Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/4/2021 - Minutes ROANOKE COUNTY a lir 7'11 PLANNING COMMISSION 4 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2021 Commissioners Present: Mr. Wayne Bower Mr. Rick James Mr. Troy Henderson Mr. Kelly McMurray Mr. Jim Woltz Staff Present: Mr. Philip Thompson, Secretary Ms. Rachel Lower, Senior Assistant County Attorney Ms. Alyssa Dunbar Ms. Cecelia Monnin, Recording Secretary Call to Order Mr. Bower called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. James gave the invocation and led the pledge of allegiance. Approval of Agenda Mr. Woltz made a motion to approve the agenda, which passed 5-0. Approval of Minutes Mr. McMurray made a motion to approve the August 31, 2021 minutes, which passed 5- 0. Consent Agenda Ms. Dunbar provided an overview of the petition of New Millennium Building Systems, LLC, to rezone approximately 2.00 acres from R-1 C, Low Density Residential, District with conditions, to 1-2, High Intensity Industrial, District, located at 3878 Garman Road, Catawba Magisterial District. The total parcel size is roughly 48.7 acres, and they are only petitioning to rezone 2.00 acres. She explained that the R-1C zoning was done in 1986 to allow for a double-wide trailer to be allowed on the property. She noted that the new owners no longer require that use, and would prefer the parcel to be zoned in its entirety as 1-2. Mr. Bower questioned whether the top left portion of the property would be used as an entrance. Ms. Dunbar clarified that that portion of land is an existing entrance, however it is unknown at this time where a future entrance will be located. Mr. James made a motion to approve the consent agenda which passed 5-0. ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 4,2021 Public Hearing Mr. Thompson provided a presentation on the petition of the Economic Development Authority of Roanoke County to rezone approximately 30.5 acres from AR, Agricultural/Residential, District, to 1-2, High Intensity Industrial, District, located at 5832 West River Road, Catawba Magisterial District. Mr. Thompson noted that Jill Loope from Economic Development would not be able to attend tonight due to a family medical emergency, but that he would be answering questions for staff tonight. He noted that the property is split by the rail line. Tract "A" is 21.5 acres and tract"B" is 9 acres. He noted that there are no immediate plans for anyone to purchase the property. He provided an overview of the future land use which is Principal Industrial and noted that the request is consistent with the future land use designation. He reviewed how this request is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan, the vision statement, and the goals of the Economic Development Plan and the Glenvar Community Plan. Mr. Bower questioned if there is a rail spur there. Mr. Thompson noted that there was not. They both agreed that one would need to be built to use the railroad. He also questioned if there was only one entrance to the property, which Mr. Thompson stated that there was only one entrance. Mr. Bower also asked what the percentage of industrially zoned properties was in the county. Mr. Thompson noted that it was around 2.15%. Mr. Bower noted that Economic Development must see this as an opportunity to provide more land for that purpose. Mr. Thompson noted that Economic Development has been talking with the Ashworth's for some time, and that they have been working with them to make this happen. Mr. James noted that there are very few properties that are zoned commercial or industrial. He asked if there have been talks of placing any proffers on the property. Mr. Thompson noted that it has been discussed among staff and with the Ashworths, but it was decided not to place any proffers on the property. Mr. James agreed but wanted to clarify that the conceptual renderings were not being proffered. Mr. Thompson noted that there had been talks about a greenway easement, but noted topography and river crossing issues complicated a greenway on this property. Staff noted that it may be easier to continue the greenway at another location, and not require a greenway easement within the proffer. Mr. Thompson noted that the Ashworths were not disagreeable to proffers, but staff did not believe it made sense at this point to require it. Mr. Woltz asked that when Balzer did their study how deep did they dig into the floodplain. Mr. Thompson noted that they only did preliminary, but the floodplain could potentially be larger. Mr. Bower opened the public hearing for public comment. 