Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/4/2022 - Minutes +s" ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION mkt " PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2022 Commissioners Present: Mr. Kelly McMurray, Chairman Mr. Troy Henderson, Vice-Chairman (present for the evening session) Mr. Wayne Bower Mr. Rick James Mr. Jim Woltz(present for the evening session) Staff Present: Mr. Phillip Thompson, Secretary Ms. Rachel Lower, Senior Assistant County Attorney Ms. Cecelia Thomas, Recording Secretary Ms. Rebecca James Mr. Will Crawford Mr. Alyssa Dunbar Mr. Jake Harding Call to Order Mr. McMurray called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Approval of Agenda Mr. James made a motion to approve the agenda, which passed 3-0. Consent Agenda 1. The petition of Neil Aneja to obtain a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on approximately 0.30 acre on land zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, located at 2726 White Pelican Lane, Cave Spring Magisterial District. Mr. Henry noted that the whole house will be rented as a short-term rental. Mr. Henry noted that the applicant has already rented the house out about 200 times before he knew that they needed a special use permit. He stated in that time they have only had one noise complaint and that was addressed. He explained that they have three spots for parking. Mr. Henry noted that there is a halfway house in the neighborhood, and that concern may also apply to this short-term rental. Mr. Bower questioned if the one noise complaint was addressed by police. Mr. Henry noted that he believes it was handled internally. Mr. Bower questioned if the neighbors are aware that it is a short-term rental. Ms. James noted that they are, as there is an active enforcement case due to them not having a permit. Mr. Henry also noted that the applicant only rents the house on the weekends. Mr. Bower noted the importance of looking at the short-term rental separately from the other case on that street. Mr. James questioned if they live there during the week. Mr. Henry stated he does not believe so, but he would verify. Mr. James questioned how long they have been renting, which was unknown. Mr. Bower questioned if the applicant has been willing to comply and work well with staff. ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 4,2022 Ms. James answered yes and no, there has been information missing from the application. 2. The petition of First Four Petroleum Group, LLC to obtain a special use permit for equipment sales and rental (storage container yard) on approximately 14.82 acres on land zoned C-2S, High Intensity Commercial, located at 4855 Hollins Road, Hollins Magisterial District, Mr. Crawford noted that this is currently a golf driving range. Mr. Crawford explained the concept plan that was submitted with the application. He reviewed the conditions currently on the property. Mr. Thompson noted that the Commissioners should consider whether or not they want to allow the containers to be stacked on top of one another. Mr. Bower questioned if these storage units are primarily for people looking to move or for commercial use. Mr. Crawford noted that he believes that they will be used more for commercial purposes. Mr. McMurray questioned if they have another location they are currently operating for the Planning Commission to reference as an example. Mr. Crawford noted he was not sure, but that he could look into that. Ms. James noted that the applicant is aware of the standards for Stormwater Management. Mr. Thompson noted this property is entirely in the flood plain. Mr. Crawford noted they show the flood way on their concept plan. It was confirmed that they did not have any of their proposed facility in the flood way. Ms. James noted that Stormwater Management staff was present during their pre-application meeting to ensure they understood what would be required. Mr. Bower requested someone be in attendance to explain Stormwater Management standards for the project. Mr. Thompson noted that an invitation can be extended to Butch Workman to attend the public hearing. Mr. Thompson explained that they will have to meet the standard of the flood plain ordinance. Mr. Bower questioned if the condition goes away. Mr. Thompson clarified that the condition goes away with the change of the use of the property. Mr. Thompson also noted that whatever could go on the property is going to be limited by the floodway. 3. The petition of Barnett Properties, LLC, to rezone approximately 9.38 acres from R-3C, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District with conditions; R-1, Low Density Residential District; I-1 C, Low Intensity Industrial District with conditions; C2-C, High Intensity Commercial District with conditions; and C-1, Low Intensity Commercial District; to C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, for retail sales located in the 4400 block of Brambleton Avenue including 4449 and 4457 Brambleton Avenue, and the 4500 and 4600 blocks of Old Cave Spring Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. Ms. Dunbar noted that staff is holding a community meeting for this application at the County Administration Building on October 17 from 4:30-6:30 p.m. Ms. Dunbar overviewed the future land use designation. It was noted that staff would have to do more research to determine if the application is consistent with the future land use designations. Mr. Bower made a motion to approve the consent agenda which passed 3-0. Page 2 of 7 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2022 Comments of Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff Mr. Thompson noted the previous interest to have a joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Thompson noted that the time has changed multiple times, and wants to verify if 4:00 p.m. would still work for everyone on October 11th. Present Planning Commissioners chose to wait until all were present to vote on the proposed meeting. Mr. Thompson clarified that for this evening, the applicant submitted a revised concept plan. He noted that it was expected that the applicant would review the changes to the concept plan. The Planning Commission and staff discussed potential concerns that would arise during the public hearing