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

 

MINUTES OF THE BURLINGTON PLANNING

AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING

 

July 24, 2006

and continued until August 21, 2006

 

Council Chamber, Burlington Municipal Building

 

 

 

CITY MEMBERS:                                                               EXTRATERRITORIAL MEMBERS:

 

George Byrd, Present                   Bud Apple, Present

Paul Cobb, Present                   Richard Franks, Present

John Black, Present                   Earl Jaggers, Present

Lynn Cowan, Present                   Jim Johnson, Absent

Elder Greg Hargrave, Absent                   Ellis Piper, Absent

Gordon Millspaugh, Absent                   Bob Ware, Present

 

 

STAFF PRESENT:

 

Robert R. Harkrader, Planning Director

Haywood Cloud, Zoning/Subdivision Administrator

Dianne Fogleman, Office Assistant

 

 

 

       ITEM NO. 1:  Acting Chairman Byrd called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader introduced new Commission member, Earl Jaggers, who was appointed by the Alamance County Commissioners to serve the Burlington extraterritorial jurisdiction. 

 

       Mr. Jaggers expressed his gratitude to the Alamance County Commissioners and to the City for giving him the opportunity to serve.

 

       ITEM NO. 2: Mr. Byrd called for the nomination of Commission Chairman for 2006-2007.  Commission Member Cobb made a motion to nominate Mr. Byrd as Chairman.  Bud Apple seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to re-elect Mr. Byrd as Commission Chairman.  Commission Member Ware made a motion to nominate Paul Cobb as Commission Secretary. Mr. Apple seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to re-elect Mr. Cobb as Commission Secretary.  This was a City and extraterritorial item.

 

       ITEM NO. 3: Minutes of the meeting held June 26, 2006, were unanimously approved.  This was a City and extraterritorial item.


 

       ITEM NO. 4: Consent agenda:  (City)

 

(A)   Mr. John Blom presented an application for final plat approval of the Tenafly Associates, LLC, Subdivision.  The property is located on the northeast corner of Chandler Avenue and Rosenwald Street as shown on plans by David R. Cox, Inc., dated June 10, 2006, and containing five lots.

 

(B)   Mr. Mark Reich, representing Mr. Wade Williamson, presented an application for preliminary plan approval of the Waterford-West Subdivision.  The property is located on the south side of US Highway 70 (South Church Street) approximately 2,500 feet west of University Drive as shown on plans by Alley, Williams, Carmen and King, Inc., dated May 24, 2006, and containing 56 lots.

 

(C)   Mr. Lawson Brown, presenting CBL and Associates, presented an application for final plat approval of the subdivision and right-of-way dedication for Alamance Crossing, LLC.  The property is located east of University Drive; south of Garden Road; west of Westview Terrace; and south, east and west of St. Mark’s Church Road as shown on plans by MSS Land Consultants dated June 21, 2006, and containing 24 lots.

 

       Staff recommended approval of (A); recommended approval of (B) contingent upon the developers posting proper surety with the City of Burlington for completion of construction prior to recording the plat (the amount of surety shall be determined by the Engineering Department); and recommended approval of (C) contingent upon the developers 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 City Engineering Department.

 

       Commission Secretary Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of (A) and to recommend approval of (B) and (C) with the contingencies outlined by staff.  Lynn Cowan seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of (A); to approve (B) contingent upon the developers posting proper surety with the City of Burlington for completion of construction prior to recording the plat (the amount of surety shall be determined by the Engineering Department); and to recommend approval of (C) contingent upon the developers 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 City Engineering Department.

 

       Consent agenda:  (Extraterritorial)

 

(D)   Mr. Chad Porterfield with Chadco Builders, LLC, presented an application for final plat approval of the Anthony Road Enterprise Subdivision.  The property is located on the south side of Anthony Road at the intersection of Anthony Road and Tucker Street Extension approximately 400 feet west of Air Park Drive as shown on plans by Boswell Surveyors, Inc., dated March 13, 2006, and containing three lots.

 

       Staff recommended approval of (D) contingent upon the developers posting proper surety (sewer) with the City of Burlington for completion of construction prior to recording the plat.  The amount of surety shall be determined by the Engineering Department.

