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

 

MINUTES OF THE BURLINGTON PLANNING

AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING

 

November 27, 2006

 

Council Chamber, Burlington Municipal Building

 

 

 

CITY MEMBERS:                                                               EXTRATERRITORIAL MEMBERS:

 

George Byrd, Chairman, Present                   Bud Apple, Present

Paul Cobb, Secretary, Present                   Richard Franks, Present

John Black, Present                   Earl Jaggers, Present

Lynn Cowan, Present                   Jim Johnson, Present

Elder Greg Hargrave, Present                   Ellis Piper, Absent

Gordon Millspaugh, Present                   Bob Ware, Present

 

STAFF PRESENT:

 

Robert R. Harkrader, Planning Director

David Beal, Assistant Director of Planning Services

Haywood Cloud, Zoning/Subdivision Administrator

Dianne Fogleman, Office Assistant

 

 

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

 

       ITEM NO. 2: Minutes of the meeting held October 23, 2006, were unanimously approved.  This was a City and extraterritorial item.

 

       ITEM NO. 3: Consent agenda:  (City)

 

(A)   Mr. Rodney Herring, representing First National Bank, presented an application for final plat approval of the First National Bank Subdivision.  The property is located on the south side of South Church Street approximately 500 feet west of Commerce Place as shown on plans by Simmons Engineering and Surveying, Inc., dated October 31, 2006, and containing two lots.

 

(B)   Mr. Heath Williams, representing Cambridge Isenhour Homes, Inc., presented an application for final plat approval of Phase 1, Section 4 of the Glenmoor Townhomes of Mackintosh on the Lake (Section J2).  The property is located on Gilchrist Drive south of Interstate 85/40 as shown on plans by Alley, Williams, Carmen and King, Inc., dated November 7, 2006, and containing three lots.

 

(C)   Mr. Heath Williams, representing Cambridge Isenhour Homes, Inc., presented an application for final plat approval of Phase 1, Section 5 of the Glenmoor Townhomes of Mackintosh on the Lake (Section J2).  The property is located on Tweed Lane south of Interstate 85/40 as shown on plans by Alley, Williams, Carmen and King, Inc., dated November 7, 2006, and containing three lots.

 

(D)   Mr. Heath Williams, representing Wakefield Development Company, presented an application for preliminary plan approval for Parcel G of the Mackintosh on the Lake Subdivision.  The property is located on the south side of Bonnar Bridge Parkway, north of Loch Ridge Parkway and south of Interstate 85/40 as shown on plans by Alley, Williams, Carmen and King, Inc., dated November 8, 2006, and containing 121 lots.

 

(E)   Mr. Sam Moore presented an application for final plat approval of the Carolina Bank Subdivision.  The property is located on the southwest corner of South Church Street and Collinwood Drive as shown on plans by Boswell Surveyors, Inc., containing two lots.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked if Item (D) was in order and was told that it was.

 

       Staff recommended approval of (A), (B), (C), (D) and (E).

 

       Commission Secretary Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of (A), (B), (C) and (E) and to approve (D).  Gordon Millspaugh seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of (A), (B), (C) and (E) and to approve (D).

 

       Consent agenda:  (Extraterritorial)

 

(F)   Mr. Michael Splawn presented an application for final plat approval of the Splawn Associates Subdivision.  The property is located on the southwest corner of Anthony Road and Old Trail Road as shown on plans by Wayne Perry dated November 1, 2006, and containing two lots.

 

(G)   Mr. Josh Montazeri, representing Waterfalls, LLC, was scheduled to present an application for final plat approval of Phase 2 of the Waterfalls Subdivision.  The applicant was not present.  The property is located on Longpine Road approximately 715 feet northwest of Evergreen Lane as shown on plans by Fleming Engineering, Inc., dated November 10, 2006, and containing 31 lots.

 

       Commission Secretary Cobb suggested that the item be considered at the end of the meeting in case the applicant was running late.

 

       Commission Member Hargrave questioned if the plat was in order, didn’t the Commission usually consider the application.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader answered that since this was a final plat, the Commission could consider it without the applicant present.  However, if it were a rezoning application, staff would suggest that the item be continued until the next Planning and Zoning meeting.

 

       Mr. Charles Bateman stated that he believed that Mr. Johnny Wagoner was a co-owner of the subdivision and that Mr. Wagoner was a client of his.  Therefore, he told Commission members that he would represent the petitioners.

 

       Commission Member Cobb withdrew his motion to continue the item.

 

       Staff recommended approval of (F) and (G).

 

       Commission Member Franks made a motion to recommend approval of (F) and (G).  Jim Johnson seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of (F) and (G).

 

       ITEM NO. 4: Mr. Lawson Brown, representing CBL and Associates, was scheduled to present an application to rezone from R-15, Residential District, to CB, Conditional Business District, to allow for uses consistent with those in the Alamance Crossing Conditional rezoning approved by City Council April 20, 2004.  The property is located on the south side of Garden Road approximately 560 feet northwest of Boone Station Drive and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 3-24-2B.  This item was continued from the August 28, September 25 and October 23, 2006, Commission meetings.

 

       This was an extraterritorial item.

 

       Mr. Brown requested that the item be continued until the next Commission meeting.  He stated that the project manager, Mr. Jon Meshel, had not been able to meet with neighbors regarding the rezoning.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh made a motion to continue the item until the next meeting.  Bud Apple seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to continue the item until the next Planning and Zoning meeting.

 

       ITEM NO. 5: Mr. Charles Bateman, representing Mr. Joseph Rickman, presented an application to rezone from I-1, Planned Industrial District, to CI, Conditional Industrial District, to allow for the placement of one monopole outdoor advertising structure.  The property is located on the west side of the southernmost end of Trail Two north of Interstate 85/40 as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 12-5-4.  This item was withdrawn prior to the September and October Commission meetings at the request of the petitioner.

