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

 

MINUTES OF THE BURLINGTON PLANNING

AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING

 

March 26, 2007

 

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, Absent

Elder Greg Hargrave, Absent                        Ellis Piper, Present

Gordon Millspaugh, Absent                           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 7:09 p.m.

 

       ITEM NO. 2: Minutes of the meeting held February 26, 2007, were unanimously approved.  This was a City and extraterritorial item.

 

       ITEM NO. 3: Consent agenda:  (City)

 

(A)   Mr. Mark Reich, representing Windsor Investments, LLC, presented an application for final plat approval of Phase 1, Section Four, Park Place Townhomes.  The property is located east of Springwood Village Drive, north of Whitsett Park Road and west of Springwood Church Road as shown on plans by Alley, Williams, Carmen and King, Inc., dated March 2, 2007, and containing 12 lots.

 

(B)   Mr. Greg Herring, representing The Keystone Group, Inc., presented an application for final plat approval of Phase 3, The Woods at Grove Park.  The property is located on the north side of South Mebane Street approximately 900 feet southwest of Alamance Road as shown on plans by Simmons Engineering and Surveying, Inc., dated March 6, 2007, and containing 23 lots.

 

(C)   Mr. Dan Paxson, representing Mr. Edward Hayes, Sr., presented an application for preliminary plan approval of Vauxhall Village.  The property is located on the east side of Lakeside Avenue and on the southwest side of Jackson Street as shown on plans by John D. Somers Surveyors dated March 8, 2007, and containing 31 lots.

 

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

 

       Commission Secretary Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of (A), (B) and (C). Lynn Cowan seconded the motion.  The Commission unanimously recommended approval of (A) and (B) and approved (C).

 

       Consent agenda:  (Extraterritorial)

 

(D)   Mr. Michael Splawn presented an application for final plat approval of the Splawn Associates Subdivision.  The property is located on the south side of Anthony Road approximately 990 feet southwest of Old Trail Road as shown on plans by Wayne B. Perry dated February 28, 2007, and containing two lots.

 

(E)   Mr. Jay Lowe, representing Mr. Jeffrey L. Wyrick, to present an application for final plat approval of the Jeffrey L. Wyrick and Jayne R. Wyrick Subdivision.  The property is located on the south side of Willowlake Road approximately 780 feet northwest of Northridge Drive as shown on plans by Carolina Cornerstone Surveying and Land Design dated March 7, 2007, and containing two lots.

      

       Staff recommended approval of (D) and (E).

 

       Commission Member Franks made a motion to recommend approval of (D) and (E).  Bud Apple seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of (D) and (E).

 

       ITEM NO. 4: Mr. Charles Bateman, representing Mr. Chad Sharpe, presented an application to rezone from R-15, Residential District, to CB, Conditional Business District, for a Unified Business Development allowing all uses permitted in a B-2, General Business District, excluding the following: auto repair and service, adult establishments, laundries, industrial laundries and plumbing, sheet metal and roofing shops.  The property is located on the southeast corner of Rural Retreat Road and University Drive as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 3-26-89.  This item was tabled by the Commission at its February 2007 meeting. 

 

       This was an extraterritorial item.

 

       Mr. Bateman told Commission members that he wanted to address the technical design and land use aspects of the proposed commercial development.  He stated that residential property to the east would not likely be developed in the near future and that commercial developments were located half a block away as well as Alamance Crossing that was currently being built.  He maintained that this property would not be suitable for residential use because of its small size and cost and that commercial would be the most appropriate and best use of the tract. 

 

       Mr. Bateman stated that the proposed development would be visually attractive and would be an asset to the community and surrounding property owners.  He stated that a traffic impact study indicated that the development would not have a major impact and that the developers had consulted with the North Carolina Department of Transportation concerning access to the proposed development.  He concluded that the commercial development would have a minimum impact on surrounding property.

 

       He introduced Mr. Chad Porterfield, an engineer with The LEADS Group, who was available for questions.

 

       Commission Member Ware stated that he represented Mrs. Cleo Smith, who was present at the meeting.  Mr. Ware told fellow Commission members that the adjoining property had been in Mrs. Smith’s family since the 1800’s and was currently in family trust.  He stated that contrary to what local newspapers had printed, no one had contacted Ms. Smith offering to purchase her property or offering future access to her property.  He stated that no one had contacted her regarding the access road and that she had not received a penny for the access. He stated that one newspaper article made her out to be some kind of villain when in fact no one had approached her regarding the property.  Mr. Ware relayed that Mrs. Smith does not want to sell her land and does not want a shopping center next door.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that staff recommended denial of the request for rezoning on the basis that it would be in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which specifies higher density residential use.