 

       Commission Member Apple made a motion to recommend approval of (D) with the contingency outlined by staff. Bob Ware seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of (D) contingent upon the developers posting proper surety (sewer) with the City of Burlington for completion of construction prior to recording the plat. The amount of surety shall be determined by the Engineering Department.

 

       ITEM NO. 5:  Mr. Ryan Hughes with Collins/Goodman Development Company was scheduled to present an application to amend a Conditional Business rezoning for Burlington Station approved by City Council November 1, 2005.  The request was to approve a signage package that was not included in the initial rezoning application.  The property is located on the southwest corner of University Drive and Rural Retreat Road as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 3-26-88.

 

       This was an extraterritorial item.

 

       No one was in attendance to present the application.

 

       Commission Member Franks made a motion to table the item until the end of meeting to see if a representative appeared.  Bud Apple seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to table the item until the end of the meeting.

 

       After all other items were heard, the petitioner was still not present.  Commission Member Black made a motion to table the item until the regular August meeting.  Bud Apple seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to table the item until the regular August 28, 2006, meeting.

 

       ITEM NO. 6:  Withdrawn by petitioner prior to the meeting.

 

       ITEM NO. 7: Mr. Lawson Brown, representing CBL and Associates, presented an application to amend a Conditional rezoning for Alamance Crossing approved by City Council April 20, 2004.  The request was to rezone portions of properties designated as O-I, Office-Institutional District, to Conditional Business. The remainder of these properties are already zoned Conditional Business. The properties are located south of Garden Road, west of Westview Terrace, east of Whitesell Farm Lane and north of Interstate 85/40 as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 3-24, portions of Lots 2, 2C, 2D, 2H and 2Q. 

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Mr. Brown told Commission members that Alamance Crossing would be comprised of 65 stores and the opening is scheduled for August 2007.

 

       In presenting the amendment to the rezoning, Mr. Brown pointed out that the lots designated as O-I were originally offered as a buffer zone for neighbors, even though residents had not made the request for a buffer.  The amendment was being requested due to the re-alignment of the extension of Boone Station Drive from the existing Boone Station Drive to the proposed extension of the drive.

 

       Staff recommended approval of amending the portions of properties designated as O-I to Conditional Business as part of the Alamance Crossing Conditional rezoning. Planning Director Harkrader stated that this request was more or less a technical correction since this was almost the initial location of the proposed extension of Boone Station Drive.

 

       Commission Secretary Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of amending the Conditional Business rezoning to include portions of those lots designated as Office-Institutional.  John Black seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of amending the Conditional rezoning by including portions of Lots 2, 2C, 2D, 2H and 2Q designated as O-I to be rezoned to Conditional Business.  All conditions set forth in the approved Conditional Business zoning for CBL and Associates Properties, Inc., and Alamance Crossing, LLC, as approved April 20, 2004, and amended June 7, 2005, June 19, 2005, April 18, 2006 and June 20, 2006, shall remain in effect.

 

       ITEM NO. 8: Staff presented proposed future land use elements of the Southwest/Western Loop Planning Area.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that changes to the Southwest/Western Loop future land use map were being considered subsequent to a request by City Council for the Commission’s input and from information derived from a public hearing held on April 4, 2006, as well as discussions at neighborhood meetings, the Council’s Retreat in February and two work sessions.

 

       Mr. Harkrader requested that Commission members compare the two maps – the Adopted Western Loop Planning Area Future Land Use map and the Proposed Western Loop Planning Area Future Land Use map – and focus on the six hot spots.  He stated that he would like to get Commissioners’ comments and that City Councilmembers have stated that they want the Commission’s input.  He commented that he wanted the Commission to have plenty of time to study the changes and they could share comments and make recommendations at the August meeting.

 

       Regarding circle number 4, Commission Secretary Cobb noted that the proposed zoning was Office/Hospital Support Services and asked if there wasn’t property zoned commercial behind it.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that there was property adjacent that had already been rezoned to commercial.

 

       Commission Member Franks stated that he would like to have more time to review the proposed changes, and other Commission members agreed.  The consensus was to wait until the August meeting to make recommendations to City Council.

