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

 

MINUTES OF THE BURLINGTON PLANNING

AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING

 

September 26, 2005

 

Council Chamber, Burlington Municipal Building

 

 

CITY MEMBERS:                                                               EXTRATERRITORIAL MEMBERS:

 

George Byrd, Chairman, Present                   Bud Apple, Present

Paul Cobb, Secretary, Present                   John Enoch, Absent

John Black, Present                   Richard Franks, Present

Lynn Cowan, Absent                   Jim Johnson, Present

Elder Greg Hargrave, Absent                   Ellis Piper, Absent

Gordon Millspaugh, Present                   Bob Ware, Present

 

STAFF PRESENT:

 

Robert R. Harkrader, Director of Planning/Economic Development

Haywood Cloud, Zoning/Subdivision Administrator

Dianne Fogleman, Office Assistant

 

 

       ITEM NO. 1Chairman Byrd called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

       ITEM NO. 2: Minutes of the special meeting for City members held September 6, 2005, were unanimously approved.  This was a City item.  Minutes of the regular meeting held August 22, 2005, were unanimously approved.  This was a City and extraterritorial item.

 

       ITEM NO. 3: Consent agenda:  (City)

 

(A)   Mr. Mark Reich with Alley, Williams, Carmen and King, Inc., representing Wakefield Development Company, presented an application for final plat approval for the street right-of-way dedication for Loch Ridge Parkway and Bonnar Bridge Parkway within the Mackintosh on the Lake Subdivision.  The properties are located 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 September 8, 2005.

 

(B)   Mr. Mark Reich, representing Wakefield Development Company, presented an application for final plat approval of Phase 1, Sections 3 and 4 (K) 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 August 30, 2005, and containing 35 lots.

 

(C)   Mr. Scott Brown with Lee Properties presented an application for final plat approval of the Lee Properties HQ & SC, LLC, Subdivision.  The property is located on the southeast corner of Industry Drive and Tucker Street as shown on plans by Borum, Wade and Associates, PA, dated September 9, 2005, and containing nine lots.

 

(D)   Mr. Jimmy Collins with Concept Builders presented an application for final plat approval of Phase 4, Arden Crossing Subdivision.  The property is located on the southwest corner of Stokes Street and Peace Lane as shown on plans by Fleming Engineering, Inc., dated September 9, 2005, and containing 28 lots.

 

Planning Director Harkrader requested that Item 3(C) be combined with Item 5.  Commission Member Cobb made a motion to combine 3(C) with Item 5.  Gordon Millspaugh seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to combine 3(C) with Item 5.

 

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

 

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

      

The Commission found that the plats as presented met all requirements of the Subdivision Regulations.

 

       Consent agenda:  (Extraterritorial)

 

(E)   Mr. Mike McCrickard, representing Alamance Investment Partnership, presented an application for final plat approval of the Spence Street Subdivision.  The property is located on the northwest corner of Polk and Spence Streets as shown on plans by Carolina Cornerstone Surveying and Land Design dated September 2, 2005, and containing 17 lots.

 

(F)   Mr. Rodney Herring with Simmons Engineering and Surveying, Inc., representing Mr. Larry McCauley, presented an application for final plat approval of the Morgan Glen Subdivision.  The property is located on the north side of Burch Bridge Road approximately 690 feet southeast of West Old Glencoe Road as shown on plans by Simmons Engineering and Surveying, Inc., dated September 6, 2005, and containing nine lots.

 

(G)   Mr. Rodney Herring, representing Southcreek Properties, LLC, presented an application for final plat approval of Phase 2, MacArthur Landing Subdivision.  The property is located on the west side of MacArthur Lane approximately 930 feet south of Durham Street Extension as shown on plans by Simmons Engineering and Surveying, Inc., dated September 8, 2005, and containing 11 lots.

 

(H)   Mr. Mark Reich with Alley, Williams, Carmen and King, Inc., representing SSJ of Alamance #2, LLC, presented an application for final plat approval of the MacArthur Place Subdivision.  The property is located on the west side of MacArthur Lane approximately 660 feet south of Durham Street Extension as shown on plans by Alley, Williams, Carmen and King, Inc., dated September 9, 2005, and containing 51 lots.