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Mr. Bateman stated that the application had been amended from the previously submitted request.  The applicant was now requesting the placement of one monopole rather than two and informed the Commission that the existing sign on the property would be removed prior to the construction of the monopole.  He told Commission members that D.K. Holdings, LLC, Mr. Rickman’s company, had purchased the adjoining right-of-way.

 

       Mr. Bateman explained that the monopole would be placed in a particular area as shown on the submitted site plan because of visibility from I-85/40.  It would be located 45 feet from the closest property line.

 

       He shared a letter from the closest property owner, Ms. Rachel Vogler, stating that she had no objection to the placement of the monopole.  He stated that he had talked with six other adjoining property owners and had tried to contact all of the neighbors; however, one property owner lives out-of-state and could not be reached; one of the neighbors he talked to did not express an opinion concerning the rezoning.

 

       Mr. Bateman maintained that this was a good proposal previously and now the application is even better since the request was for one monopole sign.  He pointed out that the sign would be located 65 feet from the Interstate, and the property located on a dead-end street would remain a natural wooded area.  The trees would remain as buffer for adjoining property owners, and the property would be cleared of debris.  Because of the pervious surface, there would be no water run-off, and the project would be environmentally friendly to both the neighborhood and City. He pointed out that the monopole offers an important venue for advertising.

 

       Commission Member Johnson stated that he understood the importance of maximum visibility of the monopole from the Interstate but questioned why on the new submitted site plan was the structure situated 16 feet from the highway whereas the previous site plan indicated five feet.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that the sign must adhere to setback requirements.

 

       Mr. Johnson asked if the sign would be straight-faced as opposed to a “V” and was told that it would.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked if the sign would be double stacked and was told that it would not.  He asked if it were possible for Commission members to have copies of those letters from property owners supporting the rezoning.  Mr. Bateman circulated copies of the letters, and Commission Chairman Byrd read the letter from Ms. Vogler stating that she was not opposed to the sign placement.  Mr. Millspaugh commented that Ms. Vogler’s support was important because that property would be affected by the sign lighting more than other properties.

 

       Mr. Rickman pointed out that the sign would be face illuminated and would shine upwards more than outwards.  He stated that the sign would be stationary and not turn; however, it was possible that the sign would become digital in the future.

 

       Commission Member Hargrave noted that the property is a dumpsite and asked what would be done to eliminate the situation.  Mr. Bateman stated that the dead-end portion would be protected by a cable that would discourage and act as a barrier to prevent traffic from entering the area.

 

       Ms. Charlotte Straney, 805 Lynnwood Drive, distributed copies of an aerial photo of the neighborhood.  She listed each home and property owner and why they could not attend the meeting.  She stated that she had talked to all but one neighbor concerning the rezoning and pointed out that two were present, Ms. Carolyn Humphrey, and Mr. John McCain, whose brother, Patrick, owns one of the homes.

 

       Ms. Straney stated that the neighbors were opposed to the rezoning and expressed her concern about the lighted billboard.  She maintained that lights from the Interstate already illuminate the neighborhood.

 

       She also questioned the planting of Leyland cypress as a buffer between the site and the neighborhood.  She maintained that even if the trees grow to 30 feet, they would not be tall enough to shield neighbors from the lighting.

 

       Mr. Robert Steele, representing the Elk’s Lodge, advised that the club was not opposed to the rezoning and that the construction of a business on the property would be more detrimental because of the traffic.  He introduced Mr. Max Leach, an Elk’s Lodge trustee.

 

       Mr. John McCain stated that his brother Patrick owns adjoining property and he felt that the sign wasn’t such a bad idea; however, it would take time for the trees to grow enough to offer much of a buffer.  He shared that he and his mother work first shifts and his brother works third.

 

       Commission Member Johnson commented that Leyland cypress could grow to 50 feet in height and would offer an adequate buffer if planted close enough together.

 

       Via a screen-projected site plan, Mr. Bateman indicated where a V-shaped planting of Leyland cypress could be located in order to shield some of the lighting and pointed out that none of the trees currently located on the property would be eliminated.  On behalf of his client, he offered to amend the Development Conditions on the application by adding that a 40-foot V–shaped buffer of Leyland cypress be planted on the parcel. 

 

       Commission Member Cobb asked if the adjoining homes were below grade level and was told that they were.  He also asked if there wasn’t already some type of outdoor lighting near the property.

 

       Mr. Rickman answered that there was a Duke Power light in the vicinity.  He also pointed out that the proposed monopole would have upward lighting and not outward whereas the Duke Power light offers an eight-foot span of lighting in every direction.

 

       Mr. Ray Whitesell stated that he owns property at 802 Trail 2 and that he had no objection to the sign.  He pointed out that it was beneficial that the petitioner was going to get rid of the trash dump.  He concluded that it was good that a local, small business owner, similar to himself, could be supported in his endeavors.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that this triangle-shaped property was probably a remnant from a larger tract that was dissected when the Interstate was built.  He maintained that while the Commission was focusing on lighting, the concern should be the question of policy – getting into a posture of rezoning property for the sole purpose of constructing a sign.  He questioned if this would be good policy and asked what would be the criterion to allow or not to allow such rezoning.  Mr. Harkrader advised that this could be setting a precedent and that he had a number of concerns.  He admitted that the triangle-shaped property poses limitations for development such as limited setbacks; however, it does have other uses besides an advertising sign.  He stated that staff recommended denial of the request for rezoning.

 

       Commission Member Cobb asked what would the property have to be zoned in order to construct an advertising sign.

 

       Mr. Harkrader answered possibly I-2 or B-2, but cautioned that any number of uses permitted by right could go there if rezoned, not just signs.

 

       Commission Member Franks asked why not I-1 zoning.  Mr. Harkrader answered because of setback requirements.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh noted that there was not much that one could do with this triangle-shaped property unless it was rezoned. 

 

       Commission Member Ware asked about the size of the lot and was told 2.64 acres.