 

       Commission Member Ware questioned if the City would abide by the proposed land use map once it had been approved.

 

       Mr. Harkrader admitted that some rezoning may be political, but basically rezonings conform to the City’s Land Use Plan.  He told Commission members that other than Target and University Commons, the City had adhered to the Adopted Western Loop Area Future Land Use Plan.

 

       Commission Secretary Cobb asked what would the proper zoning be for a car dealership.

 

       Mr. Harkrader stated that B-2 or Conditional zoning because a dealership could negatively impact a residential area.

 

       Mr. Cobb asked where would a dealership fit on the Proposed Western Loop Planning Area Future Land Use map, and Mr. Harkrader stated that the pink or red areas would be suitable.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader reiterated that the land use map would act as a guide for staff, Commission members and City Council in making rezoning decisions.  He pointed out that a tremendous amount of money was riding on some zoning decisions and there was a lot at stake for many folks.  He commented that this pressure was not going away any time soon and that no matter what decisions were made, someone would not be happy.

 

       Commission Member Franks asked if it would be possible to have a meeting with staff the week before the August meeting to discuss the proposed map.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that the Commission would have to decide on a date that evening in order to adhere to open-meeting requirements such as publication notices.

 

       Commission Member Cowan asked Mr. Harkrader to research the called-meeting requirements.  Commission Chairman Byrd asked how soon could he let Commission members know about a meeting.

 

       Mr. Harkrader stated that he knew requirements were different for elected and appointed officials and was concerned that time requirements for publicizing a meeting could not be met.  He stated that another option would be to continue this meeting to another date that would not require a publication notice.

 

       Commission Member Franks made a motion to continue the meeting until one week before the August meeting, Monday, August 21, at 5:30 p.m.  Paul Cobb seconded the motion.

 

       At 7:40 p.m. the Commission voted unanimously to continue the meeting until August 21, 2006, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber.

 

-----

 

 

       The Burlington Planning and Zoning Commission continued its July 24, 2006, meeting until August 21, 2006, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber to consider future land use elements of the Southwest/Western Loop Planning Area.

 

       Commission members present were the following:  Chairman George Byrd, Secretary Paul Cobb, Bud Apple, John Black, Lynn Cowan, Richard Franks, Earl Jaggers, Jim Johnson, Gordon Millspaugh and Bob Ware. Absent were Elder Greg Hargrave and Ellis Piper.

 

       Staff present: Planning Director Harkrader; David Beal, Assistant Director of Planning Services; Daniel Shoffner, Planner; Zoning/Subdivision Administrator Haywood Cloud; and Office Assistant Dianne Fogleman.

 

       Secretary Cobb presided over the meeting due to the late arrival of Mr. Byrd.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader pointed out three lots on the maps that showed incorrect uses.  He also displayed two other maps showing the location of the Mackintosh on the Lake development and the location of the completed Danbrook Road, which would be reconfigured to tee into Bonnar Bridge Road thus allowing Bonnar Bridge to become the main through movement onto University Drive.

 

       Commission Member Franks asked Mr. Harkrader to point out the 22 acres Wakefield had designated as commercial. Mr. Harkrader indicated the 22 acres located on both sides of the entrance to Mackintosh on the Lake.  Mr. Franks asked if the 22 acres were already zoned commercial and was told that they were.

 

       Commission Secretary Cobb asked what would keep a dealership from being developed on the commercial property.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that he supposed restrictive covenants plus conditions through the rezoning process; however, he would need to re-visit the file to determine if that would be feasible.

 

       Secretary Cobb suggested that Commission members discuss all six areas of the proposed land use map and let those in the audience share their thoughts also.

 

Area #1: Referring to the area at the intersection of University Drive on NC Highway 70 West (South Church Street) Mr. Harkrader stated that property located at the southwest quadrant of the intersection was already zoned commercial and the property southeast would require rezoning.

 

Area #2: Planning Director Harkrader stated that the proposed land use map basically reflects what is already there – medium to high density with Abbington Place Condominiums already there.  He stated that eventually Williams Mill Road would extend to the west.