 

(I)    Mr. Jay Lowe, representing Mr. Jeff Wyrick and Mr. Mike McCrickard, presented an application for final plat approval for the redivision of Lots 363 through 372 of the Sunset Heights Subdivision.  The property is located on the northwest corner of Pollard Avenue and Melrose Drive as shown on plans by Carolina Cornerstone Surveying and Land Design dated September 8, 2005, and containing seven lots.

 

Staff recommended approval of (E) contingent upon approval by the Alamance County Commissioners for the abandonment of Hill Street and the relevant portion of Chestnut Street.  Staff also recommend approval of (F), (G) and (I).  Staff recommended approval of (H) contingent upon the completion of street construction or the applicant posting proper surety with the City Engineering Department prior to recording the plat.

 

Commission Member ­­­­­Franks made a motion to recommend approval of (E) and (H) with the contingencies outlined by staff and recommended approval of (F), (G) and (I).  Bud Apple seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of (E) contingent upon approval by the Alamance County Commissioners of the abandonment of Hill Street and the relevant portion of Chestnut Street; to recommend approval of (F), (G) and (I); and to recommend approval of (H) contingent upon the completion of street construction or the applicant posting proper surety with the City Engineering Department prior to recording the plat.

 

The Commission found that the plats as presented met all requirements of the Subdivision Regulations.

 

       ITEM NO. 4: Mr. Chris Clayton with Commercial Site Design, PLLC, presented an application to rezone from O-I, Office-Institutional District, to CB, Conditional Business District, to allow an automatic car wash as well as all uses permitted in a Unified Business Development.  The property is located at 519 South Graham-Hopedale Road at the northeast corner of Oklahoma Avenue as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 138, Block 558, Lots 1 and 6.

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Mr. Clayton stated that a 1,600 square foot facility would be built on the .70 acre tract and would conform with all Zoning Ordinance regulations.  He maintained that the development would be a positive and attractive precedent to the area.  He pointed out that a five-foot tall wooden fence as well as trees would provide screening for the adjacent residential neighborhood.  Also installed would be a right-in/right-out driveway and a shared access driveway for future development to the north.  Mr. Clayton also told the Commission that the company is reserving 10 feet for the future widening of Graham-Hopedale Road.

 

       Commission Member Byrd asked if the facility would be open 24 hours a day and was told that it would be.  He also asked if there would be security on the premises.  Mr. Clayton stated that there would be security and off-duty Burlington police officers would also be employed at times.

 

       Commission Member Cobb asked how this development differed from the Cook-Out facility that was previously planned for the site.

 

       Mr. Clayton explained that Cook-Out was a drive-thru fast-food restaurant which required a different traffic flow.  He stated that this development requires a slightly different traffic flow.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader explained that the North Carolina Department of Transportation has certain driveway restrictions for a car wash.

 

       Commission Member Cobb pointed out that the traffic would basically be the same as for the previously planned fast-food restaurant as would the noise.

 

       Mr. Harkrader stated that there would be overall traffic improvements including a four-foot wide concrete median and associated striping as well as a full access driveway on Oklahoma Avenue.

 

       Commission Member Cobb asked if it was prudent to recommend approval of the development since City Council denied Cook-Out previously.

 

       Mr. Clayton pointed out that City Council did not deny the rezoning for Cook-Out – the company withdrew its request for rezoning between the two City Council meetings.

 

       Mr. Cobb stated that according to newspaper articles, City Council was hesitating about approving the rezoning before the company withdrew its request.  He questioned the Commission making a recommendation for the rezoning until Council decides what should be developed on the site because nothing had changed in that area since Cook-Out was proposed.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader explained that if Cook-Out had not withdrawn its request for rezoning in June, no one knows how City Council would have voted.

 

       Mr. Clayton stated that it was his understanding that City Council had an issue with traffic generated by a fast-food restaurant.

