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

 

MINUTES OF THE BURLINGTON PLANNING

AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING

 

March 22, 2004

 

Council Chamber, Burlington Municipal Building

 

 

CITY MEMBERS:                                                  EXTRATERRITORIAL MEMBERS:

 

George Byrd, Acting Chairman, Present                   Bud Apple, Present

Jim Burwell, Present                                               John Enoch, Present

Paul Cobb, Present                                                 Celo Faucette, Present

Lynn Cowan, Present                                             Gale Fletcher, Present

Elder Greg Hargrave, Present                                  Richard Franks, Present

Gordon Millspaugh, Present                                    Ellis Piper, Present

 

STAFF PRESENT:

 

Robert R. Harkrader, Planning Director

John Emerson, Zoning/Subdivision Administrator

Russ Smith, Assistant Director of Planning Services

Kurt Pearson, Planner II

Dianne Fogleman, Office Assistant

 

 

       ITEM NO. 1: Mr. George Byrd, Jr., Acting Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 

 

       Planning Director Harkrader introduced Ms. Lynn Cowan, who was appointed by the Burlington City Council to serve on the Commission.  Ms. Cowan will fill the unexpired term of Mr. Don Starling, who was appointed to the City Council in January.

 

       ITEM NO. 2: Minutes of the meeting held February 23, 2004, were unanimously approved.  This was a City and extraterritorial item.

 

       ITEM NO. 3: Mr. Burney Jennings, representing Biscuitville, Inc., presented an application to rezone from B-1, Neighborhood Business District, to B-2, General Business District, the property located at the northwestern corner of O’Neal and Sykes Streets (1703 and 1707 Sykes Street) and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 101, Block 433, Lots 18 and 21. 

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Mr. Jennings distributed a proposed site plan.  He stated that due to parking and traffic flow problems at the current Biscuitville location on South Church Street, the company plans to build a new facility in 15 to 20 years.  Mr. Jennings explained that when the two lots on Sykes Street became available, they were purchased by the company; however, the lots are zoned B-1 which does not permit drive-through restaurants. Mr. Jennings pointed out that the restaurant is open from 5:30 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. and thus is not a nuisance in the evenings for neighbors.  He stated that he had considered rezoning only a portion of the lots, but decided to rezone all of both lots.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that staff could not recommend rezoning all of both lots but could recommend rezoning part of the lots.  He conceded that the restaurant has a serious traffic problem during peak hours, but rezoning part of the lots would allow Mr. Jennings to relocate one of the entrances further back from South Church Street.  He stated that staff was concerned about rezoning both lots to B-2 in that area.

 

       Commission Member Burwell asked if Mr. Jennings could withdraw his application to rezone to B-2 and re-submit next month for Conditional zoning and specify the company’s intentions for the property.

 

       Mr. Harkrader stated that rezoning both lots could possibly create more problems.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh questioned what would happen to those two lots in years to come if Biscuitville is not permitted to rezone for future use.

 

       Commission Member Burwell stated that to allow the company to rezone the lots would almost be protecting the lots to be developed for other uses.

 

       Mr. Jennings stated that it was his understanding that Conditional zoning would be limited for two years and that there are not immediate plans to build a new structure.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh questioned why Conditional zoning is limited for only two years.

 

       Assistant Director of Planning Services Smith explained that site plans for Conditional zoning are approved for imminent development and not proposed future development.

 

       Commission Member Burwell asked if the Commission couldn’t stipulate or validate that the site plan was for future development.

 

       Mr. Smith stated that in that case, the property could be considered for rezoning at that point.  He pointed out that Conditional zoning could be approved; however, on the downside, the property owner could decide to do something different than the proposed site plan and would have to return for further rezoning.

 

       Commission Member Fletcher commented that all of that area could eventually be zoned B-2.

 

       Commission Member Cobb asked if Mr. Jennings could relocate the driveway now.  Mr. Harkrader stated that he could if the lot line were to be adjusted.

 

       Mr. Cobb asked if B-2 zoning was denied now, could Mr. Jennings return for a different rezoning or would he have to wait another year.  Mr. Harkrader explained that he could return with a different rezoning request whenever he wanted to.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked if Mr. Jennings chooses to withdraw or table the request for rezoning to B-2, would he have to pay another fee for a different rezoning request.

