Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/2/2022 - Minutes "., ROANOKE COUNTY „ PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2022 Commissioners Present: Mr. Kelly McMurray, Chairman Mr. Wayne Bower Mr. Rick James Mr. Jim Woltz Commissioners Absent: Mr. Troy Henderson, Vice-Chairman Staff Present: Mr. Phillip Thompson, Secretary Ms. Rachel Lower, Senior Assistant County Attorney Ms. Rebecca James Mr. Will Crawford Ms. Cecelia Thomas, Recording Secretary Call to Order Mr. McMurray called the meeting to order at 4:07 p.m. Approval of Agenda Mr. James made a motion to approve the agenda, which passed 4-0. Approval of Minutes Mr. Woltz made a motion to approve the July 5, 2022 minutes, which passed 4-0. Consent Agenda 1. The petition of ABoone Real Estate, Inc., to rezone approximately 32.32 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, District, to C-2 ,High Intensity Commercial District, and R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District, to construct a hotel and townhouses located in the 1300 and 1400 blocks of Edgebrook Road, Catawba Magisterial District. Ms. James noted that Ms. Dunbar is still in charge of this case, but was unable to attend tonight's meeting. She overviewed the revised concept plans submitted by Balzer and Associates, and explained that the applicant has reduced the commercial area to 3.46 acres. She explained that they have increased the residential area to 28.286 acres for a total of 80 townhomes. They have submitted proffers that: limits the commercial use to a hotel, limits the height of the hotel to four stories, and that limits the number of townhomes. Ms. James noted that another community meeting will not be held. Mr. James questioned why exhibit C was not proffered when it includes the plantings. Ms. James noted it does not need to be proffered because it is required due to the County ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2022 code. Mr. James remarked on the previous community meeting and questioned what the citizens could complain about that would have validity. Mr. Thompson noted that many of their comments stem from what they envision the property developing as a single family development. He noted that there used to be a sign that showed a concept plan of a single family development. Many citizens assumed that is how the land would be developed. He noted many citizens do not react well to change. He noted that the subdivision off Edgebrook Road would have a better buffer than if the area was graded and developed as a single family subdivision. He does not think the residents like the idea of a hotel or townhouses. He noted that the developer has moved the hotel away from the adjacent neighbor, which was a problem at the community meeting. He noted that if you look at exhibit B, the developer attempted to move the hotel into the area designated as Core use on the future land use map. He noted that the developer stated that they reached out and looked into having a three- story hotel, but that eliminates the possibility of many national chains that require four floors. He explained they decided not to have office buildings. He noted that they have completed a traffic study that has been signed off on by VDOT. He noted that the applicant did take some time to look at the concerns that were raised by the community. Staff is planning to have overflow for the public hearing, as well as additional staff. Mr. Bower commented on the topography and questioned if the hotel will be seated any lower. Mr. Thompson noted that he believes the hotel is in a fill area. Mr. James questioned if there are any height requirements in Core. Mr. Thompson noted that there is not. Mr. Woltz questioned if the price point is ever a factor. Mr. Thompson noted that many concerns with land use cases involve neighbors being concerned their property values with drop. Mr. Thompson explained that the townhouses may cost less than the single family homes around it, but it is a different type of housing. 2. A proposed amendment to the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment would amend the 419 Town Center Plan, which is a component of the Roanoke Comprehensive Plan, by incorporating the Roanoke County 419 Town Center Design Guideline into the 419 Town Center Plan. Mr. Thompson noted that last fall staff and the Planning Commission held a work session with the consultants on developing these design guidelines. There was also a community meeting in the spring to gain public feedback. He noted the joint work session with the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission that happened in May. He explained that staff provided the consultants with changes after the joint work session. He noted that there are a few ways that staff plans to utilize the guidelines. Mr. Thompson explained that by incorporating the design guidelines into the Comprehensive Plan it provides more weight when requesting applicants to comply with the guidelines through a rezoning or special use permit, incorporating aspects into the overhaul of the zoning ordinance, economic incentives if companies comply with certain standards, and using the recommendations to strengthen