 

       Commission Chairman Byrd asked how many houses could be built on the lot.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that approximately a dozen without taking topography issues and setbacks into consideration.

 

       Commission Member Johnson asked if a road wouldn’t have to be put in and was told that it would.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked if the property were not approved for rezoning, would the sign currently located on the property be allowed to remain.

 

       Mr. Harkrader stated that the existing sign is non-conforming; however, it would be allowed to remain but not improved upon.   

 

       Commission Member Hargrave asked if staff had received any calls about the rezoning.

 

       Ms. Straney maintained that one of the neighbors had tried to call but could get no answer.                                                                                                                                                                                                   

 

       Elder Hargrave asked if any research had been conducted to see if the proposed sign would meet NCDOT requirements.

 

       Mr. Bateman stated that the sign does meet NCDOT requirements.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh noted that this was a unique situation and stated that this property would probably never be used unless it were rezoned.  However, he had concerns that if this sign were to be approved, there may be other requests in the future.  He pointed out that the good thing that would come from approving this request for rezoning would be that the dead-end street would have a barrier to prevent garbage dumping.  He made a motion to approve the request for rezoning with the added Development Condition that the petitioner plant a 40-foot V-shaped row of Leyland cypress at the location indicated previously.  He suggested that the petitioner consider locating the sign further east before presenting the application to City Council.

 

       Mr. Bateman stated that the current proposed location offers the best visibility from the Interstate.

 

       Commission Member Black asked if that statement could be explained.

 

       Mr. Rickman noted the vegetation east of the Elk’s Lodge and the significant tree line plus the row of homes, and with all of this, one driving along I-85/40 has a three-second opportunity to be able to read the sign.

 

       Commission Member Paul Cobb seconded the motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.

 

       The Commission voted four to two to recommend approval.  Voting to recommend approval were Millspaugh, Cobb, Byrd and Black.  Voting against the motion to recommend approval were Cowan and Hargrave.

 

       The following Use and Development Conditions were submitted by the petitioner:

 

Use Conditions

 

1.  Applicant proposes to construct one monopole outdoor advertising structure that shall have vee-face boards at 672 square feet per face at an overall height of 40 feet above grade level and five feet behind the Interstate 85/40 property line.

 

2.    The location of the structure is shown on a submitted site plan.

 

3.    The existing non-conforming structure shall be removed prior to the construction of a new structure.

 

4.    No other uses shall be permitted on the lot.


 

Development Conditions

 

1.    The applicant shall plant a V-shaped row of Leyland cypress 40 feet in length as indicated during the November 27, 2006, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.

 

2.    The applicant shall leave the tract shown on the submitted site plan as an undisturbed natural area to provide continued buffering to adjacent property owners.

 

       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. Charles Bateman, representing Burlington Nissan-Hyundai, presented an application to rezone from O-I, Office-Institutional District, to CB, Conditional Business District, to allow a .540 acre tract of land to be combined with the Burlington Nissan-Hyundai Conditional Business rezoning approved by the City Council on September 5, 2006.  The Conditional Business rezoning would allow the construction of an automobile dealership, and the additional tract of land would adhere to the same Use and Development Conditions previously approved.  The property is located on the north side of Huffman Mill Road south of Whitesell Drive approximately 1,300 feet southwest of Kirkpatrick Road as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 3-22, a portion of Lot 51.

 

       This was an extraterritorial item.

 

       Mr. Bateman stated that this property was purchased from the hospital and would square up the current tract owned by Crenshaw Properties.  The additional tract would offer a parking and display area.

 

       Commission Chairman Byrd asked if this would be a Hyundai dealership only and was told that it would be.

 

       Staff recommended approval of the request to rezone the .540 acre tract and consolidate it with the existing Conditional Business zoning with the Use and Development Conditions submitted by the petitioner and approved by the Burlington City Council on September 5, 2006.  Planning Director Harkrader stated that the rezoning would be consistent with the Future Land Use Map.

 

       Commission Member Jaggers made a motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning and combine the property with the previously approved Conditional Business zoning. Commission Member Franks seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request for rezoning and recommended that the official zoning map and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan be amended to reflect the change.  The following Use and Development Conditions have been submitted by the petitioner:

 

Use Condition

 

The .540 tract of land shall be combined with the adjacent property zoned Conditional Business approved by the Burlington City Council on September 5, 2006, (ACTM 3-22, Lots 19 and 22) and shall adhere to the previously approved Use and Development Conditions.

 

Development Condition

 

All previously approved Development Conditions shall remain in effect.

 

      

 

 

       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. 7: Staff presented proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance text pertaining to usable open space and townhome requirements. 

 

       This was a City and extraterritorial item.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that many of the changes are due to the relocation of sections to others within the Zoning Ordinance.  He pointed out that there are no changes proposed for the Townhouse Dimensional Requirements Table; it would be moved to another location in the ordinance.  One of the proposed amendments reflects access requirements for townhouse developments.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh made a motion to recommend approval of the amendments. Paul Cobb seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the following amendments:

 

AMEND SECTION 32.22  - DEFINITIONS

 

FROM:

 

Usable Open Space: A parcel or parcels of land or an area of water as a combination of both land and water and designed for the recreational use and enjoyment of residents of the proposed development, not including streets or off-street parking areas.  Not more than one half of the required usable space may be areas covered by water.  Usable open space shall be substantially free of structures but may contain such improvements as are appropriate for the benefit of residents.  A maximum of five percent of the area designated as usable open space may be covered by structures clearly ancillary to the recreational use of the space. Except for such structures, all usable open space shall be unobstructed except for plants, lawn furniture, swimming pools, terraces, walkways, play equipment, etc., so arranged to provide for the free movement of the people within the space.  No portion of any such usable open space shall be located in any required yard area adjacent to a public street.

