Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/6/2021 - Minutes ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION �.i PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2021 Commissioners Present: Mr. Rick James Mr. Troy Henderson (absent from the evening session) Mr. Kelly McMurray Mr. Jim Woltz Commissioners Absent: Mr. Wayne Bower Staff Present: Mr. Philip Thompson, Secretary Ms. Rachel Lower, Senior Assistant County Attorney Ms. Rebecca James Mr. Will Crawford Mr. Isaac Henry Ms. Megan Cronise Ms. Cecelia Thomas, Recording Secretary Guests: Mr. Johnathan Puvak Mr. Fred Fletcher, Development Manager of the Lawson Companies WORK SESSION Mr. McMurray called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. Approval of Agenda Mr. James made a motion to approve the agenda, which passed 4-0. Approval of Minutes Mr. James made a motion to approve the October 4, 2021, minutes as amended, which passed 4-0. Mr. Henderson made a motion to approve the November 1, 2021, minutes, which passed 4-0. Consent Agenda Mr. Thompson noted that there were no pending applications, but recommended changing the January 4th public hearing to a work session at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Thompson noted that staff would bring two items before the Planning Commission in work session: an overall update to the progress of the Comprehensive Plan, and a Zoning Ordinance work session to make progress on the Board of Supervisors request to look into the height of cell towers. ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 6,2021 Mr. Henderson made a motion to approve the consent agenda, which passed 4-0. Transportation Projects Update Presentation Ms. Cronise presented an overview of Transportation projects that are: completed, nearing construction, 2021 submitted applications, potential 2022 applications, and other studies and investigations. She noted that overall there were 42 projects in Roanoke County that are funded, under construction, or recently completed. She noted that the: Harmony Lane rural addition, Moncap Trail paving with turnaround, Route 220 bridge over Back Creek replacement, and the Catawba Greenway have all been completed. She overviewed the projects currently under construction and the time they are estimated to be completed. She discussed the applications submitted for potential projects and the funding process for each. Ms. Cronise and the Planning Commissioners noted that there was a lot of stormwater and utility work on the 419 expansion project. Ms. Cronise reviewed the Pardon our Dust meeting held November 16, 2021, to discuss the Diuguids Lane Bridge closure. She noted that the community had been notified of the 45 day closure. She overviewed the other submitted applications, and 1-581 at Exit 2 (Peters Creek Road) interchange improvements. Ms. Cronise noted that the hope was to provide more space and time for drivers to merge safely. Mr. Thompson noted that this project, along with the Valley Point Parkway realignment, helps with the Wood Haven Technology Park. Mr. James noted that for the Route 460 at Alternate Route 220 intersection improvements, that a continuous right flow lane up to Wal-Mart. He noted that there is a gap where you have to merge and then return to the lane. Ms. Cronise noted that they acknowledged that there was a problem there, but was not sure if that would be a part of the improvements as it was not on the preliminary sketches. She overviewed potential 2022 applications. Mr. Woltz thanked the transportation planning staff saying they had a good selection of projects and made them happen, which is impressive. Mr. Thompson stated they tried to implement the plans that the Planning Commission approves and recommends to the Board of Supervisors, but it all starts with a planning process. He believes as the Comprehensive Plan process continues, more projects that are identified through the process will need to have a process for determining which projects are the highest priority. He noted that RSTP and STBG funding through the Regional Commission has no limit on the number of applications that you can submit. There is a limit that the County can only submit four applications for SmartScale. The Regional TPO and the Regional Commission can also submit 4 applications each. Mr. Thompson expressed that there will be a more vigorous need to have criteria established for how the County weighs projects and a process for setting priority of what is recommended going forward. He noted there has been conversation of having a ten year CIP for transportation projects due to the in depth process to receive funding. In order to submit requests for funding you need the planning department's portion, the initial project scope, and engineering and survey work. He noted that you need to have 30% plans to have a good cost estimate. He noted that you cannot expand the project or go back once you get to the cost because you may have to have the whole project rescored or shrink the project into smaller pieces. He does think that this part of the Page 2 of 10 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 6,2021 process will develop as the Comprehensive Plan process continues. It will be easier to note what the priorities are in different planning areas and Countywide. Ms. Cronise noted that match funding would be great. Ms. Cronise commented on the regular use of CORTRAN vehicles, where citizens have regularly scheduled appointments that are booking significant