Section 2, of the Brassfield Meadows Subdivision.  The property is located on the east side of Lakeside Avenue approximately 800 feet south of Fernway Drive as shown on plans by Simmons Engineering and Surveying, Inc., dated August 8, 2005, and containing 35 lots.

 

       Staff recommended approval of (D), (F) and (G) and recommended approval of (I) contingent upon completion of street construction or the applicant posting proper surety with the City Engineering Department prior to recording the plat.

 

       Regarding (G), Commission Member Johnson asked what type of housing is planned for the subdivision.  Mr. Perry stated that homes would be 1,200 square feet and up and site-built.

 

       Commission Member Franks made a motion to recommend approval of (D) and (F); to recommend approval of (I) with the contingency outlined by staff; and to approve (G).  Bud Apple seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of (D) and (E); to recommend approval of (I) contingent upon completion of street construction or the applicant posting proper surety with the City Engineering Department prior to recording the plat; and to approve (G).

 

       ITEM NO. 4: Mr. Darrell Gauthier presented an application to rezone from B-2, General Business District, to I-2, Light Industrial District, the property located on the northwest corner of West Webb Avenue and Flora Avenue and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 3-5, Lots 11, 12 and 14.

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Mr. Gauthier stated that he plans to manufacture and sell granite countertops at the former Barbee Fabrics and Barbee Metal Detector locations.  He pointed out that all manufacturing would be take place inside thus eliminating any external noise.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh inquired about the hours, and Mr. Gauthier stated they would be from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.  Mr. Millspaugh also asked if there would be any outside storage and was told that all storage would be inside.

 

       Commission Secretary Cobb asked if the application included rezoning of property at the rear of the sites and was told that the rezoning included only Lots 11, 12 and 14.

 

       Commission Member Cowan asked if the petitioner anticipated a lot of traffic.  Mr. Gauthier stated there would be counter sales; however, clients and developers would be going there mainly to pick out colors.

 

       Commission Member Black asked if the facility would be open on Saturdays and Sundays and was told that there would probably be Saturday morning hours only.

 

       Commission Member Johnson asked if there would be much truck traffic.  Mr. Gauthier stated that granite palettes would be delivered via trucks; however, a palette would last a long time.  He pointed out that mostly vans would be picking up the countertops.

 

       Commission Secretary Cobb asked Mr. Gauthier if he was already in business elsewhere.  Mr. Gauthier stated that he was not and that a patent is pending on the product he will be offering.  The palettes will be shipped from Texas and will be cut and stored inside the Burlington facility.

 

       Staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning on the basis that it will be an appropriate extension of existing I-2 zoning densities in the area.  Planning Director Harkrader stated that I-2 zoning will permit manufacturing and retail sales at the location.

 

       Commission Secretary 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.

 

       The Commission found that the zoning change as requested would not adversely affect the adjoining property and would be in keeping with land use planning in the area.          

      

       ITEM NO. 5: Staff presented an application for initial zoning of property recently annexed into the City of Burlington from the Town of Gibsonville.  The property is located north of Interstate 85/40 at the corner of North Carolina Highway 61 and Pace Drive as shown on Guilford County Tax Map 0202-008-0000-81, Lots 15, 53, 19, 52 and 5.  The property was previously zoned H-B, Highway Business District, and is proposed to be rezoned to B-2, General Business District.

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that by an act of the North Carolina General Assembly, the Town of Gibsonville and the City of Burlington exchanged properties effective June 30, 2005, and the City is initially zoning the newly acquired property.

 

       Staff recommended approval of rezoning the property to B-2, General Business District.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh made a motion to recommend approval of zoning the newly annexed property to B-2, General Business District.  Paul Cobb seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to zone the recently annexed property to B-2, General Business District.

 

       ITEM NO. 6: Staff presented an application for initial zoning of two properties recently annexed into the City of Burlington from the Town of Gibsonville. These properties were previously zoned LI, Light Industrial, and proposed zoning is I-2, Light Industrial District. Property #1 is located north of Pace Drive approximately 2,200 feet east of North Carolina Highway 61 as shown on Guilford County Tax Map 0202-008-0000-81, Lot 69.  Property #2 is located north of Interstate 85/40 and east of Springwood Church Road as shown on Guilford County Tax Map 0202-008-0000-48, Lots 12, 21, 13 and 17.