1. Josh Thoemke, residing at 6025 Harwick Drive, noted that he was not notified of the potential rezoning. However, it does affect him. He noted the citizens do not know what they are going to do with the land. He noted that it was important to take note of the beauty of Roanoke County. He stated that he lives across 460 Page 2 of 7 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 4,2021 on the hill that looks down on the property being discussed. He stated the primary reason they chose their property is because they love the view. He stated that he doesn't know what they are planning to do with the piece of land. He stated that he knows that the Planning Commission is looking out for Roanoke County and the future employers of Roanoke County. He noted that he was fine with the talks of the greenway. He wanted to make it clear that there will be people that will be affected by this decision, visually. He stated that there are many places to live, but now many as beautiful as Roanoke County. He urged the board to please consider the importance of keeping Roanoke County beautiful and to do everything it can to keep it beautiful. 2. Neil Horn, 529 Ingal Boulevard, he noted that he was speaking on behalf of his parents Harold and Shirley Horn who reside at 5647 West River Road. He stated that his parents live directly across from the Ashworth property. He noted as counsel for the Horns that his parents were in favor of this rezoning. He noted that the rest of the properties are zoned 1-2. He noted that they believe this will benefit their property and provide more jobs in the valley. However, he noted that he did not hear the bridge that goes over the Roanoke River addressed when you turn onto West River Road. He noted that you have to go down over the bridge and then it rises to the railroad crossing. He noted that you have to cross the Roanoke River to get to the property. It is his opinion that you will have a difficult time getting trucks and low boy trailers across the two-lane bridge. The bridge has been there since 1970 but you must consider will that bridge be sufficient for traffic to an 1-2 property. He noted that the bridge is unsuitable for any kind of industrial traffic. 3. Christopher Main, residing at 5932 Harwick Drive, asked Mr. Henderson what the name of the area is where the property is located. Mr. Henderson noted that it was Dry Hollow. Mr. Main noted that Riverside does not have a sign. He noted that it would be nice if Riverside had a sign. He thinks it's interesting that they used to be in the Big Hill District and now they are in the Peaceful Lane district, but the map says Riverside—you can google it. He mentioned that there is a beautiful road that accesses the interstate, but there are many accidents at that intersection since they put the Exxon station there. According to what the rescue squad told the gentleman when a young woman hit his truck, VDOT cannot put a traffic light at that intersection because the hill is too steep for vehicles to slow down. VDOT is concerned that people will hit one another at the light. He stated that they may believe they have room for traffic, but that the traffic is at capacity right now. Mr. Bower clarified if he was discussing coming off the interstate. He clarified his statement. He noted that this will increase traffic in the area. He stated there are already accidents, and being that you are not allowed to place a traffic light to mitigate that and now you want to add something that will increase the already dangerous traffic. He noted that there is already a big industrial complex at CRT. He stated why they need another 1-2 area when there is already one there, and AEP is installing power. He also noted to Mr. Horn that Roanoke County ordinance states that there is supposed to be a fence around a junkyard, Page 3 of 7 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 4,2021 and noted that there is no fence around the junkyard. Mr. Horn stated that it is not a junkyard. Mr. Main stated that he had called and spoke to people and nothing has been done for two years. He stated that a friend of his used to live in a trailer at the intersection, who pointed out that they have a dump, a jail, and two large industrial areas. He asked the planning commission to give the area a break. 4. Paula Main, residing at 5932 Harwick Drive, she noted that she has major concerns about the traffic. She noticed that there are multiple wrecks at the Exxon coming down the hill. She noted that people are not going to be able to slow down and are going to wind up driving through the convenience store or hit cars that are parked on the side of the road. She stated that you are not going to be able to slow coming down that hill, especially with big trucks. She noted that she was for increasing the economy, but there is already an increase in traffic when the shifts change at the jail. She stated the additional excavating that will be needed, that was listed in the Balzer plan, is not correct. She also noted that the stormwater noted is not going to work due to what she does for a living. She stated that what is going to happen is that the railroad track will help on Tract A but on Tract B all the sediment is going to go into the Roanoke River. She mentioned that the Roanoke River already has a TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load)for sediment. She stated that 9 acres is not a substantial amount to cause a lot of trouble but it still could cause problems. She noted that it is already loud, due to 460, the industrial areas, and the trains. She