TOWN
OF CARY
STATE OF
CASE NO. 06-AA-001
NOVEMBER 13, 2006
WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT ON 10/27/2006
ADMINISTRATIVE
APPEAL WORKSHEET
IN
THE MATTER OF:
CASE NO. 06-AA-001
TOWN
OF
STATE OF
Carolina
Auto Spa, 1370 NW
Maynard Road,
Cary, NC
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.
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.