 

TO:

 

Usable Open Space: A parcel or parcels of land or an area of water as a combination of both land and water and designed for the recreational use and enjoyment of residents of the proposed development, not including streets or off-street parking areas.  Not more than one half of the required usable open space may be areas covered by water.  Usable open space shall be substantially free of structures but may contain such improvements as are appropriate for the benefit of residents.  A maximum of five percent of the area designated as usable open space may be covered by structures clearly ancillary to the recreational use of the space. Except for such structures, all usable open space shall be unobstructed except for plants, lawn furniture, swimming pools, terraces, walkways, play equipment, etc., so arranged to provide for the free movement of the people within the space.  No portion of any such usable open space shall be located in any required yard area adjacent to a public street. Parking areas, vehicle drives and storage areas shall not be included in the calculation of usable open space. 


 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.4:B.3.a. AND b. -- MF-A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS:

 

FROM:

a.          Usable Open Space: A minimum of 10% of the total land area of any lot containing three or more dwelling units shall be usable open space, as defined in Section 32.22. On lots where the required usable open space is less than 20,000 square feet, such space should be approximately square, but in no case shall the length of such required space be more than twice its average width. On lots where the required usable open space is 20,000 square feet or more, the minimum dimension of such space shall not be less than 100 feet, and the minimum size space allowable as meeting a part of the required usable open space shall be not less than 20,000 feet.

 

b.          Private Usable Open Space: The total usable open space as required in Subparagraph a. immediately above may be reduced by 50% if a minimum of 500 square feet of private usable open space per dwelling unit is provided. Such space shall be directly accessible and adjacent to the dwelling unit it serves and shall be so arranged and screened to prevent public traffic through such space and provide reasonable privacy from public view. Such space shall be suitable for recreational activity and shall be unobstructed except for plants, lawn furniture and play equipment. Private terraces and walkways may be included in such open space. Parking areas, vehicle drives and storage areas shall not be included in such open space. The minimum dimension of any such private open space shall not be less than 15 feet.

 

TO:

 

a.           Usable Open Space: A minimum of 10% of the total land area of any lot containing three or more dwelling units shall be usable open space, as defined in Section 32.22. On lots where the required usable open space is less than 20,000 square feet, such space should be approximately square, but in no case shall the length of such required space be more than twice its average width. On lots where the required usable open space is 20,000 square feet or more, the minimum dimension of such space shall not be less than 100 feet, and the minimum size space allowable as meeting a part of the required usable open space shall be not less than 20,000 feet.  A minimum of 10 percent of the total land area of any lot containing three of more dwelling units shall be developed as usable open space, as defined in Section 32.22.  Parking areas, vehicle drives and storage areas shall not be included in such open space.   

 

b.          Private Usable Open Space: The total usable open space as required in Subparagraph a. immediately above may be reduced by 50% if a minimum of 500 square feet of private usable open space per dwelling unit is provided. Such space shall be directly accessible and adjacent to the dwelling unit it serves and shall be so arranged and screened to prevent public traffic through such space and provide reasonable privacy from public view. Such space shall be suitable for recreational activity and shall be unobstructed except for plants, lawn furniture and play equipment. Private terraces and walkways may be included in such open space. Parking areas, vehicle drives and storage areas shall not be included in such open space. The minimum dimension of any such private open space shall not be less than 15 feet.


 

AMEND SECTION 32.4:C.3.a. AND b. -- MF-B MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS:

 

FROM:

a.          Usable Open Space: A minimum of six percent of the total land area of any lot containing three or more dwelling units shall be usable open space, as defined in Section 32.22. On lots where the required usable open space is less than 20,000 square feet, such space should be approximately square but in no case shall the length of such required space be more than twice its average width. On lots where the required usable open space is 20,000 square feet or more, the minimum dimension of such space shall not be less than 100 feet, and the minimum size space allowable as meeting a part of the required usable open space shall be not less than 20,000 square feet.

 

b.           Private Usable Open Space: The total usable open space as required in Subparagraph a. immediately above may be reduced by 50 percent if a minimum of 400 square feet of private usable open space per dwelling unit is provided. Such space shall be directly accessible and adjacent to the dwelling unit it serves and shall be so arranged and screened to prevent public traffic through such space and provide reasonable privacy from public view. Such space shall be suitable for recreational activity and shall be unobstructed except for plants, lawn furniture and play equipment. Private terraces and walkways may be included in such open space. Parking areas, vehicle drives and storage areas shall not be included in such open space. The minimum dimension of any such private open space shall not be less than 15 feet.

 

TO:

a.          Usable Open Space: A minimum of six percent of the total land area of any lot containing three or more dwelling units shall be usable open space, as defined in Section 32.22. On lots where the required usable open space is less than 20,000 square feet, such space should be approximately square but in no case shall the length of such required space be more than twice its average width. On lots where the required usable open space is 20,000 square feet or more, the minimum dimension of such space shall not be less than 100 feet, and the minimum size space allowable as meeting a part of the required usable open space shall be not less than 20,000 square feet.  A minimum of six percent of the total land area of any lot containing three of more dwelling units shall be developed as usable open space, as defined in Section 32.22.  Parking areas, vehicle drives and storage areas shall not be included in such open space.   

 

b.           Private Usable Open Space: The total usable open space as required in Subparagraph a. immediately above may be reduced by 50 percent if a minimum of 400 square feet of private usable open space per dwelling unit is provided. Such space shall be directly accessible and adjacent to the dwelling unit it serves and shall be so arranged and screened to prevent public traffic through such space and provide reasonable privacy from public view. Such space shall be suitable for recreational activity and shall be unobstructed except for plants, lawn furniture and play equipment. Private terraces and walkways may be included in such open space. Parking areas, vehicle drives and storage areas shall not be included in such open space. The minimum dimension of any such private open space shall not be less than 15 feet.  