 

       Mr. Harkrader stated that Mr. Jennings would not be required to pay another rezoning fee if he chooses to table the item until the next Commission meeting and amend his rezoning request.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh reiterated that he had a problem with the property sitting there for 10 to 12 years and not knowing what would be developed there.

 

       Commission Member Cobb made a motion to table the rezoning application until the next meeting.  Gordon Millspaugh seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to table the item until the next meeting.

 

       ITEM NO. 4: Mr. Masoud Ghiassi presented an application to rezone from R-6, Residential District, to B-1, Neighborhood Business District, the property located at the northwestern corner of Union Avenue and Rauhut Street (419 Union Avenue) and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 58, Block 241, a portion of Lot 65.

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Mr. Ghiassi stated that the address should be 418 Union Avenue. Tax map numbers remain the same.

 

       Mr. Ghiassi stated that he plans to develop a strip mall that will extend to Apple Street.  He maintained that the development will be an improvement for the neighborhood.

 

       Staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning. Planning Director Harkrader stated that this property is located on a major commercial street and that B-1 would be an appropriate extension of existing B-1 zoning.

 

          Commission Member Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.  Jim Burwell 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: Mr. Richard Jones, representing Mr. Chadbourn Sharpe, presented an application to rezone from O-I, Office-Institutional District, to CB, Conditional Business District, to allow all uses in Conditional Business zoning with exceptions as noted on the application as submitted.  The property is located on the western side of South Graham-Hopedale Road and to the north of North Mebane Street and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 140, Block 567, Lots 101, 102 and 103. 

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that this item had been amended and distributed copies of the amended application, which lists exceptions to the use conditions and lists development conditions.

 

       Mr. Jones stated that Mr. Sharpe plans to develop a second commercial building and noted that Mr. Sharpe had already developed another facility in East Burlington with the desire to help revitalize that section of town. Mr. Jones explained that Mr. Sharpe has plans to develop a strip mall.

 

       Commission Member Cobb asked how tall will the privacy wall be at the rear of the property.

 

       Mr. Jones answered whatever height is recommended.

 

       Assistant Director of Planning Services Smith stated that the petitioner would make that decision.

 

       The petitioner, Mr. Sharpe, stated that the wall would be built to whatever is standard for the City.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that there is no standard height for a wall; that it would be whatever height the petitioner chooses.

 

       Mr. Jones stated that the proposed wall will be eight feet in height.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked if staff had received any calls inquiring about the rezoning and was told that it had not.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated the petitioner had met the concerns that staff had with the rezoning and that staff recommended approval of the request for Conditional rezoning with the following use and development conditions that were submitted by the petitioner:

 

Use Conditions

 

       All uses allowed in Conditional Business except the following: no amusements, athletic fields, automobile parking lots, boarding or rooming houses, clubs and lodges, family dwellings, night clubs or outdoor storage.

 

Development Conditions

 

1)    Developer will adhere to the Western Loop Landscape Plan.

 

2)    The retail space square footage will not exceed 12,000 square feet with 52 parking spaces. Three parking spaces will be handicap access and one 12 foot by 50 foot loading space.

 

3)    The exterior will be constructed with masonry materials on all sides with an eight-foot privacy wall at the rear of the property.

 

4)    Final site plan will comply with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the City of Burlington’s Technical Review Committee requirements for the entrance and exit.

 

5)    The site plan will include a future 100-foot right-of-way on South Graham-Hopedale Road.

 

          Commission Member Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.  Jim Burwell 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. 6: Mr. Carl Buckland presented an application to rezone from R-9, Residential District, to R-M, Residential-Mobile Home District, the property located on the southern side of West Old Glencoe Road and to the east of Lakeside Avenue and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 12-50, a portion of Lot 12. 

 

       This was an extraterritorial item.

      

       Mr. Buckland stated that this was more a civil rights and freedom issue than a rezoning request.  He accused Commission members of covering up what they had done in the past.  He stated that at the last meeting, Commission Member Fletcher told him to give up and go home.  Mr. Buckland stated that he would never give up and go home as long as his health and money held out.

 

       Commission Member Fletcher asked what did all of this have to do with Mr. Buckland’s request for rezoning.

 

       Mr. Buckland told Mr. Fletcher to shut up and be quiet and give him five minutes to present his case.

 

       Commission Member Burwell commented that Mr. Buckland was going off on everything else except the rezoning request.

 

       Mr. Buckland commented that Commission members took an oath and that they should give him five minutes on the floor.

