CITY OF BURLINGTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT Telephone (336) Fax (336) P.O. Box 1358 Burlington, North Carolina

Transcription

1 CITY OF BURLINGTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT Telephone (336) Fax (336) P.O. Box 1358 Burlington, North Carolina THE REGULAR MEETING of the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT of the City of Burlington, North Carolina will be held on Tuesday morning July 10, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers, Burlington Municipal Building, 425 S. Lexington Avenue, for the purpose of hearing the following appeal: AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call meeting to order. ITEM NO. 2: Approval of the minutes of the meeting held June 12, ITEM NO. 3: CASE NO SPECIAL USE PERMIT (City) National Agents Alliance Vacant lot on Turrentine St. (Across from Turrentine St,) Alamance County Tax Map number Section P Automobile parking lots and access driveways serving non-residential uses. All persons interested in the above mentioned appeal(s) are requested to appear before the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT at the time and place mentioned above when, and where, they will be given the opportunity to be heard. The City of Burlington will provide reasonable accommodations, auxiliary aids, and services for any qualified disabled person interested in attending the public hearing. To request the above, you may contact Mrs. Rachel Kelly at (336) (Phone), or ( ) no later than three (3) days prior to the date of the public hearing. H. E. Wilson, III Chairman, Board of Adjustment

2 MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT City of Burlington, NC June 12, 2018 Members Present City: Mr. Ed Wilson, Chairman Mr. Mike Gee, Vice Chairman Mr. Robert Giles II (Alt.) Mr. Eric Grant (Alt.) ETJ: Mr. David McDevitt (Alt. ETJ) Members Absent City: ETJ: Mrs. Sylvia Greeson (Alt. ETJ) Also present were Mr. Joey Lea, Zoning/Subdivision Administrator and Mr. Chris Marland, Zoning Enforcement Officer. Chairman Mr. Ed Wilson called the meeting of the Board of Adjustment to order at 8:30 a.m. Chairman Mr. Ed Wilson stated, the city representatives to the Board of Adjustment are appointed by the City Council. This is a quasi-judicial hearing. Everyone speaking before the Board should state their name, sign the log on the podium, and swear or affirm that everything they say is true to the best of their knowledge. Appeals of the Board s decisions may be taken to the Alamance County Superior Court. The City will state their position because of their knowledge of the case and the technical codes. The applicant will state their case, and then anyone from the public may speak. After the applicant and the public have presented all evidence the Board will then close the meeting to the public and discuss the case and vote. During this time no more evidence shall be admitted nor any other arguments made unless the Board wishes to ask the Applicant a question pertaining to the evidence already presented. Anyone that tries to make an argument or present any evidence at this time will be out of order. The Chairperson may order any individuals who willfully interrupts, disturbs, or disrupts to leave the meeting. Any person who fails to comply with this order is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor. An affirmative four-fifths vote is required to grant a variance. A majority vote is required to grant a Special Use Permit or to determine an appeal. DUE PUBLICATION Mr. Chris Marland, Zoning Enforcement Officer with the City of Burlington stated, due notice and publication of this meeting of the Board of Adjustment has been made, and all required property owners were mailed a notice advising of this meeting. SWORN TESTIMONY Prior to testifying before the Board, each party was sworn in or affirmed that the testimony they were about to give was true to the best of their knowledge. [1]