AMEND SECTION 32.13:

FROM: 

 

M.       Townhouses:  Townhouses, defined as one or more residential structures comprised of one or more single-family residences intended for owner-occupancy, shall be subject to the following regulations:  (Amendment adopted November 6, 1984)

          1.  Approved by:  Board of Adjustment (Amendment adopted June 3, 2003)

 

          2.  Dimensional Requirements: Townhouse developments shall be exempt from conventional minimum lot area and other dimensional requirements.  However, maximum overall density shall not exceed the density established for the district in which the development is proposed.  Lot area, yard, height and other requirement shall be as follows:

 

ZONING DISTRICT

 

 R-15

 R-12

 R-9

 R-6

 

 

MF-A

 

 

MF-B

 

 

O-I

 

 

B-2

 

 

B-3

Minimum total lot area

comprising townhouse

development (acres)

 

2

 

1

 

1

 

1

 

1

 

1

Minimum individual

townhouse lot area

(square feet)      

 

1,600

 

1,600

 

1,600

 

1,600

 

1,600

 

1,600

Minimum front, side or

rear yard abutting a

street, a private road

or the external

boundary of townhouse

development (feet) (Amendment adopted

March 16, 2004)

 

 

25

 

 

25

 

 

25

 

 

25

 

 

25

 

 

25

Maximum height (feet)

(Amendment adopted

March 21, 2006)

50

50

50

50

50

50

Maximum lot coverage of

townhouse development

(Amendment adopted

March 16, 2004)

 

55%

 

55%

 

55%

 

55%

 

55%

 

55%

Minimum common open

Space (% of total

townhouse development) (*Amendment adopted

July 19, 1988)   

 

 

*25%

 

 

10%

 

 

6%

 

 

25%

 

 

6%

 

 

6%

Maximum number of

contiguous townhouses

 

10

 

10

 

10

 

10

 

10

 

10

Minimum distance

between townhouse

(Amendment adopted

March 21, 2006)

See Note A

See Note A

See Note

A

See Note

A

See Note

A

See Note

A

Minimum lot width

(feet)

 

18

 

18

 

18

 

18

 

18

 

18

                                               

Note A: The distance between detached townhouses, whether they are buildings with multiple units or individual structures, shall be determined by the requirements of the North Carolina Residential Building Code.

 

          3.  Access: Townhouse developments shall abut a public street.  A development comprising 50 or more individual lots shall abut a “Major Thoroughfare” or “Minor Arterial or Collector Street” (existing or proposed) as shown on the Burlington-Graham Thoroughfare Plan and have direct access thereto.  Individual townhouse lots need not abut a public street provided that every dwelling unit shall be located within 800 feet of a public street and that access to each dwelling unit shall be provided via either a public right-of-way or a private vehicular or pedestrian way owned by the individual lot owner in fee or in common ownership with other property owners in the townhouse development.  Adequate access shall be provided for firefighting equipment, service deliveries and refuse collections.  (Amendment adopted May 20, 1986)

 

TO:

 

M.       Townhouses: Townhouses, defined as one or more residential structures comprised of one or more single-family residences intended for owner-occupancy, shall be subject to the following regulations:  (Amendment adopted November 6, 1984)

 

1. Approved by: Board of Adjustment through Special Use Permit in R-15, Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts.

 

          2.  Dimensional Requirements: Townhouse developments shall be exempt from conventional minimum lot area and other dimensional requirements.  However, maximum overall density shall not exceed the density established for the district in which the development is proposed.  Lot area, yard, height and other requirement shall be as follows: See Section 32.10.TT, Supplementary Use Regulations.

 

ZONING DISTRICT

 

 R-15

 R-12

 R-9

 R-6

 

 

MF-A

 

 

MF-B

 

 

O-I

 

 

B-2

 

 

B-3

Minimum total lot area

comprising townhouse

development (acres)

 

2

 

1

 

1

 

1

 

1

 

1

Minimum individual

townhouse lot area

(square feet)      

 

1,600

 

1,600

 

1,600

 

1,600

 

1,600

 

1,600

Minimum front, side or

rear yard abutting a

street, a private road

or the external

boundary of townhouse

development (feet) (Amendment adopted

March 16, 2004)

 

 

25

 

 

25

 

 

25

 

 

25

 

 

25

 

 

25

Maximum height (feet)

(Amendment adopted

March 21, 2006)

50

50

50

50

50

50

Maximum lot coverage of

townhouse development

(Amendment adopted

March 16, 2004)

 

55%

 

55%

 

55%

 

55%

 

55%

 

55%

Minimum common open

Space (% of total

townhouse development) (*Amendment adopted

July 19, 1988)   

 

 

*25%

 

 

10%

 

 

6%

 

 

25%

 

 

6%

 

 

6%

Maximum number of

contiguous townhouses

 

10

 

10

 

10

 

10

 

10

 

10

Minimum distance

between townhouse

(Amendment adopted

March 21, 2006)

See Note A

See Note A

See Note

A

See Note

A

See Note

A

See Note

A

Minimum lot width

(feet)

 

18

 

18

 

18

 

18

 

18

 

18

 

Note A: The distance between detached townhouses, whether they are buildings with multiple units or individual structures, shall be determined by the requirements of the North Carolina Residential Building Code.

 

          3.  Access: Townhouse developments shall abut a public street.  A development comprising 50 or more individual lots shall abut a “Major Thoroughfare” or “Minor Arterial or Collector Street” (existing or proposed) as shown on the Burlington-Graham Thoroughfare Plan and have direct access thereto.  Individual townhouse lots need not abut a public street provided that every dwelling unit shall be located within 800 feet of a public street and that access to each dwelling unit shall be provided via either a public right-of-way or a private vehicular or pedestrian way owned by the individual lot owner in fee or in common ownership with other property owners in the townhouse development.  Adequate access shall be provided for firefighting equipment, service deliveries and refuse collections.  (Amendment adopted May 20, 1986)

 

AMEND SECTION 32.10 AS FOLLOWS:

 

ADD:

 

TT.           Townhouses:  Townhouses, defined as one or more residential structures comprised of one or more single-family residences intended for owner-occupancy, shall be subject to the following regulations: 

 

