Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/6/2022 - Minutes ROANOKE COUNTY ". = PLANNING COMMISSION %a«r-, PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2022 Commissioners Present: Mr. Kelly McMurray, Chairman Mr. Troy Henderson, Vice-Chairman Mr. Wayne Bower Mr. Rick James Mr. Jim Woltz Staff Present: Mr. Phillip Thompson, Secretary Ms. Rachel Lower, Senior Assistant County Attorney Ms. Rebecca James Mr. Will Crawford Mr. Isaac Henry Mr. Alex Jones Ms. Paula Benke Ms. Alyssa Dunbar Mr. Bill Richardson Ms. Cecelia Thomas, Recording Secretary Call to Order Mr. McMurray called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. Approval of Agenda Mr. Bower made a motion to approve the agenda, which passed 5-0. Approval of Minutes Mr. Woltz made a motion to approve the August 2, 2022 minutes, which passed 4-0-1, with Mr. Henderson abstaining. Consent Agenda 1. The petition of the Gallery at South Peak, LLC, to rezone approximately 10.83 acres from C-2C, High Intensity Commercial District with conditions, and R-4C, High Density Multi-Family Residential District with conditions, to R-4C, High Density Multi-Family Residential with amended conditions, to construct 260 apartments located in the 5000 block of The Peaks Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District. Ms. Dunbar overviewed the application. Mr. James questioned the parcel next to Texas Roadhouse, and noted that they were advised that there was a concept/overiay with how South Peak would develop. He questioned if this application would need to conform to those guidelines or overlay. Mr. Woltz noted that in the past when they wanted to place a storage unit there that had been discussed. Mr. Thompson noted that in the past that was dealing more with the 419 Town Center Plan. He noted that the 419 Town Center ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2022 Plan was in development at the time and had not been completely developed. He noted that in the 419 Town Center Plan, they did foresee residential development at the top. Mr. Thompson noted that with the original development, many proffers were put on the property when they developed the property as C2-C. He noted that since they are rezoning it they are removing the proffers associated with the property. Mr. James questioned if there was any discussion regarding density. Mr. Thompson noted that in R-4 the applicant is at the maximum density for this project. Mr. James questioned if there will be anyone claiming that they are not zoning with the original intent in mind. He noted that it has been zoned commercial and it has not shown to be useful, and this proposed zoning is in line with the 419 Town Center Plan. Ms. Lower questioned if they would be making boundary line adjustments to form one parcel, which was answered that is the intent. Mr. Henderson made a motion to approve the consent agenda, which passed 5-0. Citizens' Comments There were none. Comments of Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff Mr. Thompson overviewed the process for the public hearing. It was noted that 11 citizens have signed up to speak. He explained that the 3rd-floor boardroom is available for overflow. If there is no one in overflow, we can proceed as usual. However, we may need to call them down a few at a time to allow them time to come down the elevator. Mr. Thompson noted that two VDOT employees would attend. Mr. Thompson noted that letters were sent with the Planning Commission date and the Board of Supervisors' original date. However, the Board of Supervisors moved their hearing date to September 28, 2022. Mr. Thompson introduced Jake Harding who started with the Planning Department as a Planner II. He discussed his reasons for moving to Roanoke and becoming a planner with the County. Adjournment for Dinner With no further comments, the meeting was adjourned for dinner at 5:40 p.m. Call to Order Mr. McMurray called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Mr. McMurray informed the citizens in attendance that both of the petitions going before the Planning Commission this evening would be going before the Board of Supervisors on Wednesday September 28th due to the Board of Supervisors moving their meeting date from Tuesday, September 27th. Invocation/Pledge of Allegiance Mr. Rick James provided the invocation and led the pledge of allegiance. Page 2 of 18 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6,2022 Public Hearing Petitions 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. Dunbar presented on the current zoning, and the proposed rezoning. She reviewed the history of the petition and presented the revised petition. Mr. Alexander Boone spoke on his application and stated that change is difficult and not everything can stay the same. He explained that they initially filed their application in February. After the spirited community meeting, they talked with the engineers and residents and heard some excellent feedback. He noted that he respects the people in attendance and respects the love they have for their community. As a developer, you want people to love their community and take pride in where they live. He noted a discussion with Joe Thomas where he learned of the citizens that were vehemently against Hanging Rock golf course and Fairway at Hanging Rock. He explained that time has shown those to both be wonderful decisions even though people were opposed to change at the time. He discussed his process of acquiring the property. He explained his reasoning for placing a medical office in the area, and after receiving feedback from the community his reasoning for removing the medical offices from his application. He explained their reasons for moving the hotel on the parcel. By moving it, it is as far as it can be from any house while still being on the site. He explains that the hotel will also be topographically lower. He noted that it is now closer to the park and ride. He noted that many of the hotels in the area are older. He noted he spoke with Roanoke College, the visitor's bureau, and others and noted that they are all supportive of more hotels. He noted that the comments from citizens influenced them to place residential townhomes in Core. He noted that townhomes create a smaller footprint than having to butcher the topography for single-family homes. He concluded by saying they focused on the comprehensive plan, and listened to the existing community there. Mr. Burns from Balzer and Associates complimented staff on their summary. He explained that they removed the medical and professional office space that was originally proposed in direct response to feedback they received from the community meeting. He noted this allowed for them to shift the location of the hotel south on the parcel. He stated that he believes that the new configuration places them in further agreement with the comprehensive plan and the future land use designation. He explained that 45% of the site is being reserved as a buffer. He explained this is on purpose to preserve those spaces. He explained that 45% equates to 14.50 acres. He explained that the new proposal creates 20% less traffic on a daily basis compared to their original application. He explained that they did a traffic study with the original application that did include the medical and office space. The study showed that the roads could support that traffic to which VDOT concurred. They revised the study due to the removal of the offices and VDOT agrees the existing road