SmartScale applications. He explained that since the design guidelines were funded by the Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment. Mr. Woltz noted that Mr. Mahoney had suggested incorporating this into the Comprehensive Plan. He questioned if it would be better to Page 2 of 9 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST2, 2022 have it be a separate set of guidelines versus having it be the standards everywhere. Mr. Thompson clarified that the 419 Design Guidelines will only be applicable to Route 419, even if they are adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Thompson noted that even though the document has been finalized by the consultants, the Planning Commissioners are still able to request changes. Mr. Bower questioned if there are any changes that he or staff would recommend making. Mr. Thompson noted that staff submitted their changes before the consultants submitted their final document. Mr. Thompson explained that should the County apply for transportation funding, the 419 Design Guidelines being in the Comprehensive Plan provides more weight than just a document the department had generated. Mr. Bower noted that there may be financial compensation if applicants follow guidelines. He questioned where that compensation would come from. Mr. Thompson answered that the County had previously had an economic analysis of the market that resulted in data showing that for the catalyst sites to develop as shown in the plan would require incentives. He noted there are a variety of tools for incentives. He gave the example of Tanglewood Mall. He noted that there has been more outparcel construction in recent months, which is removing some parking spaces. He explained that they are close to the threshold where they are at regarding parking. Mr. Woltz questioned if Tanglewood has used most of the parking, the 419 Town Center Plan will not be possible unless there is structured parking. Mr. Thompson noted that there is an evolution of the property in the 419 Town Center Plan. He questioned how long some of the stores occupying the bigger spaces will last, and how that will play out. Mr. James questioned how he would be able to find the 419 Town Center Plan if it is incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Thompson explained that it will be listed as being included in the Comprehensive Plan and will be available for public view on the website. Mr. Thompson noted that many of the community plans will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, but not all of them. Mr. James questioned what would not be included. Mr. Thompson explained that some of the previous plans would be incorporated into the planning summary for that area instead of using the previous community plan. Mr. Bower made a motion to approve the consent agenda, which passed 4-0. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Ms. James overviewed the history of the White Pelican halfway house. She noted that she had provided handouts that included the Board of Supervisor's resolution, the definition of a halfway house per the Roanoke County code, and her determination letter dated July 28th. She explained that she was informed that a house was being purchased with the intent of being used as a halfway house on White Pelican Lane. She noted that this complaint from neighbors went directly to the Board of Supervisors. She started speaking with the neighbors and inspecting the property. She received the address of the house and reached out to the Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Development Services to see if Pinnacle had acquired any licensing to be operating a facility at that location. They responded stating they did not have anything for the location on White Pelican Lane. She discovered the organization was named Pinnacle and researched what they were proposing. She got in contact with the Executive Page 3 of 9 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2022 Director and the Regional Licensing Director. She explained it was very hard to get any information about what they were proposing for the property on White Pelican Lane. Meanwhile, she continued to receive many complaints from the neighbors who lived near the location. She noted that Doug Blount reached out to Pinnacle regarding the zoning determination and those emails are included in her determination letter. Those emails are the first explanation of the proposed use, even though it was already operating. She explained that residents had moved into the home owned by Pinnacle on July 5th. She noted that Peter Lubeck, the County Attorney, had updated the Board of Supervisors throughout the process. She noted that Pinnacle claimed that there was no treatment or supervision happening at the location on White Pelican Lane and that it was strictly residential. She noted that during one inspection they were able to inspect the house and witnessed cameras being installed in every room. She noted that the definition of a halfway house is a "and" definition where it must meet all the requirements to be defined as such. Mr. Thompson overviewed the definition of a halfway house. Mr. Thompson noted that they came up with 3 potential