 

       Mr. Buckland stated that he was exercising his civil rights from the Constitution.  He stated that everyone has the right to live in the house they want; go to the school of their choice; sit in whatever seat they wanted to on the bus, and throughout history, people have stood up for their rights.  Sometimes, he pointed out, you have to resort to drastic measures, and that was what he was going to do.

 

       Mr. Buckland distributed pictures of a couple of manufactured homes and also pictures of the interior of a manufactured home. He stated that he was going to purchase a 1,600 square foot 32 foot by 56 foot manufactured home through repossession from a bank and place the home on one of the lots and sell it for $70,000.00.  He noted that this home would be larger than his own home.

 

       He stated that Commission members are always talking about affordable housing and HUD housing, and he will have people waiting in line to buy the house and lot for $70,000.00.  He asked where else could one buy a home for $14.00 a square foot and directed his question to Mr. Fletcher.  Mr. Fletcher stated that he had built one a few years ago for his son.

 

       Mr. Buckland stated that the manufactured home is a 1999 Grand Manor that he had purchased from the bank for $23,900.00 and that whether or not the Commission or City Council approved his request for rezoning, he was going to place the home on his property -- even if he had to take it to court and even if the police came out there with their K-9 units.

 

       He told Commission members that if they continue to discriminate against him and not allow manufactured housing he may have 500 lawsuits against the City instead of the five he now has. 

 

       Mr. Buckland distributed two pictures of manufactured homes and also copies of price sheets for manufactured homes.  He asked that those be made a part of the minutes. He also circulated pictures of the interior of a home.

 

       Commission Member Cobb asked which lot was Mr. Buckland going to put the house on, and Mr. Buckland answered an 80 foot by 200 foot lot next door to Emmanuel Church.  Mr. Buckland pointed out that the church pastor lives in a manufactured home.

 

       Commission Member Apple asked Mr. Buckland how many homes does he plan to put on the property.  Mr. Buckland answered one for now in order to set a precedent, and he would take it to court and have 500 people going with him and backing him because he was offering affordable housing.

 

       Commission Member Burwell asked Mr. Buckland if he was going to place a manufactured home on the property just to set up a lawsuit against the City or was he really interested in offering affordable housing.

 

       Commission Member Apple stated that many times Mr. Buckland has accused the City of having Commission members in its pockets, and that he wanted Mr. Buckland to know that he has a mind of his own and that no one has him in their pocket.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh pointed out to Mr. Buckland that some of them were not serving on the Commission when Mr. Buckland filled lawsuits against the City and that he did not appreciate Mr. Buckland accusing them of lying.

 

       Commission Member Fletcher asked Mr. Buckland why should someone pay $70,000 for the home when they could go out and get one on their own for $23,000.

 

       Commission Member Faucette asked how many acres was Mr. Buckland trying to rezone and was told approximately two acres.

 

       Mr. Buckland stated that someday there would be an inverse condemnation suit  whereas the City would have to buy up all the land that he owns because his health is not good and he can’t do what he used to could do.  He stated that he had about 120 acres left.

 

       Mr. John Gant with Glen Raven Mills stated that the company has property near Mr. Buckland’s property and that he had concerns that the manufactured home would devalue their property.  He was also concerned that certain development could adversely affect the river.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that Mr. Buckland had amended his rezoning application to include Lot 31 (Alamance County Tax Map 12-50).  He informed the Commission that there are basically two types of houses -- one that meets the state building code and one that meets HUD codes or national codes.  The main difference, he stated, was that they are built differently -- one is stick-built or built on the property whereas the other one is built in a factory and does not meet state building codes but does meet federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) code.  Mr. Harkrader stated that the factory-built manufactured homes aren’t bad but they are different and that staff could not see at this time any compelling reason to rezone the property to accommodate manufactured homes.

 

       Mr. Harkrader stated that he knows Mr. Buckland feels strongly about manufactured homes; however his strong beliefs or the threat of a lawsuit should not be the determining factor for swaying Commission members in making a decision.  He pointed out that there are several areas in the City that have been rezoned for manufactured housing, but staff can see no reason to change the development patterns in this area.

 

       Mr. Buckland stated that single-family residential zoning is not what the City’s Comprehensive  Land Use Plan calls for in the area,  and that the Plan states that R-M zoning would be moderately compatible with Light Industrial zoning in the area.  He maintained that single-family manufactured housing would be compatible.