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Staff recommended approval of rezoning the two properties to I-2, Light Industrial District.

 

       Commission Secretary Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of zoning the two newly annexed properties to I-2, Light Industrial District.  Lynn Cowan seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to zone the two recently annexed properties to I-2, Light Industrial District.

 

       ITEM NO. 7: Mr. Mark Reich, representing Great Stops, LLC, presented an application to rezone from B-1, Neighborhood Business District, and B-2, General Business District, to CB, Conditional Business District, to allow a convenience store with restaurant and a laundromat.  The property is located at 726 North Church Street as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 56-232, Lots 107 and 122.

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Mr. Reich introduced Mr. Frank Sutton and Mr. Patrick Parsons with Great Stops, LLC.

 

       Mr. Reich outlined the use and development conditions and pointed out that a natural stream runs underneath Fisher Street via a 42-inch pipe.

 

       Commission Secretary Cobb asked what happens to the water once it flows underneath Fisher Street.  Mr. Reich stated that water would be piped 150 feet to the lower end of the lot.

 

       Commission Member Johnson asked if the lots were proned to flood, and Mr. Reich stated that he was not aware of any flooding and that the 42-inch pipe extension should cover the flow.

 

       Mr. Sutton, co-partner with Great Stops, LLC, stated that they had seven similar facilities between Greensboro and Raleigh.  The upscale convenience stores will offer Western Union services, accept utility payments and include a fast-food restaurant such as a Little Caesar’s, Subway or Dairy Queen. The company’s own gas will be sold at a competitive price.

 

       Commission Member Byrd asked if staff had received any calls regarding the rezoning.  Planning Director Harkrader stated that he had one inquiry.

 

       Commission Secretary Cobb inquired about the hours and was told the business would be open 24 hours a day.  Mr. Cobb asked about security, and Mr. Sutton stated that there would be four or five on staff at all times, that security cameras would be present as well as off-duty policemen on the weekends if there was a need.  Lighting will also hinder unwanted activity, and drinking of alcoholic beverages will not be allowed on the premises.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh stated that the facility would offer an improvement to the neighborhood.

 

       Staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning with the use and development conditions submitted by the petitioner as well as the site plan.  Planning Director Harkrader stated that 90 percent of the property was already zoned B-2, and through the Conditional Zoning application, staff was able to control the locations of the driveways.  He also pointed out that staff anticipates a lot of foot traffic; however, the location of the stream prevents construction of a sidewalk at this time.

 

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

 

Use Conditions

 

Construct an L-shaped 8,568 square foot building to house a convenience store/fast food restaurant and a laundromat facing Fisher Street.  In addition to the building, there will be eight gas dispensers under a canopy.

 

Development Conditions

 

1.    A car wash no longer in service and an existing masonry structure currently used as a church facility will be removed from the 1.35 acre property.

 

2.    A minimum of 40 parking spaces will be provided in accordance with the City of Burlington zoning requirements.

 

3.    A 25-foot setback will be maintained along Fulton Street; 15-foot side yard setbacks abutting North Fisher Street and North Church Street; and a 20-foot rear setback on the MF-A zoned property to the west.

 

4.    There will be two pole signs erected in accordance with Section 32.13 of the Burlington Zoning Ordinance.

 

5.    Landscaping will be provided in accordance with Section 32.11A of the Zoning Ordinance.

 

6.    Detailed construction drawings for water, sewer, storm drainage, grading and erosion control will be provided for approval by the City Engineering Department.

 

       The Commission found that the zoning change as requested would not adversely affect the adjoining property and would be in keeping with land use planning in the area.

 

       ITEM NO. 8: Mr. Charles Bateman, representing Mr. Tommy Strigo, presented an application to rezone from I-1, Planned Industrial District, to CI, Conditional Industrial District, to allow construction of two monopole outdoor advertising signs.  The property is located on the west side of Trail Two approximately 230 feet south of Moran Street and north of Interstate 85/40 as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 12-5-4.