          1.  Dimensional Requirements: Townhouse developments shall be exempt from conventional minimum lot area and other dimensional requirements.  However, maximum overall density shall not exceed the density established for the district in which the development is proposed.  Lot area, yard, height and other requirements shall be as follows:


 

ZONING DISTRICT

 

 R-15

 R-12

 R-9

 R-6

 

 

MF-A

 

 

MF-B

 

 

O-I

 

 

B-2

 

 

B-3

Minimum total lot area

comprising townhouse

development (acres)

 

2

 

1

 

1

 

1

 

1

 

1

Minimum individual

townhouse lot area

(square feet)      

 

1,600

 

1,600

 

1,600

 

1,600

 

1,600

 

1,600

Minimum front, side or

rear yard abutting a

street, a private road

or the external

boundary of townhouse

development (feet) (Amendment adopted

March 16, 2004)

 

 

25

 

 

25

 

 

25

 

 

25

 

 

25

 

 

25

Maximum height (feet)

(Amendment adopted

March 21, 2006)

50

50

50

50

50

50

Maximum lot coverage of

townhouse development

(Amendment adopted

March 16, 2004)

 

55%

 

55%

 

55%

 

55%

 

55%

 

55%

Minimum usable open

space (% of total

townhouse development) (*Amendment adopted

July 19, 1988)   

 

 

*25%

 

 

10%

 

 

6%

 

 

25%

 

 

6%

 

 

6%

Maximum number of

contiguous townhouses

 

10

 

10

 

10

 

10

 

10

 

10

Minimum distance

between townhouse

(Amendment adopted

March 21, 2006)

See Note A

See Note A

See Note

A

See Note

A

See Note

A

See Note

A

Minimum lot width

(feet)

 

18

 

18

 

18

 

18

 

18

 

18

                                               

Note A: The distance between detached townhouses, whether they are buildings with multiple units or individual structures, shall be determined by the requirements of the North Carolina Residential Building Code.                                                          

 

          2.       Access: Townhouse developments shall abut a public street.  A development comprising 50 or more individual lots shall abut a “Major Thoroughfare” or “Minor Arterial or Collector Street” (existing or proposed) as shown on the Burlington-Graham Thoroughfare Plan and have direct access thereto. Individual townhouse lots need not abut a public street provided that every dwelling unit shall be located within 800 feet of a public street and that access to each dwelling unit shall be provided access to their property via either a public right-of-way or a private vehicular or pedestrian way owned by the individual lot owner in fee or in common ownership with other property owners in the townhouse development.  Adequate access shall be provided for firefighting equipment, service deliveries and refuse collections. 

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.9: TABLE OF PERMITTED USES:

 

REMOVE:

 

All references to Section 32.13:0 under Special Requirements.

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.9: TABLE OF PERMITTED USES:

 

ADD:

 

See 32.10:TT under Special Requirements for the following Permitted Uses:

 

          DWELLINGS, detached, one-family, condominiums/townhouses

          DWELLINGS, duplex, two-family; condominiums/townhouses

          DWELLINGS, attached, multifamily; condominiums/townhouses

 

       ITEM NO. 8: Staff presented proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance text pertaining to Planned Employment Center (PEC) Zoning Districts.

 

       This was a City and extraterritorial item.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that the amendments primarily address hotels in PEC Zoning Districts by reducing the minimum total square feet from 7,500 square feet to 5,000 and at least one room of 5,000 square feet to 2,500.  The commercial uses allowed in this district would continue to include restaurants as an accessory to office, light manufacturing, research and development and hotel building uses.  Lot requirements would be reduced from ten acres to five.

 

       Mr. Harkrader stated that he had discussed the possibility of changes with Chamber of Commerce representatives.

 

       Commission Chairman Byrd asked if these changes would make the City more competitive as far as hotels and conference centers.

 

       Mr. Harkrader stated that this would afford hotels to offer full-service amenities and accommodate larger meeting spaces.

 

       Commission Member Franks made a motion to recommend approval of the amendments.  Earl Jaggers seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the following amendments:

 

AMEND SECTION 32.5:D AS FOLLOWS:

 

FROM:

 

D.   Planned Employment Center (PEC) Zoning District  (Amendment creating district adopted June 3, 2003)

 

       The following regulations shall apply in the PEC, Planned Employment Center District:

 

       1.  Purpose - The Planned Employment Center District provides for business and professional services, research and development, limited light manufacturing and wholesale trade and corporate offices along with accessory commercial uses. This district shall be pedestrian-oriented while at the same time provide adequate auto facilities. The regulations in this subsection are intended to minimize the presence of nuisance factors and hazards. The application of this district should not result in a predominance of commercial uses in an area designated for non-commercial activities.

 

       2.  Permitted Uses - Land shall be used and buildings erected, altered, enlarged or used for one or more of the uses indicated in the PEC column of the Table of Permitted Uses, Section 32.9, and subject to such conditions as may be referred to in the Special Requirements column of said table.

 

            Hotel, full service, may be permitted in a PEC District if it meets the following minimum requirement:

 

          a. Hotel, full service.  An establishment providing a minimum of 100 sleeping rooms (a suite shall be counted as two sleeping rooms) that have interior access, a restaurant with full-table service, meeting facilities consisting of a minimum total of 7,500 square feet and at least one room of 5,000 square feet (said room may be divided by flexible partitions) and may include other hotel-related amenities and guest services.

 

       3.  Prohibited Uses - No drive-through restaurant facilities are allowed in this district.

 

       4.  Commercial Retail Provision - The commercial uses allowed in this district are only permitted as an accessory to office or manufacturing building uses. Commercial retail uses can occupy no more than 15 percent of the total floor area of the development or building. 

 

       5.  Commercial Retail Bonus - Additional floor area beyond 15 percent of total may be devoted to commercial uses if the following conditions are met:  (Density bonuses are expressed as a percentage of total floor area of the development or building.)

