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

 

MINUTES OF THE BURLINGTON PLANNING

AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING

 

April 26, 2004

 

Council Chamber, Burlington Municipal Building

 

 

CITY MEMBERS:                                                  EXTRATERRITORIAL MEMBERS:

 

George Byrd, Chairman, Present                             Bud Apple, Present

Jim Burwell, Secretary, Present                               John Enoch, Present

Paul Cobb, Absent                                                  Celo Faucette, Present

Lynn Cowan, Present                                             Richard Franks, Present

Elder Greg Hargrave, Absent                                   Ellis Piper, Present

Gordon Millspaugh, Present                                   

 

STAFF PRESENT:

 

Robert R. Harkrader, Planning Director

John Emerson, Zoning/Subdivision Administrator

Russ Smith, Assistant Director of Planning Services

Kurt Pearson, Planner II

Jeff Triezenberg, GIS Administrator

Dianne Fogleman, Office Assistant

 

 

       ITEM NO. 1: Commission Member Byrd, Acting Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Mr. Byrd announced that the Commission had lost a dedicated member, Gale Fletcher, who passed away Saturday night.  He asked other Commission members if they wished to reflect on Mr. Fletcher’s life.

 

       Commission Member Apple stated that Mr. Fletcher was a great father and grandfather and said what he thought.  Mr. Apple stated that he appreciated Mr. Fletcher being plain spoken, and one always knew where they stood with Gale.

 

       Commission Member Enoch stated that Mr. Fletcher was also a personal friend of his and that he will truly be missed.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh pointed out that Mr. Fletcher was dedicated to the community.

 

       Commission Member Piper stated that Mr. Fletcher will be missed by the community.

 

       ITEM NO. 2: Mr. Byrd called for approval of the minutes of the meeting held March 22, 2004.  Planning Director Harkrader stated that there was a correction on Page 7, Paragraph 7, which attributed a statement being made by Commission Member Hargrave  when it should be attributed to Commission Member Enoch.  The Commission voted unanimously to approve the minutes as amended.  This was a City and extraterritorial item.

 

       ITEM NO. 3: Acting Chairman Byrd stated that it was on the agenda to nominate a Chairman to serve the remainder of this fiscal year. He asked Commission members if they wished to vote on this item or postpone it due to the death of Mr. Fletcher.  Commission Member Faucette felt that the Commission should proceed with the item.  John Enoch seconded his opinion.  It was the consensus of the Commission to proceed with the nomination.

 

       Commission Member Faucette nominated George Byrd as Chairman.  John Enoch made a motion to close the nominations.  Richard Franks seconded the motion to close the nominations.  The Commission voted unanimously to close the nominations and elected Mr. Byrd to serve as Chairman for the remainder of the fiscal year. 

 

       Due to the now-vacant position of Commission Secretary, Commission Member Enoch nominated Jim Burwell as Secretary and made a motion to close the nominations.  Gordon Millspaugh seconded the motion to nominate Mr. Burwell as Secretary and to close the nominations.  The Commission voted unanimously to close the nominations and elected Jim Burwell as Secretary for the remainder of the fiscal year.

 

       This was a City and extraterritorial item.

 

       ITEM NO. 4: Consent agenda:  (City)

 

(A)  Mr. Joel Martin presented an application for final plat approval of the Joel Martin Subdivision.  The property is located at the southwestern corner of Avon Avenue and Donovan Street as shown on a plat by Associated Surveying and Engineering dated March 26, 2004, and containing five lots.

 

(B)  Mr. Don Wagner presented an application for final plat approval of Phase One of the Camden Creek Subdivision.  The property is located on the south side of North Mebane Street and to the west of South Sellars Mill Road as shown on a plat by Simmons Engineering and Surveying dated March 7, 2004, and containing 33 lots.

 

(C)  Mr. James Vinson presented an application for final plat approval of the James Vinson Subdivision.  The property is located on the eastern side of Florence Street at its intersection with North Park Avenue as shown on a plat by Landmark Surveying, Inc., dated March 31, 2004, and containing eight lots.

 

(D)  Mr. Dale Congdon presented an application for final plat approval of the Dale Congdon Subdivision.  The property is bounded by Fisher, Jeffries and Apple Streets as shown on a plat by John Somers Surveyors dated March 10, 2004, and containing 10 lots.