 

       Mr. Harkrader told Commission members that the City had approved over two million square feet of new commercial development during the past couple of years.  He also stated that Mrs. Smith had met with Planning staff and confirmed what Mr. Ware had said on her behalf.  He did clarify that Mrs. Smith had indicated that she would not be opposed to adjoining access if it was developed as residential, but she did not want commercial development accessing her property. He stated that it was staff’s opinion that the Land Use Plan should be followed and that this property should not be rezoned for commercial development.  He stated that staff also had concerns about Rural Retreat Road handling future commercial traffic.

 

       Commission Member Jaggers commented that traffic shouldn’t be an issue since Rural Retreat Road during the warmer months handles all the traffic generated by Davidson Park.

 

       Mr. Harkrader responded that in years to come, traffic could become a problem because commercial development would exceed that generated by the park.

 

       Commission Member Franks pointed out that Mr. Bateman commented that the proposed development would have minimal impact on surrounding property.  He stated that would depend upon where one lives.  If you live where you are looking at the back of a shopping center, you would be impacted.  If you were awakened at 4:30 a.m. by Dumpsters being emptied, you would be impacted.  If you are in that area between 5:30 and 8:00 p.m. at the peak hours of Davidson Park, you would be impacted by commercial traffic.

 

       Mr. Franks stated that he could not see commercial development backing up to Mrs. Smith’s property and the development could prevent Mrs. Smith from selling her property for residential use in the future.  He concluded that he could see rezoning the entire block but not part of it for development.  He thought that was just asking for too much from the developer and that he thought the Commission should not be a part of it.  He recommended that the request be denied.

 

       Commission Member Ware seconded the motion to recommend denial.  The Commission voted eight to one to recommend denial.  Voting to recommend denial were Franks, Ware, Byrd, Cobb, Black, Cowan, Apple and Piper.  Voting against the motion to recommend denial was Jaggers.

 

       ITEM NO. 5: Mr. Charles Bateman, representing Mr. Richard G. Stout, presented an application to rezone from R-9, Residential District, to B-2, General Business District, the property located on the north side of North Church Street approximately 360 feet southeast of McKinney Street and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 13-10-21.

 
       This was an extraterritorial item.

 

       Mr. Bateman reminded Commission members that this lot was included on a rezoning application at the February Commission meeting, but a typographical error by his office mistakenly requested MF-A, Multifamily zoning, rather than B-2, General Business.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that B-2 zoning would be an appropriate extension of existing zoning in the area.  He pointed out that this lot and the lot that was rezoned from R-9 to B-2 at last month’s meeting were the last in the City’s jurisdiction on North Church Street.  The property to the east is within Haw River’s jurisdiction and is also zoned for business.

 

       Commission Member Apple 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.  The Commission recommended that the official zoning map and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan be amended to reflect the change.

 

       ITEM NO. 6: Mr. Frank Longest, representing Five Star Investment Group, presented an application to rezone from R-15, Residential District, to CPEC, Conditional Planned Employment Center, to allow construction of a full service hotel and office building.  The property is located on the southwest corner of Danbrook Drive and Bonnar Bridge Parkway and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 3-23-44. 

 

       This was an extraterritorial item.

 

       Mr. Longest stated that the CPEC rezoning was being requested for two particular uses: (1) a major, high quality, five-story, full-service hotel with 115 rooms; and (2) an office complex with five offices.  The hotel would be 67,000 square feet in size and 67 feet tall which would be within the restrictive height requirements for the airport.  He displayed a site plan showing the two facilities as well as parking and landscaping. 

 

       Mr. Longest noted that the height of the proposed hotel would offer visibility from the Interstate, and its accommodations for guests, conferences and meetings would be an asset to the community.

 

       There would be 145 parking spaces for the hotel and two entrances – one on Danbrook and the other off Bonnar Bridge Parkway – thus allowing all traffic for the facility to be internal.   He maintained that the hotel would not have an adverse impact on traffic especially traffic from the new school that is located farther south.

 

       Mr. Longest told the Commission that the 20,000 square foot office complex would be four stories tall or 52 feet which would not interfere with airport regulations.  All lighting for the proposed development would adhere to City requirements.  He introduced Mr. Franz Holt with Alley, Williams, Carmen and King, Engineers and Architects,  who was available for technical questions.