 

       Ms. Rhonda Custer, 4314-B Williams Mill Road, stated that the City Engineering Department had been surveying out there for a year and residents had no idea if the extended Williams Mill Road would be two lanes or four lanes.  She stated that the size of the road would change the uses of the property.  After meeting with Mr. Jim Lauritsen (City Engineer) she stated she was told that the feasibility study of the area had been transferred from Mr. Lauritsen to Mr. Phil Conrad (employed by Mobility Solutions, Inc., with an office in the City Planning Department).  She maintained that if changes were made to Williams Mill Road, property owners want commercial zoning.

 

       Commission Secretary Cobb asked if the extension of Williams Mill Road would be a City or state project, and Mr. Harkrader stated that it would be a state project.

 

       Mr. Harkrader pointed out that if Williams Mill Road does become a thoroughfare it wouldn’t mean it has to become commercial and there are lots of areas where homes are being built right now on main thoroughfares, including University Drive.  He also pointed out that there is a limited opportunity for connectivity between the Williams Mill Road area and property to the west.

 

       Commission Member Johnson commented that even if and when Williams Mill Road was extended doesn’t mean it would become an interstate highway.

 

       Mr. Cobb asked if anything was in the works to extend the road and build a bridge.

 

       Mr. Harkrader stated that it was logical to extend Williams Mill Road; however, there were no details at this point.  First, the project would have to be funded, which it has not been, and then scheduled.

 

       Commission Member Ware stated that there was a world of difference between his and Earl’s (Commission Member Earl Jaggers) end of the road (Williams Mill Road) versus the Custers’ home (Rhonda and Bill Custer) and that neighbors need a comfortable feeling that if they improve their homes – whether it be adding siding or building a deck – that they would get a return on their investment.  He reiterated that neighbors also had traffic concerns.

 

       Mr. Richard Jacoby, 4059 Williams Mill Road, pointed out that the City had approved 200 to 300 townhomes on Rural Retreat Road.  He questioned the left turn lane at the Collins and Goodman development (Burlington Station located to the east of the intersection of Rural Retreat Road and Williams Mill Road) stating that traffic taking the turn lane goes onto a dead-end road.

 

       Mrs. Debra Jaggers, 4012 Williams Mill Road, commented that it was ludicrous to have a turn lane onto a road that dead ends. She stated that where the cars would be coming from would be as neighborhood visitors.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that evidently the turn lane was constructed for the future – when Williams Mill Road is extended to the west, and it made sense to include a turn lane when the road was being constructed.

 

       Mr. Harkrader stated that Planning staff and other City staff would be glad to meet with residents in that area; however, rather than getting bogged down on traffic and engineering details – some of which Planning staff could not answer – the Commission should continue with its discussion on land uses.

 

Area #3: Commission Member Franks commented that he thought this area was pretty much already set.

 

       Commission Member Johnson questioned why was there a piece of Alamance Crossing property on Garden Road not shown as commercial.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that the area Mr. Johnson was referring to was zoned O-I (Office-Institutional) whereas most of the Alamance Crossing property was zoned commercial.

 

Area #4: Mr. Jeff Smith stated that he was employed by Massey Real Estate and that he represented a group that owns approximately five acres on Danbrook Road.  He asked if that area would become commercial and questioned why the entire area across the highway where Target is located was zoned commercial and not the property to the south of the Interstate.  He commented that “people are tired of giving to the community and not being able to have their property rezoned.”

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that the question could be put back to Planning and Zoning Commission members who could change their minds on rezoning property to the south of the Interstate if they feel it was necessary.  He pointed out that there are approximately 50 acres outside the Mackintosh on the Lake development on Danbrook Road that could be in question.

 

       Commission Member Johnson stated that in his opinion property along Danbrook Road should be pink (Planning Community – Mixed Use) or red (Limited Commercial) and questioned the new curvature of Bonnar Bridge Parkway near University Drive and engineers’ thoughts when they were designing the road.

 

       Mr. Harkrader stated that environmental issues played a big part in the design of the road.