blocks of time. She noted that the service is being used, and used well for dialysis or appointments to the adult care center. She noted that the main problem is not wanting to turn citizens away due to the service doing well. Discussion of 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule Mr. Thompson overviewed the draft of the 2022 Planning Commission meeting dates and noted the slight difference in the schedule in November due to Election Day being November 8th. He also noted that changes can be made later in the year as needed, and may be changed once dates are decided for the spring Roanoke County 200 Plan Comprehensive meetings. Mr. James made a motion to pass the 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule, which passed 4-0. Citizen Comments There were none. Comments of Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff Mr. Thompson noted there were fourteen citizen comments for the evening session. Mr. Thompson provided an overview of information that would be discussed in the evening session including Roanoke City's jurisdiction over the roads in the area. Mr. Thompson and the Commissioners discussed procedural information regarding the public hearing. The Commissioners and Mr. Thompson also discussed how the zoning of the parcel being discussed in the evening session had already been approved by the Board of Supervisors in 1984. Mr. Thompson updated Commissioners on the Reinhardt application for a Special Use Permit. He noted that Planning staff has been in contact with that applicants. The applicants wish to have an easement across two other parcels to address the problems mentioned at their public hearing. Mr. Thompson explained that due to the new parcels being a part of the application and including a new access point, the application will now have to come before the Planning Commission a second time before meeting with the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Thompson noted that he believes that the application will be back before the Planning Commission in the early spring. Mr. McMurray adjoumed the meeting at 5:30 p.m. for dinner. Page 3 of 10 • ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 6,2021 EVENING SESSION Mr. McMurray called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Woltz gave the invocation and led the pledge of allegiance. Public Hearing The petition of Lawson Companies to amend existing proffered conditions on approximately 12.15 acres on property zoned R-3C, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential, District with conditions, to construct 216 apartments located in the 5000 block of Cove Road, the 2700 block of Peters Creek Road, and south of Beacon Ridge subdivision, Catawba Magisterial District. Mr. Crawford noted that the applicants are not looking to rezone, but to amend some proffers currently on the property. He noted that the site is currently undeveloped with topography that has a slight slope towards Peters Creek Road and with a slight slope towards Cove Road. He noted that the property was rezoned in 1984 for multi-family residential housing. He listed the requested amendments to the proffered conditions. He noted that construction is planned to happen in a phased build out. Future Land Use designation for the area is listed as a Transition, which is defined as a future land use area that encourages the orderly development of highway frontage parcels. He noted that this use is suitable with the Future Land Use for the area. He also provided an overview of agency comments from the Roanoke County Police Department and the Roanoke County Transportation Division. Mr. James verified with Mr. Crawford that this parcel was approved in 1984 by the Board of Supervisors for Multi-Family Residential housing. Mr. James noted that the focus of the evening session would be the proffer change from 185 to 216 apartments. Mr. Woltz expanded that this is not a new concept, but rather someone wishing to use the land for what it has already been approved for in 1984. Mr. James noted that the density of multi-family zoning had just been reexamined by the Planning Commissioners, but verified with Mr. Crawford that 216 apartments is below the maximum density allowed by the ordinance. Johnathan Puvak, lawyer, spoke for the Lawson Companies. He noted that the past uses on the property, for various reasons, did not work. He also noted the recent change in Virginia Law with the Fair Housing Law, and how that affects the existing proffer. He noted that their focus is ensuring they are allowed to add units and stay below the maximum density. He introduced the Development Manager, Fred Fletcher and the Vice President, Kristopher Knepper. Mr. Fletcher, 3124 Coopers Arch, spoke for the Lawson Companies. He thanked staff for their assistance in the process so far. He • noted they were excited to hear and address comments. He noted in the overview of the site that the higher topography of the Beacon Ridge development should not be affected by the development. He noted that all of their facilities will feature a clubhouse with a fitness center and resort style pool. He addressed the ingress and a single point of egress off of Cove Road. He also stressed the importance of walkability to and from the site, and noted that ADA standards will be met for accessibility. He noted for security there will be fencing installed in the backside of the property for safety, access control, video monitoring, and security lighting there as well. He noted that