1. Call to
Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Weaver at 7:30 p.m.
|
| 2. Roll Call |
|
Board Members Present-Voting: Jeffrey Bartley, John Berndt, ETJ,
Robert Cassell, Steve Crutchfield, T.C. Frick, Vice Chairman Allan Koeppel,
Eric Strom, Chairman Gaines Weaver, John Werner, Alternate Lair Block,
Alternate Larry Snead and Alternate Michael Cantrell.
Board Members Absent: Joyce Jordan
Staff Present: Chris Simpson, JW Shearin, Suzanne Prince, Walter
Harris, Lawrence Hardee, Beth Lewis and Joanne Gunther. |
| 3. Action on Minutes
from the November 13, 2001 meeting.
Mr. Koeppel made a motion to approve the
minutes, which was seconded by Mr. Frick, and the Board voted (10-0) to
approve. |
4. Sworn Testimony
The following individuals were sworn in to give testimony:
Suzanne Prince, Lawrence Hardee, JW Shearin,
Charles Bishop, IV, Matthew Nolan, Steve LoConte, Jim Jensen, Robin
Morris, William Nasuti, Dennis D. Smith, Curt Hammontree and Michael
Hewitt.
|
| 5. Case
Hearings |
APPLICATION #: 01-A-020
STAFF CONTACT: Suzanne Prince
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1105 Walnut Street, Cary, NC (Cary Towne
Center Mall)
APPLICANT: Dennis D. Smith, AIA
OWNER(S): Mr. Curt Hammontree, CBL & Associates Properties, Inc.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting an administrative appeal
of staffs’ interpretation of the Town of Cary Sign Ordinance with
respect to calculation of allowable wall signage. Applicant, for the
owner of Cary Towne Center Mall, Curt Hammontree, CBL & Associates
Properties, Inc., desires four new entry signs. In determining the
allowable wall signage for the four entrances to the enclosed mall,
staff determined that the building was an "in-line shopping
center" and not a "multi-tenant" building The applicant
contends it is a "multi-tenant building", and the square
footage for wall signs should be calculated by taking into account the
entire side of the mall building, and not just the length of the
"entry element". After hearing testimony from staff and the
applicant, the Board discussed the application. Included in the
discussion were comments concerning the unique physical characteristics
of the mall.
ACTION: Mr. Koeppel made a motion to affirm the
administrative officer’s decision because no error was made by the
administrative officer in the application or interpretation of the UDO,
which was seconded by Mr. Cassell. The Board voted (9-1) in favor of the
motion to affirm the administrative officer’s decision and to deny the
appeal with Lair Block having the one dissenting vote. The vote was
called out with the following results: Mr. Bartley, yes, Mr. Berndt,
yes, Mr. Cassell, yes, Mr. Crutchfield, yes, Mr. Frick, yes, Mr. Koeppel,
yes, Mr. Strom, yes, Mr. Werner, yes, Mr. Weaver, yes and Mr. Block, no.
Therefore, the appeal was denied.
|
APPLICATION #: 01-V-019
STAFF CONTACT: Suzanne Prince
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1105 Walnut Street, Cary, NC
APPLICANT: Dennis D. Smith, AIA
OWNER(S): Mr. Curt Hammontree, CBL & Associates Properties, Inc.
REQUEST: The applicant, for the owner of Cary Towne Center Mall,
Curt Hammontree, CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., is requesting a
variance to install wall signs exceeding the permitted square footage at
the four entrances of Cary Towne Mall. The proposed signs are larger
than what is allowed for an in-line shopping center under the Town of
Cary Sign Ordinance as follows: Entry One, allowed, 58 square feet,
requested 337 square feet; Entry Two, allowed, 60 square feet,
requested, 259 square feet; Entry 3, allowed 56 square feet, requested,
431 square feet; Entry Four, allowed, 60 square feet, requested 471
square feet. Town Staff presented the case and Dennis Smith, on behalf
of the property owner, provided testimony.