 

       Commission Member Black asked what else would be developed on the site besides a car wash.  Mr. Clayton stated that besides a two-bay car wash, there would be space for an office or retail sales – the company was leaving it open for other potential development.

 

       Mr. Black stated that he was concerned about noise as well as safety; however, he would not want to recommend approval of the rezoning when the City Council would probably turn it down.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader told Commission members that they should consider the rezoning application on its own merits and make a recommendation to City Council.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked what uses would be allowed in a Unified Business Development.  Mr. Harkrader stated that all uses permitted would require prior approval for Conditional zoning.

 

       Commission Member Black asked if the petitioner modified its request in any way would the company be required to come before the Commission for approval and was told that it would.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh pointed out that there is already a car wash up the road about half a mile.

 

       Commission Member Apple stated that previously Cook-Out had setback issues forcing a limited traffic-flow situation and that he, too, was concerned that there was already a car wash up the street.

 

       Mr. Clayton pointed out that this facility would be set further back off the road.

 

       Commission Member Franks asked if a convenience store would be permitted in the proposed development and was told that it would be allowed in a Conditional Business zoning district.

 

       Staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning with the use and development conditions submitted by the petitioner including a landscape plan and driveway plan. Planning Director Harkrader stated that the petitioner had put a lot of work into this proposed development and the company had done a good job in providing adequate access.

 

       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 two to two to recommend approval.  Voting to recommend approval were Millspaugh and Byrd.  Voting against the motion to recommend approval were Cobb and Black.

 

       ITEM NO. 5: Mr. Patrick A. Meisky, representing Lee Properties HQ & SC, LLC, presented an application to rezone from I-1, Planned Industrial District, to CI, Conditional Industrial District, to allow office, cross-dock terminal, warehouses and truck service/maintenance as well as all uses permitted in I-1, I-2, Light Industrial, and I-3, Heavy Industrial Districts.  The property is located on the southeast corner of Industry Drive and Tucker Street Extension as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 12-5C, Lots 28 and 6.

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader explained to the Commission that this property was the former site of Burlington Industries Transportation Division, and Item 3(C) was the final plat application requesting that the property be subdivided into nine lots.  Regarding the rezoning application, he stated that staff was not comfortable with allowing uses permitted in I-3 zoning, and that the applicant had agreed to eliminate   I-3 from the rezoning request.

 

       Mr. Meisky stated that there are several structures located on the unique site and that Burlington Industries had constructed good buildings.  He pointed out that three tracts are vacant and would be sold for new industrial uses.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked if fire trucks and other emergency vehicles would be able to maneuver safely. Planning Director Harkrader stated that after meeting with the petitioner, Assistant Fire Chief Mike Willets submitted guidelines for the development.  These guidelines include the replacement of five fire hydrants.

 

       Commission Member Cobb asked if the developers had any potential buyers for the property.

 

       Mr. Meisky stated that due to the property’s unique location near Interstate 85/40 and its proximity to the new Dell facility, he did not foresee any difficulties with marketing the development.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked how long had the property been vacant and was told four years.

 

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

 

       Commission Member Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of the final plat.  Gordon Millspaugh seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the final plat.  The Commission found that the plat as presented met all requirements of the Subdivision Regulations.

 

       Commission Member Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning with the use and development conditions submitted by the petitioner.  John Black 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

 

Uses to include office, cross-dock terminal, warehouses and truck service/maintenance as well as all uses permitted in I-1, Planned Industrial Districts, and I-2, Light Industrial Districts.

 

DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS

 

Those conditions included in Attachment A and Attachment B of the Conditional rezoning application and specifically listed as follows:

 

ATTACHMENT A

 

1.           Conditional rezoning approval is contingent upon petitioner preparing and recording a property owners’ association agreement that addresses common ownership issues and is structured such that access and other requirements of the City of Burlington Subdivision Regulations can be met and a plat prepared, approved and recorded.