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Mr. Bateman stated that with all the commercial development taking place in the City, there is a need for advertising signs, and because of limited I-2 zones, there are few places where advertising as well as directional signs can be erected.  The proposed rezoning would be beneficial to both the property owner as well as the neighborhood.  He explained that once the two signs were erected, the balance of the two-acre property will be allowed to grow and become a natural buffer between Interstate 85/40 and the residential neighborhood.  He maintained that this would be a win-win situation for both the property owner and neighborhood.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that this property would be difficult to develop because of its sharp angles and setback limits.  He pointed out that an existing billboard on the property is actually located on a public right-of-way. He admitted that it would be difficult to find a good use for the property; however, two billboards would be a little too much in staff’s opinion.  Mr. Harkrader stated that staff could support one double-faced sign but not two.

 

       Commission Chairman Byrd questioned the integrity of the signs during severe weather.

 

       Mr. Bateman stated that the monopoles are constructed to endure severe weather.

 

       Commission Member Johnson questioned why the signs were to be located 100 feet from the front property line – was it a Zoning Ordinance regulation or for the benefit of passersby or the neighbors?

 

       Mr. Bateman answered that it is to ensure visibility. He stated that he could amend the application to 50 feet from the front line and 50 feet in the back.  Mr. Johnson asked Planning Director Harkrader if this would help in the concerns of staff and also provide more buffer.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader pointed out that there is fairly dense vegetation on the property that will offer the needed buffer.  Mr. Bateman stated that he would amend the application to 25 feet if that would help.

 

       Commission Member Black questioned why there was so much distance between the proposed two billboards, and Mr. Harkrader stated that the Zoning Ordinance and the North Carolina Department of Transportation require a minimum of 500 feet between signs.  He pointed out that if the signs were to be located further west they would be too close to the residential area.

 

       Mr. Harkrader stated that a portion of the right-of-way for Trail Two may be abandoned and the existing billboard located on the public right-of-way may also be abandoned.

 

       Commission Member Cowan asked if the right-of-way were to be abandoned, would the property be split between Mr. Strigo and the Elk’s Club.  Mr. Harkrader stated that it would be split between the two.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked if the petitioner could withdraw or table the rezoning application and come back with a request for one monopole.  Planning Director Harkrader stated that the petitioner would be allowed to do that.

 

       Mr. Millspaugh made a motion to table the item until the next meeting and allow the petitioner to talk with someone at the Elk’s Club and come up with a design for one monopole located further away from the residential area.  Lynn Cowan seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to allow the applicant to table the rezoning request until the next meeting.

 

       ITEM NO. 9: Mr. Lawson Brown, representing Seas Real Estate Development, Inc., presented an application to rezone from R-15, Residential District, to CR, Conditional Residential District, to allow construction of 279 apartment units, Ethan Pointe.  The property is located on the east side of Kirkpatrick Road approximately 915 feet south of Grand Oaks Boulevard as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 3, Block 22D, Lot 34.

 

       This was an extraterritorial item.

 

       Mr. Brown introduced Mr. Steve Silverman with Seas Real Estate Development and Mr. Steve Husmann, architect for the project.

 

       Mr. Brown stated that the proposed luxurious apartment complex would include a pool, volleyball court, club room, basketball court, fitness center, game and billiard room, tennis court, car wash with vacuum, spas, cinema room and outdoor grills and picnic areas within three acres of recreational space.  In addition, the apartments and amenities would be handicapped accessible. Custom interior features would include gourmet kitchens with granite countertops, high ceilings and walk-in closets.

 

       Mr. Brown maintained that CR zoning for the apartments is equal in density with the Area Land Use Plan for the Western Loop, and the project plans provide that all impervious surface runoff be handled in accordance with local, state and federal laws.  In addition, he stated, the proposed residential use is in harmony with the surrounding zoning in that it provides a buffer from the Office-Institutional zones to the north and west to the single-family residences to the south and far east.

 

       Mr. Brown stated that the main access to the development would be on Kirkpatrick Road with a secondary access planned for Grand Oaks Boulevard when that section of the road is constructed.  He pointed out that the developers have agreed to dedicate a 60-foot right-of-way through Tract 1 for the extension of Grand Oaks Boulevard as well as a 60-foot right-of-way to the north on Tract 2 that the developer has under contract.