 

       Staff recommended approval of (A), (C) and (D) and recommended approval of (B) contingent upon all engineering work being completed or proper surety being posted prior to recording the plat.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh made a motion to recommend (A), (C) and (D) and to recommend approval of (B) with the contingency outlined by staff. Jim Burwell seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of (A), (C) and (D) and to recommend approval of (B) contingent upon all engineering work being completed or proper surety being posted 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. Scott Wallace presented an application for final plat approval of Phase Five of the Brassfield Meadows Subdivision.  The property is located on the eastern side of Lakeside Avenue at the end of Fernway Drive as shown on a plat by Simmons Engineering and Surveying dated March 24, 2004, and containing 14 lots.

 

(F)   Mr. Lee Wilson presented an application for final plat approval of the James Lee and Debbie Wilson Subdivision.  The property is located on the southwestern intersection of North Carolina Highway 62 North and West Old Glencoe Road as shown on a plat by Simmons Engineering and Surveying dated August 14, 2003, and containing four lots.

 

       Staff recommended approval of (E) contingent upon all engineering work being completed proper surety being posted prior to recording the plat.  Staff also recommended approval of (F).

 

       Commission Member Enoch made a motion to recommend approval of (E) with the contingency outlined by staff and to recommend approval of (F). Bud Apple seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of (E) contingent upon all engineering work being completed or proper surety being posted prior to recording the plat and to recommend approval of (F).

 

       ITEM NO. 5: Mr. William Howard, representing Alltel Communications, presented an application to rezone from I-1, Planned Industrial District, to CI, Conditional Industrial District, property located on the southern side of Industry Drive (1528 Industry Drive) and to the east of Tucker Street and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 12-5C, a portion of Lots 11 and 13.  The request is to construct a free-standing 95-foot (100 feet with appurtenances) monopole telecommunications tower and related equipment. 

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Mr. Howard stated that the company had leased 10,000 square feet of land from Chisholm Services and that the tower would be tucked in back of the property.  He told Commission members that the tower will be designed to accommodate two additional users and that plans have been approved by the City’s Technical Advisory Committee and by Mr. Dan Danieley with the Burlington Airport Authority.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh noted that in an e-mail, Mr. Danieley recommended that the City require Alltel to install lighting mandated by the FAA and that it be installed on the monopole according to federal regulations.  Mr. Millspaugh asked Mr. Howard if the company had agreed to this and was told that it had.

 

       Staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning.  Planning Director Harkrader stated that the tower meets all technical aspects with the lighting provisions.

 

          Commission Member Millspaugh made a motion to recommend approval of the request  for  rezoning  contingent upon the applicant abiding by the FAA lighting mandates. 


Jim Burwell seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request for rezoning contingent upon the applicant complying with FAA lighting requirements on the tower.

 

       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. Bill Price presented an application to rezone from O-I, Office-Institutional District, to B-2, General Business District, the property located on the western side of Forestdale Drive and to the north of Boone Station Drive and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 3-18-41.

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Mr. Price stated that the three-quarters of an acre lot is triangular-shaped and located adjacent to multifamily zoning.  He reminded members that a request for rezoning to B-2 in 1996 was denied because of the possibility of increased traffic generated by B-2 zoning.  Now that the Western Loop is near completion thus decreasing traffic on Huffman Mill Road, he was requesting that the lot be rezoned to B-2.  He pointed out that the property across the street is already zoned B-2.

 

       Staff recommended denial of the request for rezoning on the basis that B-2 zoning would not be consistent with the established land use patterns on the western side of Forestdale Drive.  Planning Director Harkrader stated that it would be a mistake to introduce B-2 zoning on the western side of Forestdale Drive and that while the property across the street is zoned B-2, it is in O-I use.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh stated that he had a problem with uses allowed in B-2 zoning.

 

       Mr. Price asked if uses allowed in B-2 were that bad.

 

       Commission Chairman Byrd explained that the Commission must consider all uses that would be allowed in B-2 zoning. He stated that the property could change ownership and any use allowed in B-2 could go there.

 

       Mr. Price pointed out that other areas have mixed zoning, such as where Alamance Road comes into Church Street.

 

       Commission Secretary Burwell stated that since this property backs up to residentially-zoned property, zoning should be more “softened” rather than B-2 zoning.  He pointed out that B-2 zoning opens up a lot of possibilities for night clubs, bars and so on, even if Mr. Price as no intention of allowing something like that to be developed there.  He stated that what Mr. Millspaugh was alluding to was the fact that the property could change ownership in the future and that the new owner could open a topless bar on the property.  Mr. Burwell also pointed out that there is no B-2 on the western side of Forestdale Drive.