infrastructure can still support the traffic. He explained that the current application produces 20% less traffic than the original application would have during peak hours. He discussed concerns with the use being discussed as hotel/motel/motor lodge as being defined that way due to Page 3 of 18 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6,2022 being defined as such in the zoning ordinance. He explained that density is comparable to other areas in the vicinity. Mr. Woltz questioned if VDOT reviewed the study with the revised application. Mr. Burns noted that VDOT reviewed the study and noted there would be no change. Mr. James commented that they state they are able to preserve about 14.50 acres; he questioned how that would change the impact on the surrounding topography if they built single-family residential homes. Mr. Bums noted that single-family residential on this site requires an extraordinary amount of grading and would result in removing most of the existing vegetation. He stated that the townhouse development preserves the existing topography more. Mr. James questioned the buffer requirement for single family residential. Mr. Burns noted that if you place R-1 next to R-1 you are not required to have a buffer, and none of the removed vegetation would need to be replaced. Mr. Bower asked how much of the existing buffer would be disturbed with the application that they originally submitted. Mr. Burns noted that it would have been pretty similar, probably close to 40% remaining vs. the now 45% preserved. Mr. Bower questioned if the hotel will be topographically lower than it was originally proposed. Mr. Bower noted that Mr. Boone stated to get a good hotel, the building would need to be 4 stories in height. Mr. Bums noted that to attract a major brand for a hotel you need to have four stories. Mr. Burns noted that Mr. Boone did investigate doing a three-story hotel but that would not bring any major brands to the area. He explained that they would be about 8 feet lower in elevation than the original location. He noted that a story is about 12 feet in height and that they are making up the 14 feet of the request of lowering the hotel height by moving the location on the parcel. He explained that the townhomes will provide a second layer of buffering that will help to hide the hotel from the existing houses. Mr. James questioned if the development of the townhomes that the traffic generated by this site is comparable to a single family residential. Mr. Bums clarified that he had compared the current applicantion to the one that had been previously submitted in February. However, in comparison to a single-family development of 93 single family houses on the site, it produces about 10% more traffic. Brian Blevins, from VDOT, was asked by Mr. James to discuss the Traffic Impact Analysis from the original and revised application. Mr. Blevins explained that the original application was about 20-25% higher in traffic volume than what the revised application proposes. He explained that they still concur that they have no issues with the development. Mr. James questioned if they used traffic volumes pre-COVID to see if the values would be different. Mr. Blevins noted that they took traffic volumes in 2021 and compared them to volumes in 2018-2019 and they were seen to be very similar. Thus, they used the data from 2021, and the values in their study appeared to be reasonable. Mr. James noted that if the proposal moved forward that there is a process by which they would need to access the state highway and verified that VDOT would check for sight distance among other things. Mr. Blevins confirmed that would be reviewed during the site plan review process. Mr. McMurray opened the public hearing. Page 4 of 18 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6,2022 Stas Mavrides, Fairways II at Hanging Rock, read an excerpt of a letter written by Steve Paths. He stated that ABoone Real Estate has requested a rezoning to C-2 for a hotel and R-3 for townhouses. We have many concerns with the proposal but will only address one of them, the question is the need for a hotel. Our community and the surrounding area needs to remain 100% residential. Another hotel is simply not needed at 1-81 Exit 140. Four hotels with 300+ rooms already exist just over a mile away at Exit 141 . Another 7 hotels with over 600 rooms can be found 3 miles away at Exit 137. Food, convenience stores, and service stations already exist at both those exits to serve travelers. I know not all of these hotels are modem hotels with modern amenities. The Virginia Tourism Corporation (VATC.org) posts monthly and year-to-date average occupancy data on their website. The data available includes the national and state averages, and the state is also broken down into regions. Roanoke is one of the regions. Please note that VATC states that data cannot be published or reused without their permission so the following statement in my interpretation of the data without including actual numbers published of year-to-date occupancy rates for the state and Roanoke region for seven months of 2022. Both the state and national average occupancy rates are in the low 60% range with the Roanoke area being at least 3.5% below the state and national averages. If the hotels at exits 140 and 137 are typically representative of the Roanoke region it can easily be concluded that on an average night there are over 350 vacant hotel rooms in these 11 hotels. Adding an additional hotel with 85 rooms will lower the overall occupancy rate even more, and worst-case scenario some of the current hotels could possibly close due to lost business caused by an overabundance of vacant rooms. Building hotel rooms to meet peak demands caused by special events is like building a church to primarily accommodate Easter attendance. It is not economically feasible or realistic. A hotel at Exit 140 is not needed. To conclude, I do not support the proposed rezoning of R-1 to C-2 to build a hotel that is simply not needed and would negatively impact our community. I urge this committee to deny all ABoone's zoning requests. Ron Buckley, Fairways II at Hanging Rock, read a letter addressed by a neighbor G Sprinkler who could not be present tonight. Dear Martha, I have made some observations concerning a proposed rezoning request that would include a hotel and townhomes. My wife and I reside at Fairways II where we have lived since 2014, and we are opposed to the proposed rezoning request for the reasons stated as follows: If you travel one exit south on 1-81 , Wildwood Road, Exit 137 there are seven hotels including a Hampton Inn by Hilton and an AVID hotel. There is also a Howard Johnson's that is in disrepair and appears to have been converted into subsidized low rental housing. This hotel used to be a Holiday Inn and at one time was a premier hotel in the Salem area. It had a nice restaurant with an outstanding view and was a favorite for locals and travelers alike. Some of the local civic groups met there on a regular basis. As we have all seen when competition gets fierce and the aging process occurs the older hotels seem to lower their standards to survive. This is a very legitimate concern not only to the current single family homes surrounding the area of the proposed zoning change, but also for the proposed townhomes within this proposed zoning request change. A related concern is the proposal to construct 80 townhomes within this building site. If this zoning