 

       Addressing Acting Chairman Byrd, Mr. Buckland stated that the two of them are different -- that Mr. Byrd is different from Mr. Cobb -- that some on the back row were different from Mr. Cobb.  He asked if any of them could sit there and say their rights had never been deprived and stated that they should understand how he feels -- to be discriminated against.  Mr. Buckland stated that when one’s rights are deprived, they have to take drastic measures. 

 

       Commission Member Enoch told Mr. Buckland that his comments had nothing to do with his application for rezoning.

 

       Commission Member Faucette also stated that this was not a race issue.

 

       Commission Member Hargrave stated that the Commission was dealing with the rezoning issue and members did not need a history lesson.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked if any of this land had ever been involved with previous lawsuits with the City.

 

       Mr. Buckland stated that it had.  Mr. Millspaugh asked how could the Commission consider rezoning this property as long as it is involved in a lawsuit.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader asked which lawsuit was this property involved in, and Mr. Buckland stated that it was involved with the 40-acres with one of his previous claims.

 

       Commission Member Apple asked Mr. Buckland if he even wanted the Commission to recommend approval.  Mr. Buckland stated that every time the City turns him down it gives him the right to sue to the City.

 

       Mr. Harkrader again questioned Mr. Buckland if this property was part of any of the active five lawsuits, and Mr. Buckland stated that it is a part of property under litigation.

 

       Mr. Buckland suggested that the Commission send this item on to City Council without a recommendation.

 

       Mr. Harkrader stated that he was not sure if the property could be rezoned while under litigation and that the matter would have to be discussed with the City’s Legal Department.

 

       Commission Member Fletcher made a motion to recommend denial of the request for rezoning as long as the property is involved in a lawsuit.  Paul Cobb seconded the motion.

 

       Commission Member Apple stated that unemployment in this county is 6% and that many people cannot afford housing.  He pointed out that young people are moving back home with their parents because they can’t live on their own and that more affordable housing is needed.

 

       Commission Member Hargrave stated that he did not think the Commission should consider the application since the property is under litigation.

 

       Mr. Buckland stated that he was still going to put a manufactured home on the property.

 

       The Commission voted 11 to 1 to deny Mr. Buckland’s application to rezone.  Voting to deny the application were Byrd, Burwell, Cobb, Cowan, Hargrave, Millspaugh, Enoch, Faucette, Fletcher, Franks and Piper.  Voting against the motion to deny the rezoning application was Apple.

 

       ITEM NO. 7: Mr. E. Lawson Brown, Jr., representing CBL and Associates Properties, Inc., presented an application to rezone from R-15, Residential District, and R-9, Residential District, to CB, Conditional Business District, MF-A, Multifamily District, and O-I, Office-Institutional District.  The CB District will allow all uses permitted in Conditional Business with the exceptions noted on the application as submitted. The property is located on the eastern side of the Western Loop, south of Garden Road, west of Westview Terrace and west, south and east of St. Mark’s Church Road and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 3-24, Lots 1, 1A, 2, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F, 2H, 2J, 2K, 2M, 2N, 2P, 2Q, 3 and 8; Alamance County Tax Map 3-19, Lots 53, 33, 34 and 35; Alamance County Tax Map 3-25, a portion of Lot 144; and Alamance County Tax Map 3-26, Lots 56, 57 and a portion of Lot 5. 

 

       This was an extraterritorial item.

 

       Mr. Brown stated that CBL and Associates Properties, Inc., was one of the largest shopping center developers in the United States.  Oak Hollow in High Point and Hanes Mall in Winston-Salem are two of CBL’s developments. He introduced Mr. Mark Mancuso with CBL in Waltham, MA; Mr. Jeff Roach with RL Horvath Associates, Inc., of Durham; and Mr. Gary Martin with Centerpoint Development, Inc., of Marietta, GA.

 

       Mr. Brown informed the Commission that a small portion of the property being proposed for development is owned by Pool or Pond Partners and that Pool or Pond has agreed to swap another portion of property with CBL.

 

       Mr. Brown stated that 840,000 square feet of retail space is planned for the area, and the development will have a campus-style atmosphere much like Friendly Shopping Center in Greensboro.  Besides the commercial space, the development will include out-parcels as well as Office-Institutional and Multifamily uses.