 

       Mr. Price suggested that the City change its ordinance so that topless bars or nightclubs are not allowed in B-2 zoning without a Special Use Permit and therefore avoid problems such as this.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh made a motion to recommend denial of the request for rezoning.  Jim Burwell seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the request for rezoning. 

 

       ITEM NO. 7: Mr. Warren Riley was scheduled to present an application to rezone from O-I, Office-Institutional District, to B-2, General Business District, the property located on the southern side of South Church Street (1052 South Church Street) and to the east of Carolina Avenue and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 19, Block 64, Lot 12. 

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Mr. Riley was not present, and it was the consensus of the Commission to wait until the end of the meeting to see if Mr. Riley arrived.

 

       At the end of the meeting, Mr. Riley had not arrived.  Commission Member Cowan voted to table the item until the May meeting.  Gordon Millspaugh seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to table the item until the May 24, 2004, meeting.

 

       ITEM NO. 8: Mr. Joseph Kalo, IV, representing Mr. Robert Raynor, presented an application to rezone from R-15, Residential District, to O-I, Office-Institutional District, the property located on the western side of West Buckhill Road (1687 West Buckhill Road) and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 3-23, Lot 5B.

 

       This was an extraterritorial item. 

 

       Mr. Kalo stated that the petitioner has a catalogue sales business specializing in historical documents and that he wishes to move the business from Graham to this location.

 

       Staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning. Planning Director Harkrader stated that all uses allowed in O-I zoning would be suitable in the area.

 

       Commission Secretary Burwell made a motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.  Richard Franks 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. 9: Mr. George Nall presented an application to rezone from B-1, Neighborhood Business District, to CR, Conditional Residential District, the property located on the western side of Glencoe Street (2410 Glencoe Street) and to the north of River Drive and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 5-23B, Lot 14.  The request is to allow the two existing structures to be used for residential purposes. 

 

       This was an extraterritorial item.

 

       Commission Member Cowan asked that she be allowed to abstain from voting.  Commission Chairman Byrd explained that Mrs. Cowan is site manager for Preservation North Carolina at the Glencoe Mill Village where Mr. Nall’s property is located.

 

       Mr. Nall explained that he wanted to combine the two existing structures and use them for residential purposes.

 

       Staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning. Planning Director Harkrader explained that the area is governed by Preservation of North Carolina as a historical site.

 

       Commission Member Faucette made a motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.  Bud Apple seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request for rezoning. Lynn Cowan abstained from voting.

 

       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. 10:  Mr. William D. Moser, Jr., representing Ms. Anne Wrightenberry, presented an application to rezone from B-2, General Business District, to B-3, Central Business District, the property located southwest of the intersection of Market and Spring Streets adjacent to the North Carolina Railroad right-of-way and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 27, Block 93, Lots 53 and 53A. 

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Mr. Moser explained that Ms. Wrightenberry is requesting B-3 zoning because of parking.  He stated that she had tried to obtain permission from the NC Railroad to park on the railroad right-of-way, but the company does not lease land for that purpose.  He stated that B-3 zoning does not require provided parking.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked if parking is not provided, where will employees or customers park.

 

       Zoning/Subdivision Administrator Emerson explained that all downtown businesses are zoned B-3.

 

       Staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning on the basis that B-3 zoning will be an appropriate extension of existing B-3 zoning.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh made a motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.  Lynn Cowan 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. 11Mr. Mark Reich with Alley, Williams, Carmen and King, Inc., representing SSJ of Alamance, LLC, presented an application to rezone from R-9, Residential District, to CR, Conditional Residential District, the property located on the western side of MacArthur Lane and to the south of Durham Street and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 3-1, Lot 10E.  The request is to allow 49 single lots, 101 townhouses and amenities. 

 

       This was an extraterritorial item.

 

       Mr. Reich introduced Charles Jones and Kevin Sasser with SSJ of Alamance.

 

       Mr. Reich stated that City sewer and water are available at the 31.8-acre site and a road will separate the single-family lots from the townhouses.  A clubhouse and pool in the townhouse portion will be available for use by all residents in the development.  Mr. Reich also explained briefly proposed signage and landscaping.

 

       Commission Member Apple asked if rezoning on this property had been considered before and was told that a request for R-6 had been denied several years ago.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked if this was in the Elon Elementary School district and was told that it was. 