change is approved one can only imagine how many of these Page 5 of 18 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2022 • units might be purchased to rent to Roanoke College students who would be turning over on an annual basis to the demise of the existing homeowners in the area and the value of their respective properties. One only needs to drive down Craig Avenue in Salem to witness that for themselves. If you travel north one exit there are an additional 4 hotels, one of which is a Fairfield Inn by Mariott. There is also a Baymont hotel which was formerly a Sheriton hotel. It too was at one time one of the premier hotels in the valley, but has since fallen into the same category of disrepair as the Howard Johnson's at Exit 137. It appears to be used as a short term low income rental and is reportedly become a drug haven. I recently drove by these hotels on a Wednesday morning and every parking lot of the eleven hotels at these two exits was practically empty. I question if they ever have 100% occupancy, even on busy weekends during special events in Salem or Blacksburg. In closing do we really have a need for another hotel between exits 137 and 141. Do we want a commercialized area for people to see on their way to the Appalachian trail. Do we want to create an even bigger traffic problem for the residential neighborhoods in the area. In addition to the increased traffic that has already occurred within the recent addition to the park and ride and the frequent smart bus pick ups and drop offs there. Do we really need to commercialize every exit on this already very busy 1-81 corridor. I propose we respect the homeowners currently residing in this area and leave this land zoned as it was originally designed. Leave it as R-1 and build single family dwellings on it, thus denying this zoning change proposal. Mike Davis, 1641 Highland Court, thanked the Planning Commission for allowing him to speak although he believes it to be in vein because he believes it is a done deal. Mr. David continued that this is about the wealthier becoming richer. He stated he would not go on because many people had already commented about the number of hotels in the area. He stated that none of them want a hotel in their community, why do they want to put a hotel in their community. He questioned how many of the communities Mr. Boone has built have hotels. He stated that if the Planning Commission votes to approve this project-where are our principles—where our are ethics—and where are our morals. Think about when you put your head on your pillow at night, can we live with our decision. We will have to answer for what we have done. Mr. Davis elaborated that on his street there are three widows and one widower. He questioned if this gets approved will they go to their doors and tell them that they approved this. He stated that he and his wife are not privileged and have worked hard all their lives to find the perfect spot to live. Why would they ruin it? He and his wife looked all over for the perfect place to live, and this was their dream. He watched an episode the other night of the Bob Newhart show, and the premise stated "can we be bought?". He noted that there is a song from the sixties that says you don't know what you've got til it's gone. He noted he was going to ask the Planning Commissioners how many of them would want a hotel in their backyard but did not think that was fair. He explained that he believes that the Planning Commissioners believe that this will be a benefit to Roanoke County—but what they don't understand is that the people present tonight are the County. He stated that there was a report on the news the other night about the trees dying in our region from climate change. He stated that Mr. Boone wants to cut their trees down. He stated that VDOT states that there will be no traffic impact, but he believes that is flawed and tainted in favor of Mr. Boone. He Page 6 of 18 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6,2022 stated that if traffic is not a problem why did they just put in a roundabout. Does one man's desire to make money worth crushing the dreams of all the people in their neighborhood? At the beginning of this meeting we all stood and faced the flag, put our hands over our hearts, and said "I pledge allegiance to the flag"--a democracy—the majority of the people here do not want this—the majority—the democracy. Did we say the pledge of allegiance just for show or did we really mean it? Pete Baskette, 1628 Forest Highland Court, discussed the Core future land use determinants as they relate to the proposed C-2 rezoning in this application. He noted that the County uses five land use determinants to determine whether rezoning meets the requirements for Core. These are as follows: access, which is a location served by an arterial street system—well as was shown earlier on the maps this proposed C-2 property does not have access to an arterial road. From the proposed site one must travel on both Edgebrook Road and then Mountain Heights Drive to reach Thomas Memorial Drive which is the closest arterial road. According to a recent discussion with VDOT both Edgebrook Road and Mountain Heights Drive are classified as local and neighborhood streets. The proposed rezoning does not meet this determinant. Determinant number two is the existing land use pattern. Locations where commercial uses have or will be developed. While the proposed property is surrounded by single- family housing has been discussed before, there are no commercial developments within a mile of this property. Allowing this to be rezoned commercial would be ignoring the existing land use that has been established for this area. So the proposed rezoning does not meet this determinant. Number three, Existing Zoning, locations where commercial zoning exists. As he just mentioned, there are no commercial properties zoned within a mile of this parcel. He noted that the existing zoning does not meet this determinant. The fourth determinant is Population Center. Locations within close proximity to the projected population concentrations. Although this site may be near the interstate, it is not near the projected population concentration. He stated that this determinant is not met. Finally, Urban Sector, locations served by urban services. It is debatable as to whether the proposed location is served by urban services, and he is not going to get into that. In summary, the proposed rezoning fails to meet 4 of the 5 land use determinants, if not all five. Additionally, this property is surrounded by neighborhood conservation makes the most sense to maintain it in the current R-1 zoning so that natural expansion of the exisiting development pattern can be preserved. He urged the Planning Commission to reject the rezoning from R-1 to C-2. John Senter, 1502 Old Forest Lane, to present his concerns. He opined on the statements made in Mr. Boone's rezoning application for Edgebrook park. First, in the rezoning application, this proposed development is referred to as an exciting, new mixed-use, commercial and residential community. However, mixed-use developments are better suited for town centers and commercial areas where housing, entertainment, shopping, restaurants, and even office parks are compatible and integrated. Although, Core has already been discussed Edgebrook park is surrounded by R-1 zoning and neighborhood conservation which does not fit this pattern. Mr. Boone's application states that Edgebrook park