all of the buildings Page 4 of 10 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 6,2021 will be built with a green and sustainable design. He overviewed the materials that will be used on the property. He noted the choice to only build up to three stories, as to not disturb the views of the neighborhood above the property. He noted that they have won awards for their sustainable design. He highlighted that the main reason they chose Roanoke was due to the need for affordable housing. He noted that they will manage the property once it is built. This affordable housing would be around 60% of the median income. He also noted research done in regard to schools. Per statistics, he noted that for 216 units of housing there would be around 48 children in local schools. Mr. James noted that this information is coming from an industry standard, and not from independent research. Mr. Fletcher noted that they did use an industry number for their research. He also noted that Glen Cove Elementary, Northside Middle School, and North Side High School are all under capacity. He noted that they are happy to do a Traffic Impact Analysis for this project. He again commented on security for the housing. He highlighted how affordable housing will help economic development. He also noted that this development will create about 500 jobs during construction, and shall create 15 long-term jobs. Mr. Woltz remarked that the Lawson Companies manage everything they build, and how that it is important to successfully managing a project and having a good impact on the community. Mr. Woltz also questioned access off of Peters Creek Road. Mr. Fletcher noted that they will develop both entrances at the same time in Phase One. Mr. McMurray noted he did not see anything about exiting out on Cove Road. Mr. Fletcher noted that the traffic engineer is working with VDOT to determine the best solution. Mr. Fletcher noted that the engineer does not believe that they will need a left turn lane. Mr. Fletcher stated that they should be better able to answer these questions after conducting the traffic impact analysis. Mr. McMurray opened the public hearing for public comment. Lena Beason residing at 1029 Highland Drive, wished to speak to the Commissioners to note her concerns on the project. She wished to clarify that she owns the property to the west of the proposed project, and that she has been trying to sell her R-2 zoned parcel as single family housing. She would like to request access to public water and sewer to her property with this development coming in, as that is not currently available to her property. She noted in the plans she received for the project, the buildings closest to her property are shown as four stories tall. She stated this would affect and hinder her views and diminish the value of her property. She also noted her concerns with the 20 foot buffer and stated that sounded sparse. She questioned what plants would be included in the buffer, as well as, irrigation, and fencing. She requested that the buffer be increased. She noted that she did not like the name of the properties due to the confusion of calling the property Cove Road Apartment. She stated Cove Road is considered Roanoke City rather than Roanoke County. She noted that people may wander around and get lost if the apartments have Cove Road in the name. Mr. Thompson clarified that the name of the project is Smith Ridge Apartments, and that the Cove Road apartments on the application was a place holder. Page 5 of 10 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 6,2021 Doris Hueston, 5031 Nicholas Hill Lane, noted that she is a Roanoke County Public Schools bus driver. She noted that she drives Peters Creek Road all day long because she drives students from Northside High School to the Burton Center of Technology in Salem. She regularly goes east on Cove Road to get to Peters Creek Road. She described how the traffic regularly gets backed up in that area. She said that she has been stopped at the top of the hill and had cars run past her bus. She noted that there are people that are walking on the side of the road. She noted that she has to stop to make sure that her bus mirrors do not hit pedestrians. She emphasized that there are even trees that hit her bus due to the narrowness of the road. She mentioned that if there is a wreck on 1-81 traffic gets even worse. She stated that currently her school bus is at full capacity, and she said that she is assigned to 84 students. She is worried that she would not have seats on her bus for another 48 students. She is currently the only driver assigned to that area, but she noted that could change if this gets approved. David Goad, 5071 Cove Road, noted that he understood that the buildings on the property were going to be four stories tall, and his home sits behind where a four story building would be located. He wanted to know what kind of barrier would be in place between the apartment complex and the houses. He noted that with apartment complexes, if there are tenants with animals they might wander into the woods. He wanted to know what fencing would be put up to prevent that from happening. He also had concerns about the existing well system and how construction would affect their well water. He noted that he saw something about adding officers, he questioned how many more police officers would have to service that area. He stated they already have a problem with noise coming from Sheetz. He noted other concerns with