 

       Commission Member Ware commented that the Commission would not be having the meeting if the Land Use Plan had been followed in the past.  He speculated that whatever land uses were adopted, there was a 50/50 chance they would change.  He stressed that residents were being kept in limbo.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that he admitted that zoning is largely a political process; however, staff believes that the City has benefited from zoning.  He pointed out that Alamance County does not have zoning, and zoning in the City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction is better than free range or having zero control on land uses.  He stated that there is and has always been an open process for citizens’ input on zoning issues, and whereas rezoning could be a complicated process, there would probably never be unanimous agreement on zoning decisions.  Mr. Harkrader reminded Commission members that in developing the future land use map, staff had numerous meetings at which time over 300 residents in that area attended and shared their opinions and concerns, and all of this was taken into consideration. He stated that whatever is approved would make some people happy and others would be upset.

 

       Mr. Ware stated that the long and short of Conditional zoning is that the land use plan is a guideline, and that could be changed.  He maintained that Target started it all and that Conditional zoning can affect any property on any street on any given day and that is what puts residents in limbo.

 

       Commission Member Franks commented that he voted against the Cox rezoning request because he had problems with commercial development on Danbrook Road.  He stated that he thought Planned Community – Mixed Use would be more suitable along that stretch of Danbrook and that commercial should be kept off.  He stated that, however, he didn’t think the City should shut the door on commercial development on Danbrook when Wakefield has 22 acres around the entrance to Mackintosh on Lake designated for commercial uses.

 

       Commission Secretary Cobb asked Mr. Franks if he wanted to make that comment as a motion.

 

       Commission Member Franks made a motion to change land use on a section of Danbrook Road from Office/Hospital Support Services to Planned Community – Mixed Use.  Paul Cobb seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to make that change on the proposed land use map.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader commented that the change would encompass at least 50 acres and that Planned Community – Mixed Use would offer more flexibility for development.

 

       Mr. Rusty Cox questioned when would that be approved.

 

       Mr. Harkrader stated that it could be some time before City Council would consider adopting the land use map.

 

       Mr. Cox asked if a car dealership would then be allowed on Danbrook, and Mr. Harkrader stated that the property would still have to be rezoned.  Mr. Harkrader explained that the Commission was making recommendations on the future land use map and not actually rezoning property.

 

Area #5: Commission Member Franks questioned the three lots near the Hunters Bridge Apartments being designated for Office/Hospital Support Services and currently zoned O-I, Office-Institutional.  He stated that in his opinion that would be the ideal spot for commercial as would the property located north of Whitesell Drive and south of the Interstate where Whitesell divides the properties behind the BP station – an area for such uses as a car dealership.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that the suggestion made sense.

 

 

       Mr. Charles Bateman added that it appears that O-I zoning and not commercial was going down Kirkpatrick Road thus adding to the need for commercial zoning.

 

       Commission Member Johnson commented that the suggestion would provide a flow for commercial development.

 

       Commission Member Franks stated that he would make that a motion unless the three lots were set up as a buffer.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that to his knowledge the three lots were zoned O-I as part of the zoning for Hunters Bridge Apartments.

 

       Mr. Franks made a motion to recommend that property south of Interstate 85/40 and north of Whitesell Drive behind the BP station and extending to Hunters Bridge Apartments be designated as commercial.  Gordon Millspaugh seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend that change on the proposed land use map.

 

Area #6: Planning Director Harkrader stated that on the proposed land use plan map there had been a slight shift in the line between the medium-low and low-density residential areas.

 

       There were no changes offered to Area 6.

 

 

       Commission Secretary Cobb asked Mr. Harkrader if he knew when City Council would be considering the proposed land use map.  Mr. Harkrader stated that as soon as staff could make the changes and produce new maps to reflect the Commission’s suggestions.

 

       Mr. Cobb asked Mr. Harkrader to convey to Councilmembers that Planning and Zoning Commission members would be willing to meet with them to discuss this plan and proposed changes.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh requested that staff notify Planning and Zoning Commission members when Council was scheduled to review the proposed land use plan.

 

 

       There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m.

 

 

 

 

              ________________________________________

                         George A. Byrd, Jr., Chairman

 

 

 

 

              ________________________________________

                           Paul E. Cobb, Jr., Secretary