will be an efficient, attractive, and comparable use of the property. There is no assurance that Mr. Boone's townhomes will be anywhere Page 7 of 18 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2022 comparable to their already existing single-family homes in price or quality. Nor can Mr. Boone predict with any certainty the negative impact R-3 and C-2 zoning will have on their single-family home prices, crime, or traffic. Mr. Senter read Mr. Boone's written response to his March 27th questions. Mr. Boone stated "we are unable to build a house of anywhere close to the value of the current homes in Fairways at Hanging Rock because any homes built in the proposed commercial portion of the site backs up to the large VDOT park and ride and an active interstate. Such homes would need to be much lower in price and ultimately could impact on the homes at Fairways and Hanging Rock". Mr. Boone would like us to believe that the price point of these affordable townhomes will not cause a reduction in the value of their single-family homes. This is especially troubling since the proposed properties in Edgebrook park will be built adjacent to 1-81, a large VDOT park and ride, and a four-story hotel. This combination of these venues constitutes the ideal formula for high crime including sex trafficking, prostitution, and drug distribution. Clearly, Mr. Boone's desire to build Edgebrook Park is not altruistic. His primary purpose of seeking a rezoning of this property from R-1 to R-3 and C-2 is to maximize his profit potential under the guise of affordable housing for a community with a callous disregard to already established R-1 zoning, and the residents that will be negatively impacted by the proposed change. Let me be clear, the commercial rezoning of R-1 property has always been the most concerning part of the proposal for a majority of the surrounding residents. In evidence, is their petition signed by over 300 residents to reject the rezoning proposed in Mr. Boone's application with a large number of signatories specifically rejecting the hotel. He urged the Planning Commission to vote no to Mr. Boone's rezoning request. Tommy Barber, 1469 Edgebrook Road, continued to state concerns relative to Mr. Boone's rezonng application. He stated that on page 2 of the rezoning application it states that the property is appropriately located at the intersection of two thoroughfares Route 311 and 1-81. He emphatically stated that this is not true. To get to Edgebrook park you will need to turn on local road Mountain Heights Lane and local road Edgebrook before you will reach the site. The proposed site is not located at the intersection of two thoroughfares. It has no direct access to an arterial roadway. Also, the rezoning application states that zoning amendment limits the proposed use to upscale hotel. However, on the proffered conditions page it states that the allowable use for the commercial parcel will be "hotel/motel/motorlodge". Does this mean that any of these three can be built on the site from the beginning or somewhere down the line say 10-15 years when it becomes run down. In the event you vote to grant C-2 rezoning we respectfully request that this proffer be amended to say "upscale hotel" like Mr. Boone states on page 2 of his rezoning application and that the words motel/motoriodge be removed. Additionally, Mr. Boone's application continually says a hotel is in the Core future land use designation in the comprehensive plan. We have already determined that 4 of the 5 land use determinants for Core are not met. Also, the application states that Edgebrook Park supports the residents of surrounding communities. They are not sure how this rezoning would support their neighborhoods. They certainly see a dramatic increase in traffic from the entire development and criminal activity from the hotel. Finally, they have close to 900 hotel rooms within the Page 8 of 18 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6,2022 next two interchanges on either side of Exit 140. He reiterated that this is not needed, and asked the Planning Commissioners to deny the rezoning request. Kendall Johnson, Mountain Heights Lane, stated that he will be addressing the C-2 zoning request to construct a four-story hotel with 85 rooms. He stated that the last paragraph on page 2 of the rezoning application says Edgebrook Park supports the residents of surrounding communities. However, the residents within their community are questioning how this rezoning supports their neighborhood. He stated that they will see a dramatic increase in traffic and a dramatic increase in light pollution from dusk til dawn. He stated that they can foresee an increase in criminal activity. He continued that hotel/motel/motorlodges currently along 1-81 in Roanoke County experience ongoing criminal activity. There are drug deals, sex trafficking, prostitution, and theft. Residential break-ins could increase because hotels and motels facilitate criminal activity bringing in more people from out of the area and into their neighborhoods. Sergeant Chidester of the Roanoke County Police motel task force and Brittany Money who is the Roanoke County Police crime analyst are both knowledgeable about what is happening in the hotel/motels in Roanoke County. Sergeant Chidester is also very familiar with the location in their neighborhood for the proposed hotel. He said it is an isolated and quiet location which could offer more seclusion for criminal activity. According to Brittany Money, hotels/motels are the top 911 call producers every month in Roanoke County Police Department. Five hotel/motels in the thoroughlane area alone average between 2 and 29 calls per month, per hotel/motel. That's the capacity of 145 calls a month. Sergeant Chidester states that as hotel/motel/motorlodge locations grow older, and we have heard this-they run down-they are sold-they often become long term housing which, in essence, does increase the probability of drug use and other criminal activity. In the event the Roanoke County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors votes to change this parcel to C-2 zoning, we discussed the proffer should be amended to read "upscale hotel" with 24 hour private security. This could ensure safety to everyone here and now, and down the road. He requested that the Planning Commission vote no to this rezoning request to preserve the character of the community and increase the safety potential of their neighborhood for years to come. He stated that we do not live in a perfect world, and that these crimes are at a high percentage in the community. He quoted General George Patton saying "those who sweat more in times of peace bleed less during times of war". He asked the Planning Commissioners to "sweat a little bit" and keep Roanoke County safe. He closed by asking them to deny the rezoning application. Melissa Peace, 1713 Hemlock Lane, noted she would like to continue discussing the traffic issues with the proposed rezoning. She explained that Edgebrook Park has no direct access to an arterial road. The proposed development is located off on Edgebrook Road and Mountain Heights Drive which are classified as local and neighborhood streets. Local and neighborhood roadways are not designed for the traffic that commercial zoning produces. This type of housing that is proposed is much denser than single family housing and will produce far more traffic than the approximately 50 single family homes that were previously advertised