 

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

 

       Commission Member Faucette made a motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.  John Enoch 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. 12Mr. Charles Bateman, representing Wakefield Associates, presented an application to rezone from R-15, Residential District, to CB, Conditional Business District, the property located at the northwestern quadrant of the new Western Loop and I-85/40 interchange and to the south of Rural Retreat Road and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 3-26, Lots 1, 2 and 3.  The request is to allow commercial development of the property as indicated on the rezoning application. 

 

       This was an extraterritorial item.

 

       Mr. Bateman stated that this was a joint venture between Wakefield Associates of Raleigh and Kimco Realty based in Chicago. He introduced representatives from the two agencies as well as representatives from Target Stores. 

 

       Mr. Bateman pointed out that this is the City’s last major interchange and that the City’s Land Use Plan calls for an employment center, office park or mixed-use commercial development on this site.  He maintained, however, that Burlington has a crying need for more commercial development to serve the 4,000 or so proposed homes being built in the area, that the proposed development will be more compatible with the area and the development will be more economical to the City as it will provide approximately 1,500 new jobs and $70 million in sales.

 

       He stated that the 360,000 square-foot development will have a village-like design and will offer quality shopping and a new source of sales revenue for the City and will be a credit to the community.  Stores such as Target and Michael’s have committed to the development, he told the Commission.  Mr. Bateman compared land use planning as painting with a broad brush, and stated that dealing with market forces is like painting with a fine brush.

 

       Mr. Bateman stated that the demand for another office park in Alamance County is almost non-existent whereas the market for retail stores is booming.

 

       Ms. Mary Beerman with The John R. McAdams Company, Research Triangle Park, architects of the development, distributed site plans of the proposed shopping center.

 

       Mr. Mike Munn, also with The John R. McAdams Company, gave an overview of the site plan and explained that stores will face inward to the center thus eliminating a strip-mall atmosphere with a sea of parking spaces.  There will be open space at the rear, and 12 percent of the site will be undisturbed space.

 

       Commission Secretary Burwell asked if there was a shopping center in the area similar to the one being proposed, and Mr. Munn stated that the Renaissance Center in Durham was comparative.

 

       Mr. Ramey Kemp of Raleigh, a transportation engineer, gave highlights of a traffic study conducted in the area.  He predicted that there will be a moderate rise in rush-hour traffic -- 23 percent -- because of the proposed development at the major intersections. He stated that he also factored in traffic from the proposed Mackintosh on the Lake residential subdivision as well as the other proposed shopping center across the road.

 

       Commission Member Faucette asked if he foresaw a “bottleneck” being created at Rural Retreat Road, and Mr. Kemp stated that he did not.  Many of the surrounding neighbors responded to his answer by saying the traffic study must have been conducted when there were no soccer games letting out at the park.

 

       Commission Member Franks inquired how a traffic study could have been conducted on a road that has not been completed.

 

       Mr. Bateman stated that the study took into account peak evening hours but did not include park traffic.

 

       Mr. Rick Rowe with Wakefield Associates stated that Kimco Realty has been working with several tenants, including Target.  Mr. Rowe told the Commission that Target plans to open a store in Burlington in October 2005 which coincides with Target’s large-scale plans for expansion.  He maintained that this was the only acceptable site for Target, and if the company did not get the site, Target may reconsider whether Burlington is the right place for the company.

 

Mr. Rowe introduced Mr. Randy Manthey, Target’s southeast region development manager.  Mr. Manthey confirmed Target’s interest in the site and stated that Target goes through an intense process of market research to determine where the company places its stores.  He maintained that Burlington is a good place and that Target and the community are a good match.

 

       Mr. Bateman introduced Mr. Rich Barta, president of Core Corporation based in Charlotte.  Mr. Barta stated that some of the company’s clients include Best Buy, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Michael’s and PetSmart, which seem to follow each other when it comes to opening new stores.  He maintained that these stores have agreed to move into the proposed shopping center unless Target backs out as its anchor store.

 

       Mr. Brian Simon with the Shopping Center Group in Charlotte stated that his company represents Bed, Bath & Beyond, Old Navy, Red Robin and Ross and that these stores usually locate in a development with Target.

 

       Mr. Andy Misiaveg with the Shopping Center Group stated that Chili’s, Red Robin, Krispy Kreme and Chick-Fil-A are interested in outparcel locations around the shopping center.