noise, and noted that he felt existing landowners were neglected in the presentation. He commented on the traffic and stated that unless a superhighway was installed there would not be a solution to the traffic problem. He stated that he counted 25 cars backed up at the light to his driveway the other night. He stated that there needs to be a fence all the way around the property and down by the Verizon building or that there are going to be problems. He closed saying that he objected to the project. Danny Goad, 4766 Read Mountain Road, spoke on behalf of his parents who reside at 5075 Cove Road. He noted the smaller property with the apartment on it. He stated that the well is about five feet off of the property line. He would like to know what measures would be taken to protect that. He noted that his parents' home is 40 feet from the property. He also noted that it completely changes the nature of the existing properties with an apartment complex nearby. He questioned the elevation of the property, as well as, the run off from the complex. He was concerned it may run off onto his parent's property. He also wished to comment on the traffic, and noted that it is particularly bad in the morning. He noted that when they count traffic there that they count it near the cell tower. He noted that he does not believe that all of the commercial traffic is being factored into the traffic study. Robin Goad Eller, 5071 Cove Rd, noted that her parents have owned the property where they currently live for over 50 years. She noted that they bought the property next Page 6 of 10 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 6,2021 to them about 10 years ago. She continued saying that they enjoyed family gatherings, and privacy, and that she believes this development will destroy that. She stated that they have felt safe and protected in their home, and on the land around there. She stated that she raised her six kids on that property as a single mom, and that they still live at the home beside her parents. From time to time there have been traffic issues. She noted that there is traffic at the cemetery across the street with a minimum of one funeral per day creating traffic. She noted that there is another cemetery on the city side and those apartments. She also noted that her daughter was almost hit by a car when riding the bus because people were not stopping. She worries that with the additional traffic from the proposed apartments that people are not going to be paying attention to those that are walking alongside the road. She stated that she believes it will cause a traffic problem through North Lakes. She noted that she does not think that it is a good idea, and that she is not in favor of it. She noted that there is nothing wrong with open land in a convenient spot. She noted that her parents have worked so hard to maintain that land for her family. She noted all the things that are being brought into Northwest County. She noted that her children attend Northside schools. She thinks that a lot of the things that are bringing economic growth to the County are coming at a cost to the residents. Doris Hueston, 5031 Nicholas Hill Lane, added that police officers have to travel Cove Road. She noted how many times people at the corner of Cove Road run through the light. She noted that the first proposed entrance to the complex would back up traffic going onto Cove Road. She noted that traffic is what they have to be concerned about more than anything. She questioned if there is any other entrance they could use or is there was anything else that could go on the parcel. She also questioned if there was somewhere else that the Lawson Companies could go, or if the property is already sold. Danny Hamrick, 4843 Candlelight Circle, noted that they were concerned when they heard the proposals that came in. He noted that there was a lot of wildlife in the area, and that has been disturbed recently due to minor construction. He noted that they felt they already have Wood Haven which has increased traffic. He noted they already go to Green Ridge to get out, but once the industrial park starts up they will have to go another way. He noted that many new buildings have increased traffic in the area. He noted concerns of the traffic that would come to the area. He noted they were concerned with the change coming to the area, and what that would do to the traffic. Mr. McMurray closed the public hearing for public comment. Mr. McMurray noted that there have been a number of legitimate concerns raised. He asked a representative from the Lawson Companies to address the concerns raised. Mr. Fletcher noted that they traditionally like to hold community meetings, but they were unable to do so. He also noted that the apartments were going to be called Smith Ridge Commons. He also clarified that the apartments would only be three stories in height, and apologized for confusion in that regard. He noted that they are going to level the grading so that they will be lower than the neighboring properties as to not obstruct the Page 7 of 10 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 6,2021 views. He also noted that they will have retaining walls to ensure privacy. He noted that they would be happy to provide easements for water and sewer as to not block anyone's access. He stated that the retaining walls will either have a fence on top or there will be a fence around the property. He noted that for the 20 foot buffers, they have followed