stated that for the locals that is a significant change. Mr. Bower closed the public hearing for public comment. Mr. Bower noted that the bridge has been closed due to the river. He noted that there was no one here from VDOT to speak. Mr. Thompson volunteered to attempt to clarify some items. Mr.Thompson noted that Supervisor Hooker had requested and VDOT has studied the 460/Dow Hollow Road intersection. VDOT had an on call consultant who studied the intersection and made suggestions to address those traffic concerns. They suggested some alternatives and the one that the county is supportive of is to install a three-way traffic light. He noted that the speed limit may need to change there, and additional signage may be needed. Mr. Thompson noted that it is the county's intent to submit a SmartScale application next year to install traffic lights and create a three-way intersection. He noted that it is a 1-2 million dollar project, but he did not have an estimate in front of him. Mr. Thompson also noted that the County does route all of our rezoning applications through VDOT and we do have comments from them. Mr. Thompson read the comments from VDOT that state: "A land use permit will be required if a new entrance is needed from the VDOT right of way or for the change of us in an existing entrance". Mr. Thompson noted that a commercial entrance would be needed if they wanted access from West River Road. He also noted that when you put an entrance in they are going to look at sight distance. He continued that a traffic study would have to be done to look at how such an addition would affect the already existing traffic flow. Mr. Thompson noted that that there are multiple organizations that would have to review a site plan for Page 4 of 7 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 4,2021 development on the property. He also wanted to mention that in the report generated by Balzer on page 44 VDOT states that the bridge on West River Road is currently unrestricted. It stated that any legally loaded vehicle allowed on a Virginia road is currently allowed on the bridge. However, VDOT is currently working on assessments across the state and weight restrictions could be placed in the future. Mr. Woltz asked how much is space is available at CRT. Mr. Thompson noted that there is one lot that has been graded, but believes there are only 2-3 sites still available. Mr. Henderson questioned whether or not the Ashworths were okay with this and did they hire the EDA as an agent. Mr. Thompson noted that the trustee, their daughter, had signed the application for the Ashworths. Mr. Henderson also asked the board whether they had historically placed proffers on cases like this. Mr. Woltz noted that since there is not currently a development plan they would probably not. Mr. Woltz also questioned if they do not set proffers now while there is currently not a development plan if they can add conditions later. Mr. Thompson stated that proffers had to be established through the rezoning process. Mr. Woltz noted that the property across the street had no proffers, and noted that we could certainly go through the list of permitted uses and put proffers on. Mr. Henderson noted that when you look at what the EDA does, this does fall in line with that they do. He just noted that it was strange to see the EDA try and help someone sell a property. Mr. Thompson noted that Jill Loope has spoken with the Ashworths over the years many times, and wanted to step in and do that. Mr. Thompson noted that as staff we wish that it would happen more often. He noted that it would be preferable for the EDA to step in and look at properties zoned in the 1980's and 1990's and to help rezone them without the proffers that are currently burdensome. Mr. Woltz asked how long the Board of Supervisors has owned the land at the intersection across from this. He questioned if it has been acquired recently. Ms. Lower noted that it was not recently. Mr. Woltz noted that he is sympathetic to those that live across the street, but that they either add proffers or recognize that there is a lot of dirt there that can be developed anyway they want to. Mr. Henderson noted that he was mostly curious as to the intent. Mr. Bower noted that stormwater was brought up and discussion about discharge into the Roanoke River. The regulations today state that the post development rate has to be similar, if not better, than it was before development. Mr. Bower also noted that there are standards for lighting so that light is not allowed to be pointed at adjacent property. Mr. Thompson noted there is not currently a standard for height limitations, but he reviewed the county wide limitations that are in place. Mr. James noted that when we take a look at this parcel from the future land use section of the map how long has this been in place. Mr. Thompson noted the 2012 Glenvar Plan and he was not sure if it was then, but if it was before that it was probably 2005. It may even go back farther than that. He noted that in 1960's people assumed that you could place industrial