 

       Mr. Bob Ware, Williams Mill Road, asked if the project had the City staff’s endorsement and is the Joe Barbour Boulevard still being proposed.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that he would give the staff’s recommendation when called for by the Commission Chairman and that he was not familiar with the Joe Barbour Boulevard on the Thoroughfare Plan.

 

       Mr. Ware stated that he and other neighbors had concerns about the project, one being that they were not notified of the project.  He pointed out that before the CBL project across the road was presented to the City, CBL had extensive conversations with neighbors, all of whom “got on board” and also wanted to have their property rezoned for commercial development.  He stated that maybe his entire neighborhood would also want to be rezoned for commercial development if Wakefield had approached them beforehand. 

 

       Mr. Ware questioned how could traffic patterns be predicted in an area that hasn’t been developed yet and how could City staff depart from the Land Use Plan because of  pillaging by a developer.

 

       Ms. Rhonda Custer, Williams Mill Road, stated that there are approximately 60 homes in Mayview Acres and she was concerned that she and her neighbors were not afforded the respect of being informed of this development.  Additionally, she stated that at one time, maps showed a road going through this property and extending through neighbors’ property; however, she had learned that it was not cost-effective to construct the road.  Ms. Custer stated that the proposed development will have a major impact on the residential subdivision and create a large amount of traffic.

 

       Mr. Kemp stated that at one time, plans did show a road going through the Wooten property, but because of environmental issues and advice from the City Planning Department, plans were abandoned. 

 

       Mr. Lawson Brown, Attorney, speaking on behalf of Lee Wilson, stated that staff should uphold the integrity of the City’s Land Use Plan that it had worked on for two years.  He pointed out that the City had conducted multiple meetings and a public hearing before adopting the plan and within six months should not change it.  He maintained that one major entrance into the proposed shopping center would not be adequate. 

 

       Ms. Mary Shepherd, Rural Retreat Road, stated that it appears the developers were putting the cart before the horse and explained that in walking around the area, she had spotted empty dynamite boxes and the cutting down of trees and bushes.  She said there were no signs posted, and that neighbors did not know anything about the proposed shopping center.

 

       Staff informed Ms. Shepherd that she was walking into an area where the City is installing an outfall line that has nothing to do with the proposed shopping center development.

 

       Mr. Joe Dick, Shepherd Drive, questioned the traffic studies made. The prediction that there will be 23 percent traffic increase is understated, he maintained.  He stated that there were three reasons he opposed the rezoning: (1) creation of more traffic; (2) no communication between the developer and residents; and (3) staff should adhere to the Land Use Plan.

 

       In response to the lack of communication between the developer and residents, Mr. Bateman stated that there were no neighbors within 1,000 feet to be contacted about the proposed development.  He maintained that the residential areas will see little increase in traffic other than those neighbors going to and from the shopping center.  He pointed out that the CBL development across the road will be three times larger than this development with about three times more outparcels.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that traffic in the area will increase whether this proposed shopping center is built or not once the Western Loop is completed.  He told the Commission that staff’s concern is that the Southwest Area Land Use Plan does not support this type of commercial development.  During the process of preparing the Land Use Plan, neighbors were adamant about the following: (1) did not want the road cutting through their neighborhood; and (2) did not want commercial development in the area.  The primary reason for recommending denial of the request for rezoning is the fact that the Land Use Plan does not support the project.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh questioned that the proposed commercial development across the road was approved last month, and all of that property was previously zoned R-15, Residential. 

 

       Planning Director Harkrader explained that neighbors also wanted Conditional zoning for their property.

 

       Commission Member Enoch pointed out that the main concern should not be traffic but that the Land Use Plan does not support this commercial development.

 

       Commission Secretary Burwell asked if staff does not recommend the commercial development, what does it foresee being developed in the quadrant.  He pointed out that the developers had put together a great team and that he thought the community would love to see the project developed.  However, the Commission has an obligation to protect the people of the community.  He stated that he understands staff’s concern about the traffic problem, but questioned what did staff visualize being developed there.  He concluded that something’s going to go there.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh commented that it certainly wouldn’t be R-15 homes.

 

       Mr. Richard Jacoby, Williams Mill Road, stated that he was not opposed to the Wakefield development.  He thinks they would make good neighbors and help the City’s tax base.  However, he stated that if the City lets them change the zoning, the City should allow the neighbors to change the zoning of their property also to accommodate commercial development, the same as the development across the road.