 

       The development will be constructed in two phases, Mr. Brown told the Commission, and the first phase will be the western portion with construction of one large building and four smaller building areas with a gas pump area.  The second phase will include the development of out-parcels for other stores, restaurants or offices.

 

       A 100-foot right-of-way will be dedicated for the construction of a four-lane road, part of which will be constructed at a later date.  Retention ponds will help alleviate storm water run-off, and if any changes are necessary to the design of the proposed shopping area, developers will bring their requests back to the Commission.

 

       Commission Member Fletcher asked how long will the second phase of construction take, and Mr. Brown stated the developers estimate a five-year build-out for the second phase and a two-year build-out for the first phase.

 

       Commission Member Franks asked when is the multifamily area planned, and Mr. Brown stated that it would be about five years down the road.

 

       Mr. Brown also stated that signage and landscaping will adhere to the City’s regulations, and that the developers are waiting to hear from the North Carolina Department of Transportation for approval of road design and signalization.  He also pointed out that an extensive traffic analysis had been conducted, and that the developers were very sensitive to the nearby residential areas.

 

       Mr. Brown maintained the following:

 

1)    That the development is consistent with the City’s long-range plans.

 

2)    That the development will afford the highest and best use of the property.

 

3)    That the developers had been outlining the development with City staff for 16 months and that staff has approved the plans.

 

4)    That the development offers great transportation infrastructure improvements.

 

5)    That this is a master plan for 142 acres.

 

       Mr. Brown stated that this was the biggest development that he has been involved with in his 28 years of experience.  He stated that CBL does quality work and distributed projects showing projects that the company had been involved with.

 

       Commission Member Byrd asked if traffic flow had been addressed to prevent congestion.  Mr. Brown stated that everything possible had been done to keep the area from becoming Huffman Mill Road or Wendover Avenue in Greensboro.  To help alleviate this situation, Mr. Brown stated that the entrance to the development had been designed to be further away from the St. Mark’s Church Road ramp, and that no curb cuts will be allowed on the outside perimeter of the out-parcels.

 

       Commission Member Faucette stated that he does foresee an increase of traffic on Forestdale Drive and Boone Station Drive for those going to the development and wanting to stay off Huffman Mill Road.

 

       Mr. Brown stated that NCDOT will determine the placement of traffic signals as needed.

 

       Mr. Don Reynolds of 1243 Westview Terrace stated that he had lived in his home for 20 years and had experienced the rezoning of property on three sides.  He explained that neighbors get the noise from trucks around Wal-Mart, the Interstate and from the multi-story hotels nearby plus traffic from the kidney center across the road.  He stated that neighbors are now concerned with having only one road into their neighborhood once this development begins which will not be good for the residences or businesses.  He explained that neighbors, who have been approached by realtors and developers about purchasing their property, are concerned that the neighborhood will become boxed in and their biggest concern was with the planned multifamily development.  He presented to the Commission a petition signed by all homeowners in the Fairview Estates Subdivision and on Garden Road asking that the multifamily zoning be changed to commercial zoning or Office-Institutional zoning and that a buffer around the proposed development be included.  Mr. Reynolds displayed an aerial view showing the residential area and the proposed development.  A copy of that petition is made a part of these Commission minutes.

 

       Commission Member Burwell asked Mr. Reynolds why did neighbors object to multifamily zoning.  Mr. Reynolds stated that homeowners feel that they could get trapped in there with only one road to get in or out and that they would be unable to sell their property because they were locked in.  He stated that the homeowners think it is time to let go and move on and that almost everyone has already signed a contract to sell their property.

 

       Mr. Joe Tickle, 3148 Garden Road, stated that homeowners have no protection on any side of them -- motels on one side, Interstate, Wal-Mart and now this proposed development.

 

       Mr. Gary Rippy stated that he has lived on Garden Road since 1965 and that neighbors had fought Wal-Mart and lost and that they had seen their property value decrease.  He stated that since there was only one way for neighbors to come out ahead was to stop trying to beat them and instead joining them.

 

       Mr. Dean Foster stated that he had lived on Westview Terrace only three years but the neighborhood has constantly been changing.  He had concerns about there being only one road in and out of the development and stated that the area is no longer a good neighborhood but good for development.

 

       Mr. Chuck Basa, 1255 Westview Terrace, stated that neighbors are all in one boat and are stuck between a rock and a hard place and that they had no choice but to sell their property to developers.  He told Commission members that for the past three years he has seen the increase of traffic in the area, and that the neighborhood had been a little jewel there.  He stated that no matter if state-of-the-art patio homes were built in the multifamily-zoned areas, property values of their homes would go down.