 

       Dr. Rodney Waschka, 2464 Churchill Drive, spoke in opposition to the request for rezoning.  He stated that there are plenty of multifamily uses in the area and that the apartment complex could devalue current surrounding single-family residences and those in the future.  He pointed out traffic issues are already present on Kirkpatrick Road, Huffman Mill Road and Highway 62 and the City should address these issues before allowing the complex to be built.  In addition, he stated that once Grand Oaks Boulevard is extended, there would be more cut-through traffic.  He told the Commission that in 1996, he was told that Grand Oaks Boulevard would be extended in two years, but that has not happened.  At this point, NCDOT cannot give a date for the extension.  Dr. Waschka also pointed out that there is a tremendous amount of cut-through traffic to Winston Drive, Eric Lane and Alamance Road and  that he anticipates more  traffic with  additional commercial  retailers in the vicinity  of  J. R.’s.  He stated that Grand Oaks had become a pass-through and traffic had radically increased in the quiet, upscale neighborhood.

 

       Mr. Ken Little, 3314 Waterford Place, stated that he too was opposed to the apartments being constructed.  An increase in traffic was his main concern.  He pointed out that there are only stop signs at both ends of Kirkpatrick Road and he has a problem with the City not doing anything about the traffic problem.  With Grand Oaks Boulevard becoming four lanes, that traffic will have to go somewhere and the roads in that vicinity just can’t accommodate any more traffic.  He stated that it was incumbent upon the City to address the traffic situation.

 

       Mr. Steven Brady, Vice President, GMAC Commercial Mortgage, stated that his son graduated from Elon University in 2002 and that he has been watching Burlington grow.  He stated that with all the commercial growth, Burlington needs apartments such as these being proposed. 

 

       Commission Member Johnson asked if a traffic study had been made in the area.  Mr. Brown stated that only a market study had been made.

 

       Ms. Kimberly Daughtry, 3321 Waterford Place, stated that her daughter likes to walk in the neighborhood and that the City should think of the children when they have to make a decision on the rezoning. 

 

       Mr. Johnson asked Ms. Daughtry if she was aware of any petitions being circulated among neighbors opposing the rezoning.  She stated that she was not but she had been out of town.

 

       Mr. Brown stated that he was sympathetic to those who have spoken and pointed out that Grand Oaks Boulevard from the very beginning was designed to be a major thoroughfare that would eventually connect University Drive to the proposed Southern Loop, and asked what better place to have an apartment complex than on a major thoroughfare.

 

       Commission Member Johnson asked Mr. Brown if he understood correctly that the developers would dedicate to the NCDOT right-of-way for the future extension of Grand Oaks Boulevard.  Mr. Brown stated that the developers will dedicate the 60-foot right-of-way as well as construct the portion of Grand Oaks Boulevard on their property.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked if the complex would be in the E. M. Holt School district and was told that it would be.  Mr. Millspaugh stated that the district was already overcrowded and he wondered where these kids would be put.

 

       Mr. Brown stated that the Alamance County Commissioners would have to build more schools to accommodate new growth.  He stated that he is amazed that the City nor County have school impact fees that other local governments have in place.

 

       Mr. Silverman told Commission members that he has found that approximately 20 percent of renters for units such as these are empty nesters while others are single or married professionals – many of whom do not want to invest in homes and who will be moving in a couple of years.  Only a small percentage will be families.

 

       Commission Member Ware asked if water and sewer were available and was told that it was already in place on Kirkpatrick Road.  He commented that he thought everyone should be jumping up and down about the school situation and not the traffic.

 

       Commission Member Cowan asked if land acquisition had begun yet for the extension of Grand Oaks Boulevard and was told that it had not.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that the road extension was a TIP project and construction should commence within two to three years.  Once the extension of Grand Oaks Boulevard is completed, it will provide access to Huffman Mill Road and University Drive.

 

       Mr. Harkrader stated that the apartment complex project presents several problems.  Before the City changes the density of an area, it has to look at the traffic situation.  With growth comes traffic, he stated.  And in staff’s opinion, it was a bad idea to subdivide the property as proposed because it unduly limits access.  There would be a good traffic flow at the proposed complex if Grand Oaks Boulevard were built, he added.  He stated that staff had a problem with the overall density and only one entrance/exit.  There were just too many unknowns at this time.  Further, he indicated that whereas the City has no purview or authority over the County Commissioners or school system, the bodies need to communicate regularly to determine how to face school issues. 