 

          a. All required parking is contained within the building or parking structure associated with the development: 2.5% bonus

 

          b. Child-care facilities are provided within the development: 2.5% bonus

 

          c. Any six of the following enhanced pedestrian spaces and amenities are provided:  2.5% bonus

 

                        (1)        Plazas

                        (2)        Arcades

                        (3)        Galleries

                        (4)        Courtyards

                        (5)        Outdoor cafes

                 (6) Widened sidewalks (more than six feet wide outside of public right-of-way)

                        (7)        Benches

                        (8)        Shelters

                        (9)        Street furniture

                        (10)        Public art

                        (11)        Kiosks

 

       6.       Lot Requirements

 

                 a.       Lot area - ten acres. 

 

                 b.        Lot setbacks:

 

                 (1) Front setback - Minimum of 15 feet is required and a maximum of 75 feet is allowed.

 

                 (2) Side and rear yard - Minimum setback of 25 feet is required.

 

          c. Lot coverage - The maximum site coverage by buildings and structures shall be 50 percent.

 

          d. Fences - Fencing is permitted inside a boundary line where it is necessary to protect property of the industry or the business concerned. No sight-obscuring fence shall be constructed adjacent to a major arterial or other public right-of-way in excess of four feet in height within the perimeter setbacks. Any chain link or other wire fencing must be screened with green growing plant materials or contain slats.

 

       7.  Development Standards - Where this ordinance is silent on any development standard, the development standards for an OI, Office-Institutional, Zoning District shall apply.

 

       8.  Pedestrian Access Plan - An on-site pedestrian circulation system must be provided that connects the street to the public entrances of the structure(s) on site:

 

                 a.       The circulation system shall be at least five feet wide.

 

          b. Where the system crosses driveways, parking and/or loading areas, the system must be clearly identifiable through the use of elevation changes, speed bumps, varied paving materials or other similar methods approved by the reviewing authority and in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

 

          c. The on-site pedestrian circulation system and parking areas must be lighted to a level that provide adequate lighting so that parking areas can be used safely when natural light is not present.

 

          d. The pedestrian system must connect to site and adjacent streets. The pedestrian system must also connect public open space or parks, commercial and Office-Institutional developments to adjacent like uses and developments for all buildings set back 45 feet or farther from the street lot line when existing development does not preclude such connection. Development patterns must not preclude eventual site-to-site connections, even if an adjacent site is not planned for development at the time of the applicant's development.

 

       9.  Performance Standards - No land or structure shall be used or occupied within this district unless there is compliance with the following minimum performance standards:

      

          a. Noise.  Noise levels that are discernible without instruments at the site or lot property line of the use concerned are prohibited.

 

          b. Vibration. Vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft that are discernible without instruments at the site or lot property line of the use concerned are prohibited.

 

          c. Smoke and Particulate Matter. Air emissions must be within legal limits.

 

          d. Odors. The emission of noxious gases or matter in such quantities as to be readily detectable at any point beyond the property line of the use creating such odor is prohibited.

 

          e. Heat and Glare. Except for exterior lighting, operations producing heat and glare shall be conducted entirely within an enclosed building. Exterior lighting shall be designed to shield surrounding streets and land uses from nuisance and glare.

 

       10.  Site Landscaping and Design Plan - Development within this zoning district shall be subject to a review and approval of a site landscape and design plan by the Technical Review Committee (TRC) prior to the issuance of a building permit. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 32.11A, the following requirements shall apply:

 

          a. Blank walls are discouraged next to residential zones. If a blank wall is adjacent to residential zones, the applicant shall provide and maintain a vegetative buffer of at least 11 feet high that creates a varied appearance to the blank wall. Other features such as false or display windows, artwork and varied building materials are acceptable.

 

          b. Building facades facing public streets shall have a minimum of 15 percent of the total surface area of the wall transparent.

 

          c. Parking areas adjacent to rights-of-way shall be physically separated by landscaping or other features to a height of three feet. A combination of walls, berms and landscape materials is highly recommended. Sidewalks may be placed within this landscaping.

 

          d. Primary building entrances shall be physically oriented to the street or to a pedestrian walkway.

 

          e. Required setback areas adjacent to streets and those abutting a residential district shall be continuously maintained in lawn or live groundcover. Allowed uses in these areas are bikeways, pedestrian paths and water-quality facilities.

 

                 f. A minimum of five percent of the site shall be landscaped. Landscaping that is part of stormwater treatment facilities may be used to satisfy the requirement.

 

          g. Structures and open spaces should be clustered on-site to maximize the campus and open-space qualities within the development.

 

          h. When security fencing is required, it shall be a combination of solid wall, wrought iron, dense hedges or other similar treatment. Long expanses of fences or walls shall be interspersed with trees or hedges to break up the appearance of the wall at least every 50 feet for a distance of at least five feet.

 

TO:

 

D.   Planned Employment Center (PEC) Zoning District  (Amendment creating district adopted June 3, 2003)

 

       The following regulations shall apply in the PEC, Planned Employment Center District:

 

       1.  Purpose - The Planned Employment Center District provides for business and professional services, research and development, limited light manufacturing and wholesale trade and corporate offices along with accessory commercial uses. This district shall be pedestrian-oriented while at the same time provide adequate auto facilities. The regulations in this subsection are intended to minimize the presence of nuisance factors and hazards. The application of this district should not result in a predominance of commercial uses in an area designated for non-commercial activities.

 

       2.  Permitted Uses - Land shall be used and buildings erected, altered, enlarged or used for one or more of the uses indicated in the PEC column of the Table of Permitted Uses, Section 32.9, and subject to such conditions as may be referred to in the Special Requirements column of said table.

 

            Hotel, full service, may be permitted in a PEC District if it meets the following minimum requirement:

 

          a. Hotel, full service.  An establishment providing a minimum of 100 sleeping rooms (a suite shall be counted as two sleeping rooms) that have interior access, a restaurant with full-table service, meeting facilities consisting of a minimum total of 5,000 square feet and at least one room of 2,500 square feet (said room may be divided by flexible partitions) and may include other hotel-related amenities and guest services.