 

       Planning Director Harkrader commended the architectural firm on its design of the hotel and office complex that would be located at the intersection of two major roads.  He stated that the proposed development was consistent with the future land use element of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and that staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning with the Use and Development Conditions submitted by the petitioner.

 

       Commission Member Ware inquired about the land use for property across from the proposed hotel and was told it was zoned B-2, General Business District.

 

       Commission Member Franks asked how far away was the new school and was told approximately 500 feet.  Mr. Franks asked how many parking spaces would there be for the office complex and was told 104. 

 

       Commission Chairman Byrd asked if there would be a restaurant at the hotel and was told there would be as well as 5,000 square feet of conference area.

 

       Commission Member Franks made a motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning with the Use and Development Conditions submitted by the petitioner.  Paul Cobb seconded the motion.  The Commission voted 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 Conditions

 

1.       Construction of a full service hotel and office building.

 

2.    The office building shall adhere to associated and permitted commercial uses pursuant to Conditional Planned Employment Center zoning and according to applicable code requirements.

 

Development Conditions

 

Development conditions shall adhere to the submitted Zoning Sketch Plan prepared by Alley, Williams, Carmen and King, Inc.

 

       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: Mr. Lawson Brown, representing CBL and Associates, presented an application to amend a Conditional Business rezoning for Alamance Crossing approved by City Council on April 20, 2004, and amended June 7, 2005.  The amendment will allow the relocation and upgrading of an existing outdoor advertising sign.  The property is located on the east side of University Drive, south of Garden Road and west of Westview Terrace and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 3-24-17.

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Mr. Brown stated that due to improvements by NCDOT, some of which are being funded by CBL and Associates, the existing outdoor advertising sign must be relocated.  The sign would be upgraded and relocated within 10 feet of the existing sign.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that this is a minor change in the relocation and that staff recommended approval of amending the Conditional Business rezoning to allow the relocation and upgrading of the existing sign.

 

       Commission Secretary Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of amending the Conditional rezoning. Lynn Cowan seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of amending the Conditional Business rezoning to allow the relocation and upgrading of an existing outdoor advertising sign within ten feet from the existing location.  All previously approved Use and Development Conditions will remain in effect.

 

       ITEM NO. 8: Ms. Laura Brown, representing Shear Style, presented an application to rezone from O-I, Office-Institutional District, to CB, Conditional Business District, to allow for a hair salon.  The property is located on the east side of South O’Neal Street approximately 175 feet south of South Church Street and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 101-434-30.

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Ms. Brown stated that a site plan had been submitted to staff indicating parking spaces for ten cars plus one handicapped space, a handicapped ramp and internally three hair styling stations.  She introduced Cindy and Randy Isley, owners of the property, and Ms. Debbie Cox, who wants to relocate to the 1160 O’Neal Street facility.

 

       Ms. Cox stated that she desires to relocate and downsize and that she had been a hair stylist for 33 years and had been owner of her current location for 20.  She told Commission members that the facility has 837 square foot and that there would be a maximum of eight clients at one time.  She stated that there would be 26 to 27 clients in a day and many of the clients would be coming from the Interstate and thus traversing Alamance Road, merging right onto NC Highway 54 and entering the business from that direction rather than coming down Church Street.

 

       Commission Member Black inquired about the salon hours.  Ms. Cox stated that the hours would probably be from 8:30 a.m. to 7 or 8 p.m.  Some stylists may not start working until 10:00 a.m.  The salon would be open on Saturdays and closed on Sundays and Mondays.

 

       Staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning with the Use and Development Conditions submitted by the petitioner.

 

       Commission Secretary Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning with the Use and Development Conditions submitted by the petitioner.  Lynn Cowan 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 Conditions

 

Use shall be a hair styling salon.

 

Development Conditions

 

1.    There shall be plumbing for three hair styling stations.

 

2.    There shall be one handicapped parking space; 10 regular parking spaces; and a handicapped ramp at the entrance as shown on a submitted site plan.

 

3.  Handicapped restroom facilities shall be provided within the establishment.

 

       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: Due to Memorial Day, the Commission set an alternate date for its May 28, 2007, meeting.

 

       Commission Member Franks made a motion to change the meeting date to May 21 and the Planning Commission deadline date to May 4.  John Black seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to change the May meeting from the 28th to the 21st of May 2007 and the Planning Commission deadline date for submittals to May 4, 2007.

      

 

       There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 8:13 p.m.

 

 

              ________________________________________

                        George A. Byrd, Jr., Chairman

 

 

 

 

              ________________________________________

                          Paul A. Cobb, Jr., Secretary