 

       In conclusion, he stated that staff recommended denial of the request for Conditional zoning on the basis that there were just too many unanswered questions.

 

       Commission Member Johnson stated that he was concerned with the density as compared to regular housing.

 

       Commission Member Franks commented that it seems every month members are put on the spot in dealing with developments such as this.  It is difficult for the schools to handle an influx of students because of all the new development and with all this new development comes additional traffic.  He stated that he realizes that because Grand Oaks Boulevard is a main thoroughfare, it becomes an ideal location for a complex such as this; however, with only one entrance into the complex at this time, he made a motion to recommend denial.

 

       Jim Johnson seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the request for rezoning.

 

 

       THE COMMISSION HAD A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS AT 9:00 P.M.

 

 

       ITEM NO. 10: Mr. Dale Swiggett presented an application to rezone from R-15, Residential District, to CR, Conditional Residential District, to allow for the construction of two single-family residences.  The property is located on north side of West Davis Street between Trollinger and Peele Streets as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 85, Block 602, Lot 104.

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Mr. Swiggett stated that he plans to construct two American four-square brownstone homes on the property along with two detached garages.  He noted that the homes would be handicapped-accessible with cobblestone walkways and gardens.

 

       Mr. Swiggett maintained that the majority of lots on Davis Street and Fountain Place were 50 feet wide – large homes on small lots – and the average home is 76 feet from the centerline of the street.  He stated that one of proposed homes would be 65 feet from the centerline, and the density would be similar to homes on Fountain Place.   He maintained that he consulted the Historic District guidelines when designing the homes and layout.  These homes should sell for about a half a million dollars each, he stated.

 

       Commission Member Johnson asked what would be the road frontage for these two homes.  Mr. Swiggett explained that one house will be closer to the street than the other one; basically, one lot would have 86 feet road frontage and the other, 19 feet.

 

       Commission Member Cowan stated that Mr. Swiggett referenced Fountain Place and Davis Street as comparisons; however, there was not another lot on these streets where a house sits behind another one.  She stated that there are typically larger lots in the area.  She pointed out that while there is zoning to be considered, there is also a Historic Overlay District.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that Mr. Swiggett is requesting to rezone from R-15 to Conditional zoning in order to build the two homes on one lot, and in addition, he must meet all regulations imposed by the Burlington Historic Preservation Commission.  Therefore, he must go before the Planning and Zoning Commission, Burlington City Council and Historic Preservation Commission to get approval for his project.

 

       Mr. Swiggett maintained that he had gone before the Historic Commission, and they had sent him back to the Planning and Zoning Commission.  He stated that he had gone to a great deal of expense in having plans drawn up.

 

       Commission Member Cowan asked Mr. Swiggett if he had undertaken projects such as this before.  He answered 15 projects.

 

       Mr. Harkrader stated that Mr. Swiggett was unfair in stating that he had previously come to staff regarding this project.  He asked staff member Daniel Shoffner, who serves as advisor to the Historic Preservation Commission, to explain the situation.

 

       Mr. Shoffner stated that Mr. Swiggett came to the Planning Department and talked to Susan Taylor, who formerly served as Commission advisor.  He explained that Ms. Taylor told Mr. Swiggett that brownstones were not favorable in the Historic District and that he needed to consult the Historic Guidelines and also talk to Mr. Joey Lea, City Zoning Enforcement Officer, regarding adhering to zoning regulations in R-15 Districts.

 

       Mr. Swiggett claimed that he had the plans for the homes drafted after he met with staff.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader told the Commission that he tried to meet with Mr. Swiggett last week, and his son told him that his father was out of town.  Mr. Harkrader, Mr. Shoffner and Mr. Lea, therefore, met with the son who showed staff plans for the homes.

 

       Mr. Harkrader stated that staff had problems with the density and that R-15 zoning requires 15,000 square feet per unit.  Therefore, Mr. Swiggett’s plans do not meet density requirements.