 

2.    Future development of vacant lots shown on the Conditional rezoning application shall be reviewed and approved by the City Technical Review Committee prior to building/development permits being issued.

 

3.           Petitioner will provide monitoring manholes for sewer effluent from certain buildings depending upon their use if required by the City of Burlington Utilities Department.

 

4.    An aboveground backflow preventer shall be installed according to City specifications.

 

5.           Blanket easements are provided for utility services and shall be documented in the property owners’ agreement.

 

6.    Traffic Impact Analysis documents are included as part of this application.

 

7.           Fire/safety requirements shall be as required by the City of Burlington Fire Department and shown as Attachment B.


 

ATTACHMENT B

 

Prior to Approval

 

1.           Approval from the North Carolina Department of Agriculture for the 20,000 gallon liquefied petroleum tank and the liquefied petroleum disposal systems to remain in their current locations in relation to new lot lines.

 

2.           Security must be provided for the 20,000 gallon liquefied petroleum tank and the liquefied petroleum disposal systems.

 

3.           Security must the provided for the aboveground fuel tanks located on the property.

 

4.           Current fire hydrants that have 2 ½ inch connections only with the City of Burlington shall be replaced by fire hydrants having two 2 ½” ports and one five-inch steamer port.

 

Prior to Building Occupancy

 

1.           Sprinkler systems must meet National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) 13 and North Carolina Fire Prevention Code requirements for occupancy/use of new tenant prior to building occupancy.  The sprinkler system shall be evaluated by a licensed sprinkler technician to ensure that density requirements will meet specific use.

 

2.    Fire alarm systems must meet NFPA 72, North Carolina Fire Prevention Code and all other applicable code requirements for occupancy/use of new tenant prior to building occupancy.  Fire alarm systems shall be evaluated by licensed fire alarm technicians to ensure systems are code compliant.


 

Guidelines for Future Use

 

1.           Maintenance and testing of all common fire protection systems, including fire lines, fire hydrants and fire pump, must be provided in accordance with applicable NFPA Codes and Standards and the North Carolina Fire Prevention Code.

 

2.    The 20,000 gallon liquefied petroleum tank and disposal system shall be maintained and serviced in accordance with applicable codes and the North Carolina Department of Agriculture.

 

3.    All aboveground and underground fuel storage tanks shall be maintained in accordance with applicable NFPA Codes and Standards and the North Carolina Fire Prevention Code.

 

4.    The Code Enforcement Official of the Burlington Fire Department reserves the right  to  require  additional fire hydrants to be changed from the double 2 ½ inch ports to two City of Burlington approved 2 ½ inch steamer ports as deemed necessary for fire protection.

 

5.    Any new sprinkler systems that are required due to construction or change in use shall be connected to public fire mains and not connected to the private loop currently in use.  All additional sprinkler systems shall be installed in accordance with current NFPA Codes and Standards.

 

       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. 6: Master Sang Ho Lee with Lee Brothers Academy, LLC, presented an application to rezone from O-I, Office-Institutional District, to CB, Conditional Business District, to allow for all uses permitted in Unified Business Developments.  The property is located on the northwest corner of Garden Road and Boone Station Drive as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 3-19-61.

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Commission Member Franks commented that this was the second application during the meeting requesting to rezone in order to allow all uses permitted in Unified Business Developments.  He asked what uses would be allowed in the development.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that general retail uses would be allowed in the Conditional Business District.

 

       Mr. Franks inquired about the hours, and Master Lee stated that if a restaurant locates in the development, the hours would likely be 9 or 10 p.m. weekdays and around 11 p.m. on weekends.

 

       Staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning with the use and development conditions submitted by the petitioner.  Planning Director Harkrader stated that nothing would change about the existing development except the permitted uses.

 

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

 

Use and Development Condition:

 

       All uses permitted in Unified Business Developments.

 

       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. 7Mr. 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 item was tabled by the Commission at its August 22, 2005, meeting.