the County ordinance. He said for onsite Stormwater Retention the water will be stored on site. He noted that for pedestrian access they will provide as much access as they can. He noted that they would be happy to make sure that their sidewalk links with Roanoke City or Roanoke County sidewalk. He wanted to reiterate that they are in the middle of a traffic impact analysis as its part of the site plan approval process. He noted that they are willing to do what they can for their residents and for existing residents to do what they can to not increase the burden of traffic. Mr. James questioned at what point in the three phases the fencing would go in. Mr. Fletcher noted that during construction each phase will be fenced with temporary construction fencing or permanent black aluminum picket fencing once it's completed. Mr. James noted concerns about wells off-site. Mr. James noted there have been concerns about the buffer. Mr. James also brought up the question of subsidized housing. Mr. Fletcher clarified that they were not considered subsidized housing, he noted they are getting tax credits to build and set their rental rates at 60%. The government is not giving money to the renter, but to the developer. Their renters will have to pass background checks and credit checks. They will have to pass the normal set of benchmarks. Mr. James also questioned wells off site and run off. It was his understanding that they would have public water and sewer so that it should have minimal or no impact on groundwater. He asked Mr. Fletcher to speak on their erosion sediment control plans that they are required to abide by during and post construction. Mr. Fletcher noted that they have to meet certain requirements. He noted they will be required to use silt fencing, and they should not disturb the ground water of the residents nearby. Mr. James noted concerns about the buffer, he assumed they may have a Type B buffer going into the residential property. He asked Mr. Fletcher to address the type of plants that might be included in the buffer. He noted that they always do enhanced landscaping, so they have agreed to do more than the County requires. Mr. James noted that it was helpful that they are trying to preserve some of the existing landscaping. Mr. McMurray questioned what plans they had in regards to lighting. Mr. Fletcher noted that they are required to be dark sky compliant. He noted that they have to have one foot candle lighting. He noted that they have not had any light complaints or any light spillage onto properties. Mr. McMurray requested Mr. Crawford answer what can be built on the property by right. Mr. Crawford noted that currently an apartment complex with 185 units is already allowed on the property. The only change being requested is an increase in 31 units. Mr. McMurray requested Mr. Crawford to review the site plan review process. Mr. James commented that this is a bit of an unusual project, as they are evaluating the land use, but the roads are maintained by Roanoke City. Mr. Woltz commended the Lawson Companies for their presentation. He noted that many people come before the Page 8 of 10 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 6.2021 Commission and just speak to what the building will look like, but this presentation commented on the community, income needs, and school capacity. He noted that they recognized that a traffic study was necessary. Mr. Woltz noted the struggle of seeing something built next to you, he wanted to also address some concerns of the Goad Family. Mr. Woltz wanted to reiterate that 185 apartments have already been approved on the parcel. He noted that they are simply trying to accommodate the concerns of the people around the land. Mr. Woltz noted that he thinks it's a good project with a good company and that he thinks it's a good fit for Roanoke County. Mr. McMurray wanted to thank all of the citizens that came out to comment on the project. Mr. Woltz made a motion to recommend approval of the request: Mr. Thompson called the roll and the motion passed (3-0)with the following vote: AYES: Woltz, James, McMurray NAPES: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Thompson noted that this will go before the Board of Supervisors December 14, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. Upcoming Planning Commission Meetings Mr. Woltz made a motion to cancel the December 20, 2021 meeting, which passed 3-0. Citizen Comments Mr. Crawford summarized the major themes of the comments made before the Planning Commission Public Hearing. Comments of the Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff There were none. Final Orders The request of New Millennium Building Systems, LLC to rezone approximately 2.00 acres from R-1C, Low Density Residential, District with conditions, to 1-2, High Intensity Industrial, District, located at 3878 Garman Road, Catawba Magisterial District that was approved by the Planning Commission on its November 1, 2021 meeting was approved by the Board of Supervisors at its November 16, 2021 meeting. With no further business or comments, Mr. McMurray adjourned the meeting at 8:31 p.m. Page 9 of 10 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 6,2021 Respectfully Submitted: (/ /vI1eA }An(0-4 Cece la Thomas Recording Secretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission Philip Th, pson Secretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission Wayne Bower Chairman, Roanoke County Planning Commission Page 10 of 10