06-AA-001
TOWN OF CARY
STATE OF
CASE NO. 06-AA-001 NOVEMBER 13, 2006WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT ON 10/27/2006
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL WORKSHEET
IN THE MATTER OF: CASE NO. 06-AA-001
TOWN OF
STATE OF
APPLICANT NAME(S) AND ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
Carolina
PROPERTY OWNER NAME(S)/ADDRESS (if different from above):
Karl Murphy, representative
Arenal Group, LLC
103 Adams Way
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE:
Jennifer Currin, Planner II
phone: (919) 469-4342
e-mail: jennifer.currin@townofcary.org
PRESENT ZONING: General Commercial Conditional Use (GCCU)
REQUEST: Administrative appeal of a Staff interpretation of the Uniform Sign Plan to alter an existing sign.
FACTORS RELEVANT TO THE DETERMINATION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL:
Appeals to the Zoning Board of Adjustment from decisions of the Town’s administrative staff are permitted under the Land Development Ordinance (LDO). Per Section 3.21.1, decisions which may be appealed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment include any order, requirement, permit, decision, determination, refusal, or interpretation made by any administrative officer in interpreting and/or enforcing the provisions of the LDO. An appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment may be brought by any person, firm, corporation, office, department, board, bureau or commission aggrieved by the order, requirement, permit, decision, or determination which is the subject of the appeal. At a public hearing or a subsequent meeting, the Zoning Board of Adjustment shall adopt a resolution reversing, affirming, or modifying the contested action. In reversing, affirming, or modifying the contested action, the Zoning Board of Adjustment shall have all relevant powers of the administrative officer from whom the appeal is taken.
The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall not reverse or modify the contested action unless a concurring vote of at least four-fifths of the members find that the administrative officer erred in the application or interpretation of the terms of the LDO or related policies adopted by the Town.
HISTORY:
1987: The site where Carolina Auto Spa is located was rezoned in Conditional Use Zoning Permit Z-438-87-1. The Conditional Use pertaining to signage stated [See Exhibit 1]:
“Conditional Use Zoning Permit Z-438-87-1
The preliminary site plan will address measures to insure overall compatibility of architecture on the site and include overall sign package depicting number, placement, and maximum dimension of signs. An explanation of the hierarchy and function of the proposed signage shall be presented with the preliminary site plan. The development of the preliminary site plan shall be in phases proportioned to the development of the section of
October 1996: A Uniform Sign Plan for the
Early January, 2005: It was reported to this office that the ground sign did not match other Maynard Crossing signs. Staff researched, and found that the permit was issued on
Mid January, 2005: Debra Grannan called the sign contractor, Rodney Signs. She explained that there had been a mistake with the permit and asked if they would be willing to change the color of the sign. On behalf of the applicant, a representative from Rodney Signs said they did not want to incur the cost of changing the color.
March/April, 2005: The Administrative Appeal was withdrawn prior to the scheduled hearing of
SUMMARY:
The sign permit issued on
In the administrative appeal application, the applicant contends that the sign permit application submitted meets the regulations set forth in Chapter 9 of the LDO. From the time of sign permit application was submitted to when the administrative appeal application was filed with the Planning Department, no conversations occurred among Staff and the applicant surrounding the consistency of the proposed sign with the Chapter 9 regulations. Staff did not discuss the differences between Chapter 9 and the proposed sign because Staff determined that the sign has to meet the Maynard Crossing USP, not Chapter 9. If the proposed sign was reviewed against Chapter 9 of the LDO, the sign, as submitted, would be found in non-compliance. For example, the sign exceeds the allowable 8 pieces of information permitted on principal ground signs. The colors used in the sign are required to be approved building colors on an approved site plan, and black and white are always acceptable. The sign would be required to be architecturally compatible with the composition and materials of the primary structure. The signage would not be permitted to utilize more than 1 color for the primary message copy.
According to Section 9.11 of the LDO, all owners, tenants, subtenants, and purchasers of individual units within the development shall comply with the approved uniform sign plan. Section 3.20 of the LDO does not permit variances to Uniform Sign Plans; therefore, the Board must focus on determining whether or not
2. Mr. Arena, the attorney first representing Mr. Murphy, took part in the pre-application conference.
3. The applicant is Carolina Auto Spa.
4. The property is developed with a car wash.
5. The property is zoned General Commercial Conditional Use (GCCU).
6. The property is part of the rezoning case, Z- 438-87-1.
The Board May Grant the Administrative Appeal ONLY if It Finds That ALL of the Criteria Below Have Been Met [Section 3.21.4 of The Town of
3.21.4 Action by the Zoning Board of Adjustment
…
(C) The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall not reverse or modify the contested action unless it finds that the administrative officer erred in the application or interpretation of the terms of this Ordinance or related policies adopted by the Town.