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Mr. Bateman presented a synopsis of the August Commission meeting when this item was tabled.  He reminded members that a billboard located on adjacent property would be removed since it’s located on a public right-of-way. After the billboard is removed, the easement would be abandoned and half of the easement would go the Elk’s Lodge and the other half combined with the Strigo property.

 

       Mr. Bateman stated that the rezoning application had been amended to include a new improved site plan showing additional screening of the property between the adjoining residential neighborhood and the re-location of the two proposed outdoor advertising structures closer to the Interstate.  He explained that the two-faced advertising structures would be located on the 2.11 acre triangular-shaped site at opposite ends of the lot with a border of Leyland cypresses, which should grow 50 to 60 feet tall, planted as screening and for noise control from the Interstate, which he indicated on an aerial photograph.  He stated that the bulk of the site would remain in a natural state.

 

       Mr. Bateman maintained that the use would offer a service to the community – explaining that businesses indicated that their sales increased by 20 to 25 percent because of outdoor advertising. He also pointed out that there was a shortage of signs available for advertising but yet an increase in retailers desiring to advertise.  He also maintained that the signs would be less traumatic to the neighborhood than a development of multifamily housing on the property.

 

       Commission Member Johnson asked if there were limitations on the amount of illumination allowed and would the signs be illuminated all night and what wattage.

 

       Mr. Bateman stated that lighting would be located at the bottom and directed upward toward the V-shaped signs and not to the neighborhood and would continue approximately half the night.  He explained that there would be four 400-watt bulbs per face.

 

       Ms. Charlotte Straney, 805 Lynwood Drive, stated that she lived around the corner and had talked to some of the neighbors – three of whom had planned to come to the meeting.  Ms. Straney explained that while there were a lot of rental houses on Lynwood Drive, the residents still had issues with the possibility of outdoor advertising signs being constructed behind their homes.  She also stated that as far as multifamily housing was concerned, that would be more consistent with surrounding property. 

 

       Ms. Straney stated that she also had concerns that if these signs were approved, it could set a precedent for other property owners with usual-shaped lots along the Interstate to erect billboards.  She questioned if billboards are allowed in Conditional zoning.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that outdoor advertising signs would be allowed in Conditional zoning; however, they are limited along the Interstate by state regulations, which mandate that they must be at least 500 feet apart.  He also stated that due to the location and shape of the lot, staff could recommend approval of only one sign.  He explained that this lot was once large until the Interstate was constructed in the 1960’s or 70’s thus creating this remnant.

 

       Mr. Harkrader stated that recommending approval of only one lot was somewhat of a compromise and would allow the property owner to receive some income from the rental while not imposing such a negative impact on surrounding property.

 

       Commission Member Ware questioned the up-lighting or down-lighting of the signs.

 

       Mr. Joe Rickman with Atlantic Sign Media, Inc., of Burlington stated that older outdoor signs are normally top-lighted whereas newer ones are illuminated by lights mounted on the catwalk across the bottom.

 

       Commission Member Johnson asked if this lighting would interfere with airport flight patterns or regulations, and Mr. Rickman answered that they would not.

 

       Commission Member Franks stated that, on the average, Leyland cypresses grow three feet per year and rarely do they grow beyond 30 or 35 feet tall.  Therefore, he pointed out, the trees would not afford much screening for the 40-foot tall billboards.  He pointed out that if the trees would happen to grow to 50 or 60 feet tall, they would block motorists’ views of the billboards.

 

       Commission Member Black suggested that the applicant erect one sign in the middle of the property on one pole with four sides.

 

       Mr. Rickman stated that a four-sided sign would be non-conforming according to North Carolina Department of Transportation regulations.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh stated that he did not think it was fair to the neighbors to have these signs in their backyards and that the Leyland cypresses would offer little protection.  He made a motion to recommend denial of the request for rezoning.  Paul Cobb seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the request for rezoning.


 

      

       There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 8:27 p.m.

 

 

 

              _____________________________________

                       George A. Byrd, Jr., Chairman

 

 

 

 

              _____________________________________

                         Paul A. Cobb, Jr., Secretary

 

9/30/2005 9:15 AM