zonings next to the rail lines He noted that it has been at least ten years. Mr. James recalled that the future land use had not changed in quite some time. Mr. Thompson agreed that it had probably been that way for a while. Mr. McMurray noted that agricultural uses for this property would still be possible. Mr. Thompson agreed noting that it was a by right use. Mr. Bower opened the discussion. Page 5 of 7 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 4.2021 Mr. Henderson made a motion to recommend approval of the request stating that the proposed rezoning request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the county's adopted comprehensive plan, in good zoning practice, and perceived that it will not result in detrimental effect to the community. Mr. James noted that it appears to him it has been the intention for quite some time for the land to be zoned industrial. Mr. Bower noted that Mr. Main brought up a good point, why do we need this if we have industrial sites nearby. He believes Mr. Thompson answered this question. He noted that he believes that when we find a piece of land that is conducive to industrial zoning to go ahead and make it industrial. Mr. Thompson called the roll. The motion passed 5-0 and will go before the Board of Supervisors on October 1gth. Citizen Comments Mr. Bower questioned if there are any citizens that wish to comment on any thing. Mr. Christopher Main noted that he believes Ms. Loope is going around and trying to talk people into things. He noted that he believes that people are going to be paying higher taxes on the property if it doesn't sell quickly and asked the commissioners if that was true. Ms. Lower noted that the body doesn't take questions. Mr. Main noted that it was apparent that was the case. Mr. Bower thanked him for his comments. Commissioners' and Staff Comments Mr. James noted that he apologized profusely for his lack of attendance at the last meeting. He noted that he attended the Vinton Community meeting and thanked staff for all of their efforts. He stated that he was very pleased to receive comments about the information presented and the staff presenting it being very knowledgeable. Mr. Bower noted the December 611' meeting, and noted that he has a family obligation and may not be able to attend. Mr. Thompson noted that there is no work session in October, and that there next meeting is November 151. Mr. Thompson also reminded them of upcoming Roanoke County 200 Comprehensive Plan meetings. Mr. James noted that one citizen who attended the meeting had just received their letter one day in advance. Mr. Thompson noted that we have tried to get the letters out at least two weeks in advance, but due to staffing and post office some arrived with less time. He noted that the county will not be doing the mailer in the spring for the second round of the Roanoke County 200 Comprehensive Plan meetings. He noted that Alex Jones had noted that the videos for the 200 Comprehensive Plan webpage, that they helped make, had over 7,300 views. Mr. Bower noted that there has been a lot of discussion over Economic Development. He noted many people in the past had questioned what they do. He noted that they have started to take a proactive approach and help people. He also noted that he does not know who the EDA has been talking to that might have a use for this, but knows they are not allowed to disclose this. He wanted to note that he appreciated what they Page 6 of 7 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 4,2021 were doing. Mr. Thompson noted that this area of the County has had a lot of activity. He noted this case, the New Millennium in Catawba, the park and ride lot in Catawba, AEP off of Loch Haven, and he noted that all of them are in Catawba. He noted that there is a lot of interest in the western part of the county and they are seeing a lot more prospects. He noted that the purpose of economic development is to get property that is zoned for economic development. He noted that a buyer is not going to want to wait and go through the rezoning process. Mr. Thompson noticed there is interest in the property. Mr. Bower noticed that he appreciated Philip standing in on Jill's behalf. Mr. James noted that potentially someone could believe that the County is stepping in inappropriately to rezone property, and that is not what he believe is the case. He finds it unfortunate that Ms. Loope was unavailable. He noted that two people seemed disenfranchised and put Mr. Thompson in an unfortunate position. He noted that it might be good to have a backup. Mr. Bower noted that he believes that the EDA is setting a precedent here. Final Orders There were none. With no further business or comments, Mr. Bower adjourned the meeting at 8:29 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: � 0 //JJ l LPk yei/iL I Ly' Cecelia Monnin Recordi -cretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission ia .; / Phillip Th ipson Secretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission Wayne Bowers Chairman, Roanoke County Planning Commission Page 7 of 7