After hearing testimony the board discussed the application, the
following comments being made: the uniqueness of the Cary Towne Center,
it having many characteristics not like an in-line shopping center, and
the belief that there is no other multi-tenant building like it in Cary,
the fact that the interior space may be owned by others, or leased to
retail tenants, and that owner has an interest in such interior space,
that the larger signs are more in harmony with the existing entrances,
there is no similar situation in Cary
ACTION:
Mr. Werner made a motion to approve the variance as requested based
on the following findings:
a. Strict application of the Ordinance would restrict the signage
of the subject property to a greater degree than it restricts other
properties;
b. Granting the variance is necessary to ensure reasonable view of
the site from adjoining roadways;
c. Granting the variance is necessary to relieve a practical
difficulty or unnecessary hardship that is suffered by the applicant
alone;
d. Granting the variance will not confer a special privilege on the
applicant that would normally be denied under this Ordinance to
another applicant.
e. The applicant’s situation is unique and is not one that is
shared by other properties;
f. Granting the variance will not deter from the original intent of
the uniform sign plan or the Ordinance for uniformity and aesthetic
appeal between signs on the same property and that the variance runs
with the structure.
Mr. Strom seconded the motion and the Board voted
(9-1) in favor of the motion to approve the variance application, with
Mr. Koeppel having the one dissenting vote. The vote was called out
with the following results: Mr. Bartley, yes, Mr. Berndt, yes, Mr.
Cassell, yes, Mr. Crutchfield, yes, Mr. Frick, yes, Mr. Koeppel, No,
Mr. Strom, yes, Mr. Werner, yes, Mr. Weaver, yes and Mr. Block, yes.
|
Chairman
Weaver announced that he and Mr. Werner would recuse themselves from
considering the next case. Due to absence and the fact that an
alternate member also asked to be excused, there would be only 9
members to consider the case. Chairman Weaver recessed the meeting
at 8:40 p.m. to permit the attorney for the applicant in 01-V-021 to
confer with her client, the applicant, as to whether they desired a
continuance of the case so that it could be considered by a full
board of 10. The applicant decided to proceed.
Vice-Chairman Koeppel called the meeting back into session at
8:50 p.m.
Roll Call: Board members
in attendance and voting for the below case: Mr. Bartley, Mr.
Berndt, Mr. Cassell, Mr. Crutchfield, Mr. Frick, Mr. Koeppel, Mr.
Strom, Alternate Lair Block and Alternate Larry Snead. |
APPLICATION #: 01-V-021
STAFF CONTACT: Suzanne Prince
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 100 Selly Manor Court
APPLICANT: Charles Piratzky
OWNER(S): Robuck Homes, Inc.
REQUEST:
The applicant, Charles Piratzky, for Robuck Homes, Inc. is
requesting a variance to encroach 7 feet into the 18’ corner
sideyard setback. Robuck Homes, Inc. constructed a residence on
the subject property that encroaches seven feet (7’) into the
required eighteen-foot (18’) corner-side setback.
Town Staff presented the case and Ms. Robin Morris, Esq.
presented the application on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Charles
Piratzky, applicant, testified. Testimony was also heard from
Matthew Nolan, Amy Beaver, Jim Jensen and Mike Hewitt opposing the
application.
After hearing all testimony and considering all the evidence,
the Board made the following action:
ACTION: Mr. Frick made a motion that application No.
01-V-021 has failed to meet the requirements of the Cary Zoning
Ordinance and the application for a variance is denied due to the
following findings: it is not in harmony with the general purpose
and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and is potentially an
additional safety hazard. The motion was seconded by Mr. Snead.
The Board voted (7-2) to deny the variance. The vote was called
out with the following results: Mr. Bartley, yes, Mr. Berndt, yes,
Mr. Cassell, no, Mr. Crutchfield, no, Mr. Frick, yes, Mr. Koeppel,
yes, Mr. Strom, yes, Mr. Block, yes and Mr. Snead, yes.
|
|