 

       Mr. Bobby Byrd, Williams Mill Road, questioned the opening of Williams Mill Road.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that at some point in time, Williams Mill Road might be extended to Springwood Church Road; however, development in that area would have to warrant the road extension.

 

       Commission Secretary Burwell asked if staff had anything to support the recommendation of denying commercial rezoning.

 

       Mr. Harkrader stated that if the Commission acknowledges the Land Use Plan adopted last summer, it will have to acknowledge that the plan recommends an office park in this area that will act as a buffer between the proposed commercial development on one side and the residential area on the other.  Mr. Harkrader stated that he realizes, however, that an office park is not as marketable as a shopping center.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked if the proposed CBL development had been taken into consideration when the traffic study was conducted and was told that it had been.

 

       Commission Member Enoch commented that he could not think of a more productive use of the property than the proposed shopping center and stated that he thought the City owed it to the community to provide 1,500 new jobs.

 

       Mr. Bateman stated that every new development has an impact on something, and that while about 60 residents may be somewhat inconvenienced by this proposed development, the needs of the entire community should be considered.  The community is being offered more shopping choices, infrastructure and employment opportunities.

 

       Mr. Ware commented why would the community and the City develop a land use plan if it has no integrity.  He also stated that Wakefield’s plan was not a bad plan and would be good for the economy, but if the City voted to change the Land Use Plan to accommodate the development, the City might as well trash the rest of the Land Use Plan.

 

       Commission Chairman Byrd stated that it was a difficult decision (on whether to recommend approval or denial of the proposed development) and that it had its pros and cons.  But the Commission has an obligation to the people of the community, he stated.  The development will create more jobs, but the City has some difficult issues to work with.

 

       Commission Member Enoch made a motion to continue the item until the developers, planners and neighbors could work out some things and come to a compromise on issues.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that he did not know if the developers could wait another month because of contract negotiations.

 

       Mr. Bateman stated that the developers need an answer (to approve or deny the rezoning) on the development proposal as soon as possible.

 

       Mr. Enoch’s motion died due to the lack of a second.

 

       Mr. Harkrader stated that staff’s decision to recommend denial of the proposed development was based on the fact that the Land Use Plan does not support a commercial development such as this on the property and that neighbors had made it clear that they did not want commercial development in this area.

 

       Commission Member Apple stated that all members of the Commission were involved in creating the Land Use Plan and it would not be in the best interest of the neighbors for the Commission to deviate from the plan.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh stated that the Commission considers rezoning requests every month and members must look at each request individually; however, he was hesitate about changing part of the Land Use Plan that was adopted less than a year ago.

 

       Commission Member Enoch compared the designated zoning on this property as shown on the Land Use Plan to a budget -- each has to be modified at times.  He stated that this issue warrants taking another look at by the Commission.

 

       Commission Member Franks made a motion to recommend denial of the request for rezoning.  Bud Apple seconded the motion.  The Commission voted seven to two to recommend denial of the request for rezoning. Voting to recommend denial were Byrd, Burwell, Millspaugh, Apple, Faucette, Franks and Piper.  Voting against the motion to recommend denial were Enoch and Cowan.

 

       ITEM NO. 13:  Mr. Douglas Uhler was scheduled to present an application to rezone from O-I, Office-Institutional District, to B-2, General Business District, the property located at the northwestern corner of South Mebane Street and Catherine Drive (3703 South Mebane Street and the adjacent lot to the rear) and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 3-21, Lots 8 and 9.

 

       This item was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

 

       ITEM NO. 14Mr. Frederick Womble, representing Sprint PCS, presented an application to rezone from I-1A, Planned Industrial-Residential District, to CI, Conditional Industrial District, the property located on the southern side of West Old Glencoe Road (310 West Old Glencoe Road) and to the west of North Carolina Highway 62 North and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 12-50, a portion of Lot 34.  The request is to allow the construction of a 150-foot monopole telecommunications tower and associated facilities. 

 

       This was an extraterritorial item.

 

       Mr. Womble stated that the tower and facilities will be situated in a 40 feet by 60 feet area on the 10-acre tract.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked if this area was in one of the airport’s flight patterns and was told that it was not.

      

       Staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning on the basis that it meets all requirements.

 

       Commission Secretary Burwell made a motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.  Richard Franks 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.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

       There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:49 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                             ____________________________

                                                                             George A. Byrd, Jr., Chairman

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                             ____________________________

                                                                             James M. Burwell, Secretary