3 MEETING MINUTES Board Member Mr. Eric Grant made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Mr. Robert Giles seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously to approve the May 8, 2018 meeting minutes. ITEM NO. 3: CASE NO SPECIAL USE PERMIT (ETJ) JTL Properties LLC 2260 S. Church St. Alamance County Tax Map number Section 32.9 Automobile parking lot serving non-residential uses in another district. EVIDENCE PRESENTED: Zoning Enforcement Officer Mr. Chris Marland stated, The applicants are here today to seek a special use permit for an automobile parking lot. If you notice in your packet what they are doing is behind the Keller Williams building on the corner of South Church Street and Gurney St. Behind this area is a grass lot that abuts their parking lot and they will extend the parking lot into that area. As such, this will require a special use permit as it is zoned residential and it is an automobile parking lot serving a nonresidential use. This plan was taken to our TRC, Technical Review Committee, where it was determined there that full TRC was not warranted however, it does meet all City requirements. I received a number of calls on this case, approximately 17 to 18 calls, and not one of them was against this. One of them wanted to point out that at some point in the past, there was a case that wanted to have an access off of Lee Drive to this property, and I assured him that was not part of this plan. He was ok with it as long as it did not come to that point again. Chairman Mr. Ed Wilson asked, they would have to appeal to put an access off Lee Drive? Zoning Enforcement Officer Mr. Chris Marland stated, if they wanted to yes but they have not shown any interest to do so. Chairman Mr. Ed Wilson asked, what are the specifics parts of the special use permit, are there any special conditions for this or just the general specifics? Zoning Enforcement Officer Mr. Chris Marland stated, in Section P there is some requirements that would need to be read and one of them is findings. One of the Findings the board must find is that such a use will tend to relieve traffic congestion in the streets at and near the premises in question or will tend to reduce the number of vehicles moving on or parked on residential streets, thereby lessening noise, dust and fumes and tending to promote vehicular and pedestrian safety. I know with talking with them, and from what I have seen, the flow in and out of this parking lot, because of traffic at this point, is and can be problematic. I think they can testify more to that. This is a known congested parking lot. Vice-Chairman Mr. Mike Gee asked, so in your opinion Mr. Marland you are saying that this parking should relieve some of the congestion? [2]

4 Zoning Enforcement Officer Mr. Chris Marland stated, in my opinion, yes, but they can testify more to that. Chairman Mr. Ed Wilson asked, they need to give testimony for P1-8? Zoning Enforcement Officer Mr. Chris Marland stated, right. And you will see number 5: Such parking lot shall not extend into a Residential District more than 200 feet unless the Board of Adjustment makes a special finding that a greater distance will not adversely affect nearby properties. Mr. Mark Reich stated, I am with Alley, Williams, Carmen & King, Inc. Engineers, Architects and Surveyor s and everything I say will be the truth to the best of my knowledge. You should have received a plan in your packet that I will change my presentation here a little bit to be sure to address all of these items that we have listed here. Also with me here today, I will go ahead and point out I have Jason Lindley and Margaret Stephens with me and they also will be testifying to give additional information. Again, our purpose of this project is to provide additional parking to alleviate the congestion that has already been expressed. We are proposing putting in 48 parking spaces, the distance from the zoning line to the rear of the parking is less than 200 feet. Chairman Mr. Ed Wilson asked, do you know the distance? Mr. Mark Right stated, I can give you an approximate distance; I did not bring a scale. Zoning Administrator Mr. Joey Lea stated, if you look at the parking spaces they are about 150 or 160 feet from the property line of where it encroaches into the residential. Chairman Mr. Ed Wilson asked, the encroachment is about 150 feet? Zoning Administrator Mr. Joey Lea stated, about 150 feet, correct. Mr. Mark Right stated, it is about 140 to 150 feet. We will also be providing stormwater detention in accordance with the City of Burlington requirements for this project. It s approximately 20,300 sq. ft. of parking area shown on the plan. One of the conditions we are proposing here is that the City is requesting that we dedicate, at no cost to the City, a 3.5 wide of strip of land adjacent to and parallel with the existing southern right-of-way line of South Church Street. The existing right of way is approximately 5.5 based off the plans of the City of Burlington Engineering Department. The owners have agreed to dedicate that right-of-way whenever the City designs its future sidewalk and prepares the right-of-way and easement maps for the project at that time. The City will be responsible for relocating any existing utilities or landscaping as deemed necessary during the design phase of the sidewalk project. Also, the owner agrees to provide additional temporary construction easements for cut/fill purposes as determined during the design phase provided no damage to existing structures or landscaping will result. All costs associated with design, mapping, and construction of the sidewalk shall be by the City of Burlington. Also, as part of this agreement the owner will submit to the City for [3]