 

       Mrs. Mary Donnell, 715 West Davis Street, stated that she and her husband built their home next door to Mr. Swiggett four and a half years ago and that they had to comply with all zoning and Historic Guidelines.  She stated that she and her husband were opposed to Mr. Swiggett’s plans to build two houses on the adjoining lot on the basis that it would lessen the property values of surrounding homes.  She stated that the historic and zoning regulations are in place to protect the district.  They would like to see a single-family home constructed on the property.

 

       Mrs. Helen Walton, 517 Fountain Place and Chairman of the Burlington Historic Preservation Commission, stated that she nor any member of the Historic Commission had ever met Mr. Swiggett nor seen his proposed plans.  She also explained that homes on Fountain Place have 70 feet of road frontage and not 50 feet as Mr. Swiggett claimed.  She quoted the following paragraph from the Burlington Historic Preservation Commission’s Design Review Manuel:

 

       “The objective of new construction guidelines is not to prevent change, but to ensure that future construction projects respect the general character of the historic district neighborhoods.  New construction can be an attractive element in the historic district and affords the opportunity to eliminate vacant lots and missing gaps in the urban fabric.  New buildings do not have to copy historic building designs, but they should adhere to established neighborhood design principles.  Contemporary styles are encouraged if the styles blend comfortably with the neighborhood.  Buildings should always reflect the point in time when they were constructed”

 

         Mrs. Walton stated that Mr. Swiggett’s designs do not conform to others in the neighborhood and that he has a long way to go before he has the square footage to build two homes on the property.  She maintained that the homes would stand out because they would not conform to others in the neighborhood.

 

       Mr. Jerry Baumgarner, 703 West Davis Street, distributed maps showing Mr. Swiggett’s planned layout of the homes.  He stated that a section of the proposed homes was on his property and that none of his property was for sale.

 

       Mr. Swiggett’s son explained that the drawing of the proposed new construction was taken from a GIS map and therefore was not accurate – lot lines were “guesstimated.”

 

       Ms. Lela Faye Rich, 607 West Davis Street, stated that she had lived in her home for 27 years and that Mr. Swiggett’s project would not conform with surrounding homes.

 

       Ms. Anne Morrison, 916 West Davis Street, told the Commission that she had lived in her home for 38 years and was a member of the Burlington Historic Preservation Commission.  She stated that Mr. Swiggett should have come before the Historic Commission first and saved himself a lot of time and money.  She explained that the Commission had put a lot of effort forward to establish the district and had gained the power to control renovations as well as new construction.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader pointed out that one of Mr. Swiggett’s homes would have 86-feet road frontage and the other one 19 feet.

 

       Mr. Swiggett stated that as another option, he would be willing to subdivide the lot into two lots, and Mr. Harkrader stated that subdividing the lot would not comply with the City of Burlington Subdivision Regulations as there would not be enough road frontage for two homes in the R-15 zoned district.  In conclusion, Mr. Harkrader stated that Mr. Swiggett’s designs need fine tuning.

 

       Mr. John Williams, 612 West Davis Street, told the Commission that he is a realtor and real estate broker and that Mr. Swiggett’s proposal does not meet R-15 regulations and that the two homes on the lot would be an eyesore because of the proposed configuration.  He stated that he opposed Mr. Swiggett’s request for rezoning.

 

       Commission Secretary Cobb made a motion to recommend denial of the request for rezoning.  Gordon Millspaugh seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the rezoning request.

 

       ITEM NO. 11: Mr. Charles Bateman, representing WMW Development, LLC, presented an application to rezone from O-I, Office-Institutional District, to CB, Conditional Business District, and COI, Conditional Office-Institutional District, to allow construction of The Shoppes at Waterford, a Unified Business Development.  The property is located at the southwest corner of South Church Street (US Highway 70) and University Drive (Highway 70 Bypass) as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 3, Block 27, Lots 7 and 8A.

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Mr. Bateman presented an amendment to the rezoning application stating that subject to approval by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the developer would install mast arm signalization at the intersection of Dunleigh Drive and University Drive.

 

       Mr. Bateman outlined the use and development conditions of the proposed 123,000 square foot project.  He noted that a traffic study conducted in the area had been presented to staff and the NCDOT. 

 

       He introduced Mr. Brad Rhinehalt and Mr. Rod Young with the Zimmer Development Company.