 

       Commission Member Burwell asked Mr. Brown if the developers needed time to consider changing Multifamily zoning to O-I, and Mr. Brown stated that it was staff that asked the developers to include multifamily zoning in the development.  Mr. Brown stated that he would amend the rezoning application and delete multifamily zoning and change it to Office-Institutional zoning contingent upon the area being annexed by the City.

 

       Commission Member Burwell asked if the homeowners in attendance -- 30 to 40 -- understood Office-Institutional zoning and they responded that they did. 

 

       Mr. Dick Kalbfleisch, 1233 Westview Terrace, stated that all neighbors were in agreement that multifamily zoning be eliminated.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh noted that it appeared that the Westview Terrace neighborhood had become an island unto itself.

 

       Commission Member Franks stated that the site plan does not show buffers around the development.

 

       Assistant Director of Planning Services Smith stated that the development will have to adhere to City-wide landscape regulations recently adopted.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that the developers can amend their rezoning application and change the Multifamily classification to Office-Institutional.  He stated that staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning.  He pointed out that this application was complicated and had included considerable road infrastructure.  He pointed out that there would be no change in the alignment of the Western Loop; however, St. Mark’s Road will be re-aligned southerly towards the proposed development.  He stated that staff recommended approval of the rezoning with the following use and development conditions and amendments to the application:

 

Use Conditions

 

1)    Surface retention and drainage for the subdivision as shown on a plan provided by the developers and approved by staff.

 

2)    Roads, driveways, parking and building areas as shown on a map provided by the developers and approved by staff.

 

3)    Outdoor storage, sales and display areas to be permitted as long as the area does not exceed five percent of the approved building square footage.

 

Development Conditions

 

1)    St. Mark’s Church Road to be extended southerly into the site as shown on a plan provided by the developers and approved by staff.

 

2)    Signage to be shown on a signage plan provided by developers and approved by staff.

 

3)    Buildings will be located in areas designated “Building Area” as shown on drawings provided by developers and approved by staff.

 

4)    An east to west corridor road will be constructed in two phases as shown on plans submitted by developers and approved by staff.

 

5)    East-west road will align with Boone Station Drive at Garden Road to the east.

 

6)    All conditions stated in “General Site Notes” and “Condition of Rezoning” shown on a plan submitted by developers and approved by staff.

7)    Plans referred to are “Conditional Use Zoning” as prepared by RL Horvath Associates, Inc., consisting of five pages dated February 17, 2004.

 

8)    Building materials shall be masonry, split-face block and stucco of earth-tone color for uniformity.

 

9)    Signage shall be in accordance with an attached “Sign Package Criteria” submitted by developers and approved by staff.

 

Amendments to the Conditional Business Rezoning Application

 

1)    The entire 142 ­+ acres will be zoned Conditional Business to the west, Office-Institutional to the southeast and Office-Institutional to the northeast, as amended during the meeting and all in accordance with the submitted site plan, as amended.

 

2)    All uses for the Conditional Business portion will be consistent with the uses specified in the Table of Permitted Uses for the City of Burlington under Conditional Business zoning with the exception of the following uses: no adult bookstores, adult video stores, adult cabarets, adult motels, boarding and rooming houses, churches, drive-in theaters, heliports, helistops, sheet metal and roofing shops, storage of petroleum products in facilities greater than 100,000 gallons, swimming pools (community, non-profit), transportation terminals (freight) or travel trailer parks.

 

3)    Signage for out-parcels will be ground signs and wall signs only.

 

4)    Free-standing signs will be pylon signs not to exceed 50 feet in height and a width not to exceed 25 feet.

 

5)    All existing multiple lots will be combined into one lot prior to development, and subsequent subdivision shall be in accordance with applicable subdivision ordinances.

 

          Commission Member Fletcher made a motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning from R-15 and R-9 to Conditional Business and Office-Institutional and eliminating the request for Multifamily zoning. Paul Cobb seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request for rezoning from R-15 and R-9 to Conditional Business and Office-Institutional and eliminating the request for Multifamily zoning.

 

       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.    

 

 

       There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m.

 

 

 

 

                                                                      _____________________________

                                                                      George A. Byrd, Jr., Acting Chairman