scenarios. He noted that it could be listed as a single family residential home—five unrelated people living in a home together, halfway house, or if the zoning administrator cannot make a determination as to a certain definition the list is prohibited. Mr. Thompson noted that the ADA states that a person with a dependency is classified as disabled and is protected under law. Doug Blount had a phone call and followed up with an email, the zoning administrator determined that the location is a halfway house. Ms. James had received a request from a citizen for a written zoning determination letter. Neighbors who had complained received a copy of the letter. Pinnacle received a different letter and a sign posted on the property stating that the current use is a zoning violation. Mr. Lubeck noted that Pinnacle is able to request an accommodation under federal law. Currently, a halfway house is only allowed in Roanoke County by a special use permit in C-2 and AV. The Board resolution is looking at whether or not halfway houses should be allowed by-right in C-2, and if use and design use standards should be considered. Mr. James questioned if there is a chance that they will appeal the decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals. It was noted that they probably will. Mr. James questioned if it is required by federal law that the County provide accommodations. Mr. James noted he wants to know what the County is required to do. Ms. Lower noted they would work on getting that information for them. Mr. Thompson noted that anyone, citizens or Pinnacle can appeal the Zoning Administrators decision and go to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Thompson noted that occupants stay for 30-45 days. He knows that Pinnacle has a location in Roanoke City that is being sued. He reiterated that the Board of Supervisors wanted the Planning Commission to look at halfway houses. Mr. Thompson noted that any uses that deal with mental health and addiction needs to be reviewed with an update of the zoning ordinance to update the language and uses that currently exist. Mr. Bower questioned where they legally would be able to move to. Mr. Thompson answered that they would need to purchase land that was zoned A-V or C-2 and acquire a special use permit to be able to operate. Mr. Bower questioned if it was reasonable to assume they would move and apply for a special use permit. Ms. Lower noted that if she were Pinnacle she would not take her chances and assume that Page 4 of 9 • ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 2,2022 Roanoke County was going to approve a special use permit at this point. Mr. Thompson noted that there is an additional facility being purchased in Catawba. He noted that Pinnacle staff had mentioned expanding more in the Roanoke Area. He explained this is not a use that will be going away, and it needs to be addressed. Ms. Lower explained that you live at the home with seven other men and you go to a treatment clinic during the day for opioid addiction. Mr. Bower questioned if Ms. James' determination would have been different had only five people been living in the home. Ms. James noted her determination would not have changed to residential use. Mr. Thompson explained that the Board of Supervisors views this as commercial use since they are being paid. It is a business. Mr. James noted that you would be allowed to do a short-term rental, an Air BnB in a residential area. Mr. Thompson noted that you are not having eight people every night, and rotating them every 30-45 days at a time. Mr. James noted that if you were to accommodate and supervise them he struggles to see that as commercial use. Mr. Woltz noted that the commercial use part of it is where they are sending people to a treatment program. Mr. Thompson noted that there is staff on-site during the day. Mr. Woltz agreed that there does need to be standards and guidelines if it is going to be allowed by right. Mr. Thompson noted that if you require a special use permit, does it ever get approved. He noted that it is one of the uses that generate a lot of traffic. Mr. Thompson noted that if you allow it by-right in commercial properties that might not be seen as an accommodation, as commercial properties tend to be more expensive than residential properties. He noted it could be considered a financial burden. He noted that he believes that is the direction that the Board of Supervisors would like the Planning Commission to explore, but that is something that could be argued in court. Mr. Woltz noted that they may also have costs for a change of use from the Building Department. Mr. Thompson noted that there are plenty of residential homes in C-2 zoning districts. Mr. Woltz noted that he believes the Planning Commission needs to be careful in allowing such a use in residential areas. If it does not go against any federal laws, he believes it would be best to investigate allowing the use in commercial and industrial areas. Mr. Thompson noted that he believes that they understand the direction the Planning Commission wants to go. Staff will do more research and bring suggestions back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Thompson