…
MOTIONS:
MOTION TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE TOWN OFFICIAL
After conducting a duly advertised public hearing and reviewing the application, testimony and evidence and the general purposes of the LDO, we find the following:
FACTS: [insert facts found]
CONCLUSION:
1. Based on the application, testimony and evidence, the general purposes of the LDO, and the above findings, the Board concludes that the decision of the Town Official was correct, and the decision of the Town Official is upheld.
MOTION TO OVERTURN THE DECISION OF THE TOWN OFFICIAL
After conducting a duly advertised public hearing and reviewing the application, testimony, and evidence and the general purpose of the LDO, we find the administrative officer erred in the application or interpretation of the terms of the LDO or related policies because of the following:
FACTS: [insert facts found]
CONCLUSION:
1. Based on the application, testimony and evidence, the general purposes of the LDO, and the above findings, the Board concludes that the decision of the Town official was incorrect, and the decision was issued in error and further concludes that signage on this parcel shall comply with all requirements of Chapter 9 in the LDO.
APPLICANT: John W. and Maggie S. Sears
APPLICANT ADDRESS: Route 1,
APPLICANT PHONE: 467-9990
OWNER: John W. and Maggie S. Sears
OWNER PHONE: 467-9990
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Hi House Mobile Home Park and the adjoining lot east of
the mobile home park
MAP/PARCEL: 516-6 & 9
AREA: 44.583 acres
APPROVED ZONING: Conditional Use B-2
DATE OF APPROVAL:
CONDITIONS:
(1) That the mobile home park currently occupying the property be allowed to continue in operation, in whole or in part, until such time in the future that the Cary Town Council approves a new development site plan for all or a portion of the subject property. Only that part of the property contained In the area of the approved site plan will discontinue operation as a mobile home park.
(2) That the rights-of-way for improvements to Hi-House road within the subject property be deeded to the Town of Cary upon request by the Town of Cary and that the rights-of-way for extension & and Improvements to Maynard Road loop, located within the subject property, be finally determined and deeded to the Town of Cary not later than the date of approval of the first phase of property development.
(3) Along Hi-House Road and Maynard Road, a 50-foot vegetated buffer will be established. The buffer will incorporate canopy-type street trees as well as a combination of mounding and low plantings to aid in the screening of views from the adjacent thoroughfares into future parking areas.
(4) Area lighting on-site will be designed with special consideration given to off-site "light-pollution." Lighting fixtures shall be of a type and orientation so as to effectively prevent direct visibility of lamps from off-site locations and limit the amount of reflected light spillover to off-site areas.
(5) Concurrent with (or prior to) the site plan submittal for any portion of the proposed B-2 CU property a preliminary site plan for the entire tract will be submitted to the Town for review. In addition to showing approximate placement of building, service areas and parking area; the plan shall include the phasing of the project, the approximate proposed grades, schematic drainage patterns, and representative cross-sections from
(6) Along the western and northern boundaries of the property in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Hi-House Road and Maynard Road, a vegetated buffer will be established. The width of the buffer will be determined at the time of the overall preliminary site plan submission based an the land-use/zoning of the abutting properties at the time of plan submission. Conceptual landscape treatment shall also be determined at the time of preliminary site plan submission taking into account the configuration of the Site plan, the off-site land-uses/zoning, and the existing condition of the buffers. In the event that the existing vegetation within the buffer areas does not reasonably accomplish the intended function of the buffer, supplemental mounding or planting shall be employed.
(8) Owner shall post a letter of credit in the amount of $18,000.00 (Eighteen Thousand Dollars), payable to the Town of Cary to be applied to the cost of future signalization of the intersection of Cavendish Drive, Hi-House Road, and the westernmost entrance to the proposed commercial area or to other signalization as deemed appropriate by the Cary Town Council if the Cavendish Drive signal is not approved by NCDOT if $18,000 is not sufficient for signalization, the owner of the subject property shall pay the difference of the actual cost of signalization.
(9) The owner of the property shall be responsible for construction of roadway improvement/construction to
(10) Road Improvements, in keeping with the Town's Thoroughfare Plan, must be addressed and resolved prior to development.
NOTE: Original document on microfilm.