 

       3.  Prohibited Uses - No drive-through restaurant facilities are allowed in this district.

 

       4.  Commercial Retail Provision - The commercial uses allowed in this district including restaurants are only permitted as an accessory to office, light manufacturing, research and development and hotel building uses. Commercial retail uses can occupy no more than 20 percent of the total floor area of the development or building. 

 

       5.  Commercial Retail Bonus - Additional floor area beyond 20 percent of total may be devoted to commercial uses if the following conditions are met:  (Density bonuses are expressed as a percentage of total floor area of the development or building.)

 

          a. All required parking is contained within the building or parking structure associated with the development: 2.5% bonus

 

          b. Child-care facilities are provided within the development: 2.5% bonus

 

          c. Any six of the following enhanced pedestrian spaces and amenities are provided:  2.5% bonus

 

                        (1)        Plazas

                        (2)        Arcades

                        (3)        Galleries

                        (4)        Courtyards

                        (5)        Outdoor cafes

                 (6) Widened sidewalks (more than six feet wide outside of public right-of-way)

                        (7)        Benches

                        (8)        Shelters

                        (9)        Street furniture

                        (10)        Public art

                        (11)        Kiosks

 

       6.       Lot Requirements

 

                 a.       Lot area - five acres. 

 

                 b.        Lot setbacks:

 

                 (1) Front setback - Minimum of 15 feet is required and a maximum of 75 feet is allowed.

 

                 (2) Side and rear yard - Minimum setback of 25 feet is required.

 

          c. Lot coverage - The maximum site coverage by buildings and structures shall be 50 percent.

 

          d. Fences - Fencing is permitted inside a boundary line where it is necessary to protect property of the industry or the business concerned. No sight-obscuring fence shall be constructed adjacent to a major arterial or other public right-of-way in excess of four feet in height within the perimeter setbacks. Any chain link or other wire fencing must be screened with green growing plant materials or contain slats.

 

       7.  Development Standards - Where this ordinance is silent on any development standard, the development standards for an OI, Office-Institutional, Zoning District shall apply.

 

       8.  Pedestrian Access Plan - An on-site pedestrian circulation system must be provided that connects the street to the public entrances of the structure(s) on site:

 

                 a.       The circulation system shall be at least five feet wide.

 

          b. Where the system crosses driveways, parking and/or loading areas, the system must be clearly identifiable through the use of elevation changes, speed bumps, varied paving materials or other similar methods approved by the reviewing authority and in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

 

          c. The on-site pedestrian circulation system and parking areas must be lighted to a level that provide adequate lighting so that parking areas can be used safely when natural light is not present.

 

          d. The pedestrian system must connect to site and adjacent streets. The pedestrian system must also connect public open space or parks, commercial and Office-Institutional developments to adjacent like uses and developments for all buildings set back 45 feet or farther from the street lot line when existing development does not preclude such connection. Development patterns must not preclude eventual site-to-site connections, even if an adjacent site is not planned for development at the time of the applicant's development.

 

       9.  Performance Standards - No land or structure shall be used or occupied within this district unless there is compliance with the following minimum performance standards:

      

          a. Noise.  Noise levels that are discernible without instruments at the site or lot property line of the use concerned are prohibited.

 

          b. Vibration. Vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft that are discernible without instruments at the site or lot property line of the use concerned are prohibited.

 

          c. Smoke and Particulate Matter. Air emissions must be within legal limits.

 

          d. Odors. The emission of noxious gases or matter in such quantities as to be readily detectable at any point beyond the property line of the use creating such odor is prohibited.

 

          e. Heat and Glare. Except for exterior lighting, operations producing heat and glare shall be conducted entirely within an enclosed building. Exterior lighting shall be designed to shield surrounding streets and land uses from nuisance and glare.

 

       10.  Site Landscaping and Design Plan - Development within this zoning district shall be subject to a review and approval of a site landscape and design plan by the Technical Review Committee (TRC) prior to the issuance of a building permit. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 32.11A, the following requirements shall apply:

 

          a. Blank walls are discouraged next to residential zones. If a blank wall is adjacent to residential zones, the applicant shall provide and maintain a vegetative buffer of at least 11 feet high that creates a varied appearance to the blank wall. Other features such as false or display windows, artwork and varied building materials are acceptable.

 

          b. Building facades facing public streets shall have a minimum of 15 percent of the total surface area of the wall transparent.

 

          c. Parking areas adjacent to rights-of-way shall be physically separated by landscaping or other features to a height of three feet. A combination of walls, berms and landscape materials is highly recommended. Sidewalks may be placed within this landscaping.

 

          d. Primary building entrances shall be physically oriented to the street or to a pedestrian walkway.

 

          e. Required setback areas adjacent to streets and those abutting a residential district shall be continuously maintained in lawn or live groundcover. Allowed uses in these areas are bikeways, pedestrian paths and water-quality facilities.

 

                 f. A minimum of five percent of the site shall be landscaped. Landscaping that is part of stormwater treatment facilities may be used to satisfy the requirement.

 

          g. Structures and open spaces should be clustered on-site to maximize the campus and open-space qualities within the development.

 

          h. When security fencing is required, it shall be a combination of solid wall, wrought iron, dense hedges or other similar treatment. Long expanses of fences or walls shall be interspersed with trees or hedges to break up the appearance of the wall at least every 50 feet for a distance of at least five feet.

 

AMEND SECTION 32.9, Table of Permitted Uses:

 

Under Special Requirements for Restaurants, add See32.5:D for PEC.

 

 

 

       Mr. Harkrader reminded members that the December meeting had been changed to December 18th and that the deadline for submitting agenda items had been changed accordingly.

 

       There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 8:09 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

              _____________________________________

                         George A. Byrd, Jr., Chairman

 

 

 

 

 

              _____________________________________

                           Paul E. Cobb, Jr., Secretary