for this property. If the rezoning is approved it stands to reason that something more than the simple stop Page 9 of 18 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6,2022 sign will be required at the intersection of Thompson Memorial and Mountain Heights Road due to future traffic issues. If so, what type of future road improvements could VDOT implement at this intersection. She quoted Mr. Blevins saying "no traffic light can ever be placed at this intersection because of the close proximity to I-81's ingress/egress. Because the entrance ramp to 1-81 is less than one tenth of a mile from this intersection." She continued stating that according to Mr. Blevins the only future solution to the inevitable traffic problems at this intersection if this application is approved would be one of three options. One solution would be an R-cut which is a restrictive crossing U-turns—which means no left turns out of Thompson Memorial Drive. Two, a closed crossover, which is a right in and right out—which would also eliminate left hand turns. Third, a reduced phase signal. She commented that all of these solutions would only add more restrictive traffic control in an area that already has 1-81 ingress/egress, a narrowing from two lanes down to one lane, and the roundabout. She stated that they must not forget about the wide turns that the smart buses make coming from or going to the park and ride. Additional traffic produced by 80 townhomes and an 85 room hotel would produce major traffic jams. She continued that there are already two tight left turns to get in and out of the proposed area for Edgebrook Park. She opined that logic and history tell us that there will be future traffic issues, that hotels do age and decline, that more crime can be anticipated and she urged the Planning Commissioners to deny the rezoning application. Kevin Connolly, 1555 Olde Course Lane, he wanted to discuss traffic study counts that were collected on September 21, 2021 that is included in the rezoning application. According to the online weather archive, there was a quarter inch of rain on the day that Balzer&Associates conducted their traffic study. We feel the traffic study to have been seriously flawed and provided incorrect traffic counts due to the rain and other factors he will soon mention. This is important because VDOT has based their recommendation that no turn lanes or tapers are warranted by the proposed development based in part on the study. Additionally, at the March community meeting, Brian Blevins with VDOT was asked by one of his neighbors if Balzer's traffic study numbers appeared to be low. He stated that Mr. Blevins admitted that the traffic study numbers collected by Balzer & Associates on September 21, 2021, were a little low due to the effects of Covid-19 on traffic. Mr. Blevins also stated that pre-Covid 2019 traffic numbers were used. If you look at the traffic information from this rezoning application you only find Balzer's September 21, 2021 traffic study numbers. There is no 2019 pre-Covid count anywhere in the application or in an addendum added by VDOT. If pre-Covid 2019 traffic numbers for Edgebrook Road and Mountain Heights Lane were higher, they should have been used and have been included in the rezoning application and adjusted to include annual rate increases from 2019 to the time of the traffic study. We feel Roanoke County residencts deserve the right to use the most accurate traffic count numbers when a rezoning request of this magnitude is made. For obvious reasons the neighboring communities question the accuracy of the traffic count numbers including the rezoning application and the traffic count numbers collected by Balzer in 2021 considering the effects that Covid-19 has had on vehicular traffic and the fact that there was a quarter of an inch of rain on the day of the traffic study—and the community wants accurate numbers used when you make an important decision like this. He asked the Planning Page 10 of 18 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6,2022 Commissioners to postpone their decision until a new traffic study was done on a precipitation-free day, along with another year of traffic growth rate factored in to the traffic counts—and then further adjusted due to Covid-19 since all previous data was based on data from 2021, not 2022. Lynne Bledsoe, 1520 Henlock Lane, she presented a petition to deny the application of Edgebrook Park. She explained that she collected over 300 signatures from residences and neighborhoods from citizens surrounding this site. She reiterated the community's concern that the R-3 and the C-2 rezoning request will dramatically change the character of their neighborhoods forever with large increases in traffic, safety issues, and a reduction in their property values. She requested a delay of any vote on this rezoning application a new and more accurate traffic study can be conducted. She stated that the community feels that the VDOT traffic counts cited in the application underrepresented the traffic due to the effects of Covid on traffic. She acknowledged that they had heard from Brian Blevins that the numbers were adjusted, but she insisted that was not seen in the application. She noted that an additional year of growth needs to be added to the traffic due to the traffic impact analysis being a year old and the construction on the project being pushed out a year. However if the Planning Commission proceeds with putting the rezoning application to a vote tonight, she requested that the Planning Commission deny the application. She stated that the site is surrounded by over 400 single-family homes and does not adhere to 4 out of the 5 land use determinants for Core. Surely, these land use determinants are part of zoning requirements that the Planning Commission has an obligation to uphold. Remember, as previously stated, a majority of the 300 residents wrote on the petition either"no hotel" or"no commercial". She quoted Mr. Boone from earlier in the night saying "hotels become rundown very quickly". An upscale hotel today could turn into a run-down establishment 10 to 15 years from now. The park and ride across from this hotel make the risk greater for drug dealers, sex traficking, and crime as Sergeant Chidester agreed with her on. She requested that the Planning Commission vote no to the R-3 rezoning request. She noted a Balzer representative noted 93 homes could be built on the site, but she stated that a site sign stated that 51 single-family homes would be built on the property. She stated that if 51 cars made 9-10 trips per day than that would be about 500 vehicles on the road—which she stated is half of what the proposed development will add to traffic. She opined that for the developer this is just another development. Once they build the development they are gone, but for the County citizens this is where they live. She again asked the Planning Commission to deny the rezoning request. Thomas Gibson, Edgebrook Drive, noted his opposition to the proposed rezoning application. He explained that he believes that the current single-family zoning fits the existing community much better for those immediately impacted by the site and is financially achievable due to some of the facts he plans to outline as well as those included in the real estate handouts he provided to the Planning Commissioners. First, he noted that directly across from 1-81 from the proposed building site the Penguin and Polar Lane neighborhoods consist