discussed George Condyles' passing and working on wireless communication facilities. He noted that they need to address definitions, districts it will be allowed in, and use and design standards. He explained he started putting definitions together. He noted the zoning ordinance currently only has four definitions that are applicable. He overviewed class options regarding to height of cell towers. Mr. James noted that he was under the impression that they wanted to eliminate anything over 100 feet. Mr. Thompson noted that they need to add some definitions to the zoning ordinance. He noted many people allow the mini microcells by right because they are required to by state code. Mr. Thompson noted that when you look at Class 1 it is allowed pretty much in every zoning district, and Class 2 which is about 80 feet is by right in AG and a SUP in residential and by right in commercial and industrial. He noted that a cell tower from 199 down is allowed by right. Mr. James noted that his hesitation Page 5 of 9 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2022 is that he does not know where technology is going. His understanding is that the tower height has come down but the towers have gotten closer together. Mr. Woltz noted that they could pick a number and miss it by 10 feet. Mr. Bower noted that he was told 80 feet would do a majority but 120 feet will cover the majority. Mr. Bower stated he would want up to 120 feet allowed by right. Mr. Thompson noted that the microcells will have to be allowed by right anyways. Mr. Thompson questioned what height the Planning Commissioners would like to allow is Residential by right. Mr. Thompson noted that they would measure it by the pole height and not include the height of the lightning rod. He also noted that they need to have a discussion to ensure it does not affect the airport overlay. Mr. Thompson also noted that they could consider design requirements in residential areas to encourage stealth design. Comments of Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff There were none. Adjournment for Dinner With no further comments, the meeting was adjourned for dinner at 6:16 P.M. Call to Order Mr. McMurray called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Public Hearing Petitions 1. The petition of Insite Real Estate Investment Properties, L.L.C. to rezone approximately 0.93 acre from R-2, Medium Density Residential District, to C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, to construct a drive-in or fast food restaurant (quick-serve coffee shop) located at 7515 and 7517 Friendship Lane, Hollins Magisterial District. Mr. Crawford spoke about the background of the site. Mr. James questioned the concern mentioned by the citizen regarding the reduction of the buffer. Mr. Crawford clarified there had been a request for the buffer to be reduced, but that request has not been approved as that will be addressed by the zoning administrator during the site plan process. Mr. Crawford noted that the stormwater will be addressed in the engineering process. Mr. Thompson assumes they will do underground stormwater retention, but the applicant can speak to their plans. Mr. James questioned if a traffic impact analysis has been submitted. The VDOT representative, Ashley Mothena, spoke to the Planning Commission and noted that they have submitted the first submittal of the traffic impact analysis, but it has not been reviewed. Mr. Thompson questioned if the main concern of VDOT would be traffic backing up on Plantation Road. Ms. Mothena answered that VDOT's concerned with traffic on Plantation Road as well as traffic impacts on Friendship Lane. She noted that she does not believe there will need to be any physical modifications to the light, but there may need to be some timing tweaks to assist traffic flow. Mr. Woltz noted that they do not foresee a highway modification. The VDOT representative noted that they could potentially need a right turn lane, but they do not anticipate any major changes being required. Mr. James questioned, having not completed the review at this point, does Page 6 of 9 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2022 VDOT have any concerns regarding the commercial entrance spacing or sight distance requirements. Ms. Mothena replied that they do not have any concerns with the sight distance, but the discussions regarding spacing they cannot deny access. She noted that the proposed location is probably the best place to allow them access and not cause traffic issues. Sean Graham with Insite Real Estate presented regarding the project. He spoke to the landscaping buffer and noted that they will be providing a six-foot wide screening fence, a row of deciduous trees, a row of deciduous, and a row of evergreen shrubs. They are planning on underground Stormwater Retention. He noted that they have to meet pre- development run-off rates, and does not believe that they will increase any problems with flooding. He noted that they cannot help anything downstream, but are happy to do what they can on their property. He noted that due to the use of a coffee shop most of the trash will be coffee grounds and paper products that should not produce offensive smells. He does not believe that will affect neighboring property values. Mr. Bower noted Ms. Mothena stated that VDOT may recommend that they taper or install a right turn lane and questioned how that would affect the potential sidewalk. Mr. Graham noted that they would route the sidewalk along the taper. Carol Slate, 7538 Friendship Lane, noted that all of their stuff sounds pretty, but that it is entirely different when you are living next to it. She noted that they should not be allowed to change the size of the buffer. She states that if that buffer changes the dumpster would only be 37 feet from the corner of her house. Ms. Slate commented that what they are saying sounds nice, but they should not be allowed the modification to the buffer. She states that there is absolutely no reason that they cannot put it up on the Plantation Road side of the property that she could see. She knows that Mr. Graham states that there will be a six-foot fence that would be adjacent to her property but dumpsters do smell. She does not care what you put in them. She asked the Planning Commission how would they like to be sitting on their front porch smelling garbage every morning while drinking their coffee. She would still want to know where in the world the retention pond is going to be. She noted that in the 2015 traffic counts they did there were 2051 cars on Friendship Lane. She also presented a speed survey stating that the majority of cars go 42 miles per hour(mph) in a 25 mph zone. She also presented pictures of flooding from July 16th from behind 7531 and 7535 Friendship Lane. She noted those photos are from after just half an inch of rain. She noted that they have no objections to rezoning but they have to live out there, especially right next to a dumpster. She stated that she does not think they would like to live next to a dumpster when there are other options. She stated that the reason they are asking for a modification to the buffer zone is that there is not enough land to do what they want to do and have the 30-foot buffer. Mr. McMurray thanked Ms. Slate for her comments. He stated that the buffer will be addressed during the site plan review stage of the property. He noted that they had heard a couple items such as underground retainage for water, but they will reviewed during the site plan review stage of the process. Mr. Bower noted to the speaker, there will be a retention pond it will just be underground. It is his understanding that anytime Page 7 of 9 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 2,2022 you have construction like this you are required to have the same amount or less run off then when you started the project. Mr. James commented on the speed study noting the numbers were taken over 7 days where the average number of 362 vehicles per day. He noted that 85% of people who went 28 mph or under. Mr. Bower asked Mr. James to clarify the 42 mph. Mr. James noted that the 42mph was the maximum recorded speed during that 7 day period. With no further comments, Mr. McMurray closed the public hearing. Mr. Bower questioned if the dumpster is more of a staff design issue rather than a concern for the Planning Commission. Mr. Thompson noted that the buffer is something staff would deal with, but they are welcome to ask the applicant why they put the dumpster where they did. Mr. Graham noted that the location of the dumpster is the only place where the trash truck would be able to get to the trash and not have to go through the drive-thru lane. Mr. James questioned Mr. Thompson why the plan is not as comprehensive as some in the past have been. He asked Mr. Thompson to go over the process of staff review for the citizens in attendance. Mr. Thompson reviewed the site plan review process. He explained that applicants are allowed to ask for modifications, but they will normally have to make other adjustments to allow for modifications. He noted that the goal is to meet the intent of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Thompson asked the applicant if they are okay with the agreement of the proffered condition and Mr. Graham answered they were. Ms. Slate asked if the applicant wanted to put the dumpster in the proposed location so that it can back out onto Friendship Lane to exit. Mr. Graham noted that the trash truck will not be backing into traffic. Mr. Bower made a motion to approve the application, which passed 4-0. Comments of Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff Mr. Thompson noted that Alyssa Dunbar returned from maternity leave. He noted that the department has two vacant Planner II positions. Mr. Thompson noted yesterday was the deadline for SmartScale applications. He reminded the Planning Commissioners that its next meeting will be held September 6th. Final Orders With no further business or comments, Mr. McMurray adjourned the meeting at 8:07 p.m. Page 8 of 9 ' ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 2,2022 Respectfully Submitted: iCe a Thomas Recording Secretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission Philip Th pso Cj Secreta T* Roanoke County Planning Commission KellMurray Chairman, Roano County Planning Commission Page 9 of 9