 

       Mr. Rhinehalt stated that the development would be a neighborhood center with Lowe’s Food Store as its anchor tenant which will serve the 8,000 planned homes within a five-mile radius.

 

       Staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning with the use and development conditions submitted by the petitioner.  Planning Director Harkrader stated that the finalization of the project had been a long process and that there had been a lot of give and take on the developers’ as well as City’s part.  He reminded Commission members that during a joint meeting with City Council several months ago, it was determined that staff must look closely at land uses in the area, and thus far, the City had come close to achieving those goals.  Mr. Harkrader stated that he had seen a similar Zimmer development in Wilmington and that staff had a good feeling about the quality of development the company plans for Burlington.  Also, the development meets the high standards hoped for along this corridor.

 

       Commission Member Ware asked if there would be an entrance off University Drive and was told that there would be.

 

       Commission Secretary Cobb asked if a drug store would be located within the development.  Mr. Young stated that a drug store would require a corner location and that wetlands had prohibited a suitable site.

 

       Commission Member Franks asked what route trucks servicing the grocery store would take.  Mr. Young stated that trucks would utilize the entrance/exit off Dunleigh Drive near the rear of the grocery store.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked about the building phase.

 

       Mr. Young stated that the grocery store would be built immediately – within three to four months following approval – and the Office-Institutional area would be built as soon as they can get buyers. 

 

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

 

Use Conditions

 

Area 1 – Uses of the property shall be limited to those allowed in a Unified Business Development with the addition of dry cleaners as listed in Section 9, Table of Permitted Uses, in the City of Burlington Zoning Ordinance.

 

Area 2 – Uses shall be limited to those allowed in O-I, Office-Institutional District, with the addition of a sit-down restaurant without a drive-in as listed in Section 9, Table of Permitted Uses, City of Burlington Zoning Ordinance.

 

Area 3 – Uses shall be limited to those allowed in O-I, Office-Institutional District, as listed in Section 9, Table of Permitted Uses, City of Burlington Zoning Ordinance.

 

Development Conditions

 

(Development conditions apply to all three areas)

 

1.    Blanket cross access agreements and shared parking agreements shall apply to each individual outparcel.

 

2.    Architectural unity will be evident throughout the project with a Unified Development Plan providing guidelines for building materials, colors, architectural elements, signage, etc., for all principal and accessory buildings.

 

3.    Dumpsters shall not be located within 30 feet of any neighboring residential use and shall also be screened and enclosed with similar materials and colors specified in the Unified Development Plan.

 

4.    Specific lots shall be subdivided as shown on the plan.

 

5.    Subject to approval by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the developer will install mast arm signalization at the intersection of Dunleigh Drive and University Drive.

 

6.    For Lot 7 (Area 2), minimum elevations and landscaping requirements shall be presented for staff approval.

 

7.    Development Monument Signs: Three development monument signs shall have a maximum height of 25 feet and a maximum width of 20 feet for a total of 500 square feet per face.  The site plan indicates the general location of the three signs.

 

8.    Outparcel Signage: Each building shall be allowed one outparcel sign that will have a maximum height of seven feet and a maximum width of nine feet for a total of 63 square feet per face.

 

9.    Building Signage: Each building elevation that fronts on a public roadway or has a public building entrance or frontage along a private drive shall be allowed a wall sign. Accordingly, for elevations that are allowed wall signage, a maximum of two square feet of signage area shall be allowed for each one foot of linear facade.

 

       The Commission found that the zoning change as requested would not adversely affect the adjoining property and would be in keeping with land use planning in the area.

 

       ITEM NO. 12: Staff presented amendments Sections 32.10:O and 32.10:QQ of the City of Burlington Zoning Ordinance text pertaining to veterinary establishments in Unified Business Developments.

 

       Staff recommended approval of the amendments.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that a veterinarian has requested to establish an office, and staff determined that the Zoning Ordinance needed to be amended to accommodate such a facility.

 

       Commission Secretary Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of the amendments.  Bud Apple seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the following amendments to the City of Burlington Zoning Ordinance text:

 

Amend Section 32.10:O as follows:

 

FROM:

 

O.      Veterinary Establishments: Veterinary establishments shall be at least 200 feet from any property zoned Residential or Office-Institutional and at least 100 feet from any property zoned B-1. Where all buildings and exercise yards are enclosed and soundproofed, the foregoing space separating such from other districts shall not be required.