of homes all above $500,000. He explained that he runs in the neighborhoods often and that these homes are elevated from 1-81. There is considerable traffic noise and only a single row of trees obstructing the highway. He Page 11 of 18 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2022 • believes these home values remain strong and comparable with those within his own neighborhood. One mile southwest, North Oaks neighborhood also sits in similar proximity to the interstate, with limited tree screening and considerable highway noise. He states that these homes are also comparable in value to those in his neighborhood. He continued saying that home values in the area continue to grow and do not stay on the market long. He claims that the market is still high. The area as is exists today is desirable and could absorb another 30-40 homes without hurting the values of neighboring homes or the aesthetics of the beautiful mountain community. He stated that every 133 days ten homes go on the market around the $500,000 mark. He opined that they do not need another hotel. A quick search on expedia this morning reveals ample rooms for this coming weekend. A hotel is not an attraction for prospective residents, nor does it build long term community members. It will only serve as a convenient pit stop beside the interstate in a soon to be polluted hotel market. Everyone is concerned with the crime and everything else that occurs with hotels. According to the Roanoke Times article today Mr. Boone is concerned about the market for$500,000 homes on the site. Mr. Gibson states that the current market data shows that the market could support homes at that value on the site regardless on proximity to the interstate. He stated that the 45% that is not being developed is basically a ditch, and it cannot be developed. He states that screen will still be there and hide the interstate for a majority of the back yards if homes were to be built there. He continued saying Mr. Boone is quoted as saying the hotel will be tasteful, yet based on the fact that his waste water permit has been laying on the side of the road for the last six months he stated that is not sold on how his investments will affect the value of the property. Mr. Boone interjected stating that is incorrect—what he said is absolutely incorrect. Mr. Gibson continued saying that it's been there since last fall. Mr. Boone also continued saying that he never had a permit there. Mr. McMurray interrupted and reminded them of the rules. Mr. Gibson continued with his comments saying that at their community meeting with Mr. Boone earlier this year he repeatedly threatened to clear cut the lot and make it into a dump if he could not rezone it. He stated that he is sure everyone in the room could confirm that happened more than 3 times. He commented that he is not sure that a hotel is an improvement over that dump, and personally believes that single family homes would be a better solution for the community as well as for Mr. Boone's return on investment. He asked the Planning Commission to deny the rezoning application. John Kesling, 1820 Hanging Rock Court, states that he and his wife have been there for 16 years. He noted that he did not come tonight to speak. He states that he is adamantly opposed to these changes being requested by Mr. Boone. He is not at all opposed to Mr. Boone, but he does not believe that placing a hotel in their back yard is in the best interest of citizens of Roanoke County. He noted that he purchased his home there 16 years ago as an investment of his money. He stated that his neighbors will agree, that their money is in their homes. In his 16 years, he has paid out over$70,000 in real estate taxes to Roanoke County. He believes that entitles him to say that they do not need a hotel in their neighborhood that could drive their property values down. He noted that is what he is concerned will happen if this is done. He noted that at the Page 12 of 18 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6,2022 community meeting in March he heard "it's all about the money" come up multiple times. He said this is true, but it's not just about Mr. Boone's money or the County's money, it's about the community's money that they have invested into their homes. He requested that the Planning Commission vote no to the rezoning request. He noted that at the community meeting a citizen asked Martha Hooker if she would want a hotel in her neighborhood and she said "probably not". He noted Mr. Thompson was asked the same question and he also said "probably not". He said he also does not want it in his backyard and wants to protect his investment. He reiterated his request for the Planning Commission to deny the rezoning application. Wayne Clark, 1510 Innsbrooke Drive, noticed that 55% of the property is being developed. He stated that they will be back to develop the other 45% of the property. He noted that he has friends in the hotel business and he asked them why do some exits get more hotels or motels than others. He said it's very simple. People want to stop where they can get food. He noted that there is no proximity to any food at this location. His major problem with this discussion is the traffic. He feels the Mountain Heights exit will get more dangerous. He also feels that the exit going North off of 81 will kill people because people going South go down there at a fast speed. He said they do not signal and that those two areas will have plenty of wrecks. He stated you can not depend on the council or VDOT, and he has land up near Dixie Caverns and that has already killed people on that part of the interstate. Tim Martin, Old Course Lane, is in the process of purchasing a house in Fairway. He is still going to purchase it but he does have some concerns. He stated that while it is a nice park and ride it is not anywhere near the largest in Virginia. He stated that he is a civil engineer, and has been in traffic operations for the last 20 years. He noted that the traffic that could be generated from this, noting that he has not had a chance to look at the study, he feels that something is going to need to be put in at 311. He noted it could be a roundabout. He noted the roundabout that they put at the bottom of the hill is much better than the signals they had there. He noted that if the Planning Commission were to approve the application, which he hopes they do not, that they would have to look at something to allow people to get in and out. He noted that Stormwater basins put in sometimes attract insects or mosquitos. He noted that it needs to not have standing water. Security measures, he noted that North Lakes was very nice when it was first built and the difference in crime that is coming from the hotels where people are getting dumped by the police and other agencies. He questioned what kind of crime would they see in the next 30 years. He requested that there be a proffer that a fund be set up that if the homes in the area do lose value due to the development, the people in the area can draw from that fund. Joe Thomas, 6618 Campbell Drive, noted that they have a good investment in the community. He notes that he feels they developed that community. He noted that he built the homes of many of the people in attendance. He notes that he owned that property and that he is the one that had the original plan to put 51 patio homes there. He noted that building Fairways and Fairways II it was easy to sell those because they have a view of a gold course. He noted that on this parcel in question no one was Page 13 of 18 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6,2022 • interested in being by the park and ride or the interstate. He noted that they were either going to have to do a lower price product or put a commercial use there to provide a buffer between the houses and the interstate. He noted he did not have experience with either of those. He spoke to Balzer and Associates about upping the density, but to do that they would have to cut the trees. He noted that Mr. Boone's plan preserved a buffer that was not going to happen with what he was looking at doing. He noted it was a view of the park and ride. He noted that he did not want to go in there and scalp the property, and did not want to do that to the people to who he already sold homes. He noted Alexander Boone is the best developer in the valley in his opinion. He noted that Mr. Boone came up with this idea, and he wanted everyone to know that as a previous owner that they did look at keeping it as R-1. He noted that he did not think that would be good for the community. Bad development lowers property values, good development raises them. He believes that this project is a good development. He feels that what he was getting forced into was a bad development. He notes he still has an interest in the community, and that he still owns and operates the golf club. He hopes that people will still continue to come and play there after talking about this. He stated it is just the facts and wants the community to know what the facts are. Larry Schauss, 1536 Old Course Lane, he stated that they were told that they could not build the single-family residential homes there due to rock. He noted what kind of rock runs there. What kind of veins runs there if they have to start blasting out to put these homes on the parcel. He stated what kind of problems would they see due to blasting from the rock in the area there. He believes that there will be cracking in the walls and in the foundations of the existing homes. He noted that no one there tonight has brought that up. With no further comments, Mr. McMurray closed the public hearing. Mr. Henderson questioned from a land use and zoning perspective, stating that this parcel is not off the thoroughfare. He noted you do have to come off of Thompson Memorial onto a major street to get to Edgebrook. He asked how does Zoning view that. Mr. Thompson answered saying that there are determinants for every land use. He stated that his understanding is that in 1998, the property that is currently Core was Transition at that time. He believes the land was changed to Core for the 2005 Comprehensive Plan. He explained that they are really looking at 311 and they took a certain buffer off of that. It says arterial road, he believes they are looking at the proximity to 311. Regarding existing development, it says "shall be developed or will be developed". Mr. Thompson noted that the intent was that this parcel would develop as commercial, those were the determinants they chose to make the land Core. He understands they do not think it should be designated Core, but it currently is Core. Mr. James noted that a citizen had opined that the application is not in agreement with the future land use designation. Ms. Dunbar noted that there is a small portion where townhouses are in the Core designation, but the rest of the application is consistent. Mr. James confirmed that Core designation would want a more intense use than townhouses, which Mr. Thompson confirmed. Page 14 of 18 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6,2022 Mr. Bower noted that traffic data came up. He wants to ensure that the proper data was used, and confirm what VDOT used. Mr. Bums noted that the impact of COVID on traffic counts, and the question of what is up to date. He noted that they did their traffic counts on September 21, 2021. What they saw was that things are pretty close to back to normal, and they did a comparison of that data and the data from 2019. It was noted that the numbers they were seeing were comparable, and a growth factor of 4.5% a year was added to that for each year the project was built out. Mr. James questioned when the build-out date was, which was answered as 2023. Mr. James questioned if any infrastructure improvements would be needed on the roadway due to the growth. Mr. Bums noted that there would be no improvements needed even with the 9%growth. Mr. Bums addressed the weather. He noted that if it was a major weather event that stopped people from driving. He noted a normal rainfall is not going to stop most people from going to work or necessitate postponing traffic counts. Mr. Woltz questioned if the medical office had been placed would that have increased traffic. Mr. Burns noted that the townhouses will cause less traffic than the original application. Mr. Bower questioned the photo of the sign that was given to the Planning Commission by Mr. Gibson. Mr. Boone noted he has no idea what that sign is, he has not applied for any permits for this parcel. Mr. Gibson spoke and said that the sign has Joe Thomas' name on it. Mr. Boone addressed Mr. Gibson and asked if he was going to apologize for what he had said earlier. Mr. McMurray redirected the conversation. Mr. James noted that one of the speakers was concerned about college students, and asked about the potential buyers. Mr. Boone noted that when you consider who will be able to afford townhomes around $500,000, students could not afford a townhome at that price. Mr. James questioned if he has seen people purchase properties to rent to college students. Mr. Boone noted that he has not bult this close to a college before, but does not foresee any problems. Mr. Boone noted that he has no misgivings about how this will affect neighboring home values. He would love to have a small commercial area, but the residents did not want it. Mr. Boone is positive that this project will not affect the neighbors' home values. Mr. James noted that much of what he heard had been opinions stating they did not want a hotel. He noted that it might be good to clarify what the Planning Commission's obligation is. Mr. Thompson explained that they are looking at land use issues and forward their recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors does have the official say, and looks at a broader perspective than the Planning Commission. Mr. Woltz stated that he believes the citizens will regret not having a medical facility in the area. Mr. Woltz noted that there has been a lot of talk about not needing a hotel. He spoke from his experience in real estate, he noted from his experience that it is a market-driven investment. He does not think the investment would have been made if there was not a demand for a new hotel. Mr. Woltz stated that this application is as good a compromise as anyone is going to get. Mr. Henderson explained that he looked into the need for a hotel, and from the standpoint of the closest municipality they do not need a hotel. He stated that half the occupancy of a hotel is fine. He noted that he is not here to define what people need, or tell people what they can and cannot do with their property. He then looked at the traffic, and he knows those roads well. He goes that road every Sunday to go to church. He noted that it is surrounded by 400 houses, but Page 15 of 18 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6,2022 sees the reason for it to be in proximity to the interstate. He is not here to do the County's bidding. He is here for the opposite reason. He believes in property rights and that sometimes government overreaches those property rights. He believes in property rights. He continued saying that he does not believe we do as well for local developers as we do for out of town developers. He thinks that if this is true and you cannot make this work. Who is going to come in next from out of town without proffers. Who is not going to offer substantial conformance, who is not going to compromise and remove the medical offices—who is going to put the medical offices and dare them to challenge it. He likes local developers for that reason, concessions were made. He did not have to use the term substantial conformance. He noted that term substantial takes out the concern of motel/motorlodge because he showed a four story hotel in the application. He stated that this is a hard application for him. He sees people who he chased their daughter around in high school. He sees his dentist from when he was ten years old. He sees his new employee, and sees her email. He saw Tommy Barber, who is why his kid believed in Santa until they were 13 when they probably would have stopped at 10 because he sent them a postcard every year. You see people you know, and that is what makes this hard. He reiterated that he believes in property rights. He believes that you should be able to buy a piece of property and do what you want with it. He does not believe that this is bad zoning, or bad use of the land. He understands that is upsets people living near them. Mr. Woltz noted that Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boone's families have tried to shape the community with nice developments. He would rather have someone locally who is still building the reputation of this valley. Mr. Bower noted he was at the community meeting and heard a lot of the comments, and believes that Mr. Boone took them into consideration. Mr. James stated his confidence that Mr. Boone heard the comments at the community meeting, and does not believe he would do this haphazardly. Mr. McMurray believes there is the possibility of providing housing in an area without causing harm to anyone else in that area. Mr. Henderson made a motion to approve the application, which passed 5-0. Mr. Thompson reminded everyone that the Board of Supervisors will meet to discuss the application on September 28th at 7:00 p.m. The Planning Commission took a recess until 9:40 p.m. 2. The 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 Guidelines into the 419 Town Center Plan. The 419 Town Center Plan study area is approximately 400 acres in size located near Tanglewood Mall covering Route 419 from US-220 to the railroad bridge near Chaparral Drive. The Roanoke County 419 Town Center Design Guidelines provide further guidance on the design of both public and private investments in the study area to help shape the built environment over the long-term future of this area. Mr. Thompson reviewed the 419 Town Center Plan and the timeline. He explained how the design guidelines will be incorporated when the zoning Page 16 of 18 • ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6,2022 ordinance is updated. He reminded the Planning Commission of their joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors and the consultants. Mr. Henderson questioned the language in the design guidelines. Mr.Thompson noted that it is language to shape what they would like to see, but it is not law. Mr. McMurray opened the public hearing. Carolyn O'Keefe owns property between Starkey Road and Ogden Road, and asked about the existing buildings and if changes will have to be made. Mr. Thompson noted that if you have an existing building, you do not have to make any changes unless you want to redevelop. Tony Lewis, the tenant of Play It Again Sports, noted his concern about the map that showed a road connecting Starkey Road to 419 through the center of his building. Mr. Thompson noted that there was a proposal of implementing a block system. He explained that currently that is just a line on a map of a future intent to make a connection between those roads. As of right now, the County has no intent of working on that project. Mr. Woltz noted that without providing any legal advice, he noted Mr. Lewis' lease would probably dictate that. He explained this is a 10-20 year vision. Mr. Thompson noted that if it was fast-tracked it would probably be 10-15 years due to funding for transportation projects being 6-7 years out. Robert Han, 4346 Starkey Road, noted that if he interprets the maps correctly the office building he owns would be taken and redone. Mr. Thompson explained that all of this is based on property owners coming in and wanting to redevelop. He explained that the County is not looking to buy his property, but how the County would like to see his property privately develop. Mr. Han noted it was his interpretation that those buildings will be taken by eminent domain. Mr. Thompson noted that the Board of Supervisors does not condemn buildings for the right of way or Economic Development purposes. Mr. Thompson explains the County may be involved with infrastructure but will not be purchasing people's property for development. Mr. Steve Guffrey, 5343 Fallowater Lane, questioned if they were to sell their building would that have any effect on that buyers use of that building. Mr. Thompson explained that if you have a Special Use Permit, as long as they want to use it for the same use they are fine. However, if they do not use it as a church for a certain period of time, typically two years, your right to use it as a church will be vanquished. Anyone who purchased the building would be able to operate it as a use that is allowed by right in C- 2. Mr. Dan Bower, 4461 Starkey Road, questioned as they were developing the transportation between Ogden Road and Route 419 would be acquiring any of their parking lot. Mr. Thompson explained that any time the County does a project would be to do a survey, and then look at what would be impacted. He explained the County would not take out parking if they can help it, but the County is required to provide compensation. Mr. Thompson explained that the intent is to make it more walkable and Page 17 of 18 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2022 bikeable, but it is hard to say what we do right now. The goal would be to have as little impact on businesses as possible. Mr. James made a motion recommending the adoption of the amendment into the Comprehensive Plan, which passed 4-1. Comments of Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff Mr. McMurray noted his appreciation for the decorum in the room, the work of the Planning staff, and his fellow Planning Commissioners. Mr. Thompson noted that the McAfee Knob Trailhead Shuttle had its ribbon cutting last week. He noted that some zoning ordinance amendments and a presentation from Amanda McGee are scheduled for the Planning Commission's next work session. Final Orders The Board of Supervisors recommended approval for the rezoning application of Insite Real Estate at its last meeting. Mr. McMurray adjourned the meeting at 10:32 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Iiaa Thomas 14 ttakttii 6 Reco •'- • ttary, Roanoke County Planning Commission / i — Philip Tho/ son fi Secretaryoanoke County Planning Commission / Kelly M -ay Chairma , Roanoke .. my Planning Commission Page 18 of 18