5 approval, a recombination plat to combine which would include 3 properties, we will need to eliminate one, I was advised a few minutes ago the one parcel of land that the detention base is shown on the map, that will not be a part of this. The City is saying if we combined that property into one that we can only have one house on there. So the one with the detention pond will remain as is, but we will be combining the 3 parcels abutting Lee Dr. This is done for the landscaping, because there is existing trees and they will be combined and provide a landscaping buffer. I will address all the issues from this sheet and start with the first one. Number 1, traffic congestion, I will state for the record we are not proposing any driveway connections to Lee Dr. or to any additional street. There is an existing driveway to Gurney Street and there is also the one onto South Church Street and those two will still be utilized. We propose to add 40 additional parking spaces here at the rear to alleviate traffic congestion in that area now as people are parking outside of parking spaces. I will let Mrs. Stephens address the issue about the value of adjoining properties she is a local realtor appraiser. Relative to number 2, I think we have addressed this and reduced it to a number of businesses that are parking on residential streets and I think the parking lot will help with this. By providing future sidewalks added along the front we will be addressing any future pedestrian s needs as well. The parking lot we have laid out is still going to be convenient without having to have any additional means of ingress and egress. You still have two that provide for public safety in case you have some sort of emergency you have access via the driveways. We are less than 200 feet into the residentially zoned area and we have established that to about 140 to about 150 feet. Item number six, we will be providing some lighting and the lighting will be directed internally to where it will not reflect out onto the adjoining properties. The pavement that we are providing will be an asphalt pavement so it will be paved and similar to what is there. We do not need an opaque screen because we have existing landscaping on the lot that we are combing to, and that lot is wooded, therefore that provides the opaque screen. I believe that addresses all those 8 items listed. Before I turn this over to Jason who can give you information on what they have done as far as contacting the property owners and such, we do think that this, in our opinion as far as professional engineers, is in keeping with the conformity and harmony of the area by basically serving the same need that s there. This is consistent with the general conformity of the City of Burlington Land Use Plan. Mr. Jason Linley stated, I m representing the landlord. As Mark and Chris mentioned, we do have many tenants that have been fortunate to grow in the plaza. They are all local businesses that have brought in more and more employees and customers and we are maxed out for parking. We are hoping this to be both, a relief valve for customers we already have, plus some additional room to continue growing in the future. In trying to be in harmony with both the plaza and with the neighbors, we actually chose to contact everyone that was on the City s contact list. We did this just to see what questions and concerns they may have and try and address those either to calm any concerns, or make adjustments in the plans. Fortunately, we received the responses that the City did, and we found no one contesting it. Most critically to us is the house on the left of this plan, immediately near the parking lot of the James Honeycutt s life estate. They were in favor of the plan, so hopefully he was one of the ones that called and was contacted but he had no issues with it. We do have general agreements with them to eventually acquire that property when the life estate expires. Otherwise, the only concern was exactly as he mentioned of no access to Lee Dr. We do not want access to Lee Dr. that is why it is not on the plan. There were [4]

6 no other concerns that we heard of, but I m happy to address any questions. Ms. Stephens is going to address the property values in a moment. Vice-Chairman Mr. Mike Gee asked, just to make sure I m clear, in your conversations with the City, the City requested that you guys provide a 3.5 foot easement along with the conditions a-e here and then you volunteered to recombine the properties? Mr. Jason Linley stated, yes sir. That assisted in using the existing vegetated buffer so it simplified matters while keeping the surrounding properties the same, as the neighbors were already used to seeing it. Ms. Margaret Stephens stated, I m here for a couple of reasons. First of all, the neighborhood is existing around the parking lot and facilities that are all on Church Street and it extends up on Gurney Street and extends up on May Drive so a lot of those properties have already been sold and resold. The property values are actually up right now and we are pleased about that for us and as well, for our sellers. The impact that this will have on the values is nothing; there is no impact. The values of those homes in that neighborhood will maintain their values because of their location. DISCUSSION & FINDING OF FACTS: Chairman Mr. Ed Wilson stated, the applicant has testified that they meet all the requirements of code section P so I recommend approval. Mr. Eric Grant stated, I see it as being an overall improvement of the area that will help alleviate traffic conditions. DECISION: Board Member Mr. Mike Gee stated, I would like to make a motion that the four required conditions for issuing a Special Use Permit in accordance to Section B(1)(a) are met due to the following Finding of Fact: 1. the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plans as submitted and approved: the findings of fact are, this is open land and as testified by Mr. Mark Reich, there will be no additional ingress/egress points onto Lee Dr. The City and the applicant both testified that there will be an improvement here with more organized parking that will help alleviate congestion at this site. 2. the use meets all required conditions and specifications: the findings of fact are, testimony by the City that the Pre-TRC found that it does meet all of the requirements. Testimony by Mr. Mark Reich showed that they met all requirements of section P 3. the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining property or that the use is a public necessity; the findings of fact are, testimony by Mrs. Margaret Stephens, a real estate appraiser with 40 plus years of experience in Alamance County, that this request will have a negligible [5]

7 impact on the values of surrounding homes and the values should remain constant. There was also no testimony refuting Mrs. Stephens opinion. 4. The location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of development of Burlington and its environs; the findings of fact are, testimony by Mr. Mark Reich as a professional engineer his opinion is that this use will be in harmony with the existing use of the owners property and I agree with him. Board Member Mr. Robert Giles seconded the motion. AYES: Wilson, Gee, Giles, Grant, McDevitt NOES: Board Member Mr. Mike Gee stated, I would like to make a motion to approve the special use permit for JTL Properties LLC as Executive Park West to be located 2260 S. Church St., in Burlington due to previously stated findings of fact, and in addition they must be required to meet the conditions submitted with the application with the only change being the removal of parcel number A on section number 2 for the recombination of property, and the applicant and the owners shall complete the development in accordance with the plan submitted and approved by this board and if any of these conditions should or any part should be held invalid this permit should be void and of no effect. Board Member Mr. Eric Grant seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously to approve the Special Use Permit. AYES: Wilson, Gee, Giles, Grant, McDevitt NOES: NEW BUSINESS: None MEETING ADJOURNED H.E. Wilson III, Chairman Kelly Peele, Secretary [6]

8

9

10

11

12

13

14 CENTER AV EVERETT ST B MF A MF-B A8 B A6 B A3 A B A B7 B F4 828 F C C E2 828 F2 D5 D1 BLDG C D4 D2 828 E MF-B G2 O-I G G G G B MF B-1 A R CI R CB A C A C A C A C B E RAINBOW AV COLLINS DR KENW PARKWOOD ST OD DR SCOTT ST 837 KILBY ST SNOW CT TURRENTINE ST BRADFORD CT FOXTON LN FARNINGHAM LN ARDEN ST STOKES ST PEACE LN MAPLE AV THOMAS AV CR STOUT ST SHOFFNER AV CATES AV 409 BELMONT ST QUINTAS AV THOMPSON ST ISLEY AV

15 TURRENTINE ST KILBY ST FOXTON LN C LIN MER T ST S COT T FARNINGHAM LN PEA CE LN

16 COLLINS DR B C C C C E A A PARKWOOD ST 1414 A A B ST O-I T ST 924 LN 1319 CO TT SNOW C CR MF- A MF-B CATES AV QUINTAS A V MF-B B MF FOXTON LN 511 A 503 B ISLEY AV R CI S HOFFNE R AV R CB ST ARDE N ST N 344 O PS M HO T BR A DF OR DC T KILBY ST M HA I NG RN FA STOKES ST A8 B B2 A A3 A4 B5 209 A B7 B8 828F4 828 F6 C1 C E2 828 F2 BLDG C D1 D D4 D2 828 E1 828 G G3 KE NWO G4 OD D R 828 G G S RAINBOW AV BELMO NT STOUT ST 721 EVERE TT ST MAPLE AV CENTE R AV PEACE LN 917 TURRENTINE ST THOMAS AV

17 PEACE LN MIAMI AV VANDERFORD ST KILBY ST TURRENTINE ST From Maple Ave., turn West onto Stokes St. Turn left onto Turrentine St. The property will be the first vacant lot on your right STOKES ST DONOVAN ST FOXTON LN FARNINGHAM LN MAPLE AV FLUSHING ST THOMAS AV QUINTAS AV CLEVELAND CT STOUT ST CATES AV