 

TO:

 

O.      Veterinary EstablishmentsFree-standing veterinary establishments shall be at least 200 feet from any property zoned Residential or Office-Institutional and at least 100 feet from any property zoned B-1. Where all buildings and exercise yards are enclosed and soundproofed, the foregoing space separating such from other districts shall not be required.

          1.       Operational standards for attached veterinary establishments (i.e. found in an Unified Business Development, retail center, strip mall, shopping center, etc.):

                   a.       All activities other than off-street parking and loading/unloading shall be conducted from a fully enclosed structure.  This includes exercise runways.

                   b.       Each structure shall be designed and maintained in a manner to prevent the development of unsanitary conditions.

                   c.       All buildings and exercise yards shall be enclosed and soundproofed.

 

Amend Section 32.10:QQ as follows:

 

FROM:

 

QQ.    Unified Business Developments: A development containing two or more business establishments that will be constructed on one or multiple properties that are contiguous and when combined equal three or more acres. The development must be planned, organized, and managed to function as a unified whole and feature the following: 1) common driveways; 2) common parking; 3) common signage; and 4) a common landscaping plan. Such integrated developments may include out-parcels for lease or for sale that may be intersected by public streets. A Unified Business Development may be permitted in the districts indicated in Section 32.9, Table of Permitted Uses, subject to the following requirements:

 

          1.       Permitted Uses: Uses permitted in a Unified Business Development shall be the same as the uses permitted in the B-2 District as indicated in the Table of Permitted Uses, Section 32.9, except for the following uses that are not permitted in a Unified Business Development: automobile body and fender repairing; automobile sales, new and used; automobile laundries; automobile repair shops; bottling works; boarding houses, rooming houses; cemeteries; drive-in restaurants except in accordance with Paragraph 5, below; drive-in theaters; dwellings of any type; electrical shops; funeral homes; golf courses, par-three; golf driving ranges; laundries unless meeting the requirements of Section 32.10:K.; motor vehicles, agricultural implements, heavy machinery sales, repair, rental or storage; plumbing shops; sheet metal, roofing shops; transportation terminals, freight; travel trailer parks; veterinary establishments; wholesale establishments; warehouses, sales or service; woodworking shops. In addition, a Unified Business Development located within a B-1 District is limited to the uses permitted by the Table of Permitted Uses, Section 32.9, for the B-1 Neighborhood Business District.

 

TO:

 

QQ.    Unified Business Developments: A development containing two or more business establishments that will be constructed on one or multiple properties that are contiguous and when combined equal three or more acres. The development must be planned, organized and managed to function as a unified whole and feature the following: 1) common driveways; 2) common parking; 3) common signage; and 4) a common landscaping plan. Such integrated developments may include out-parcels for lease or for sale that may be intersected by public streets. A Unified Business Development may be permitted in the districts indicated in Section 32.9, Table of Permitted Uses, subject to the following requirements:

 

          1.       Permitted Uses: Uses permitted in a Unified Business Development shall be the same as the uses permitted in the B-2 District as indicated in the Table of Permitted Uses, Section 32.9, except for the following uses that are not permitted in a Unified Business Development: automobile body and fender repairing; automobile sales, new and used; automobile laundries; automobile repair shops; bottling works; boarding houses, rooming houses; cemeteries; drive-in restaurants except in accordance with Paragraph 5, below; drive-in theaters; dwellings of any type; electrical shops; funeral homes; golf courses, par-three; golf driving ranges; laundries unless meeting the requirements of Section 32.10:K.; motor vehicles, agricultural implements, heavy machinery sales, repair, rental or storage; plumbing shops; sheet metal, roofing shops; transportation terminals, freight; travel trailer parks; veterinary establishments; wholesale


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                   establishments; warehouses, sales or service; woodworking shops. In addition, a Unified Business Development located within a B-1 District is limited to the uses permitted by the Table of Permitted Uses, Section 32.9, for the B-1 Neighborhood Business District.

 

 

       There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                             _____________________________________

                                                                                  George A. Byrd, Jr., Chairman

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                             _____________________________________

                                                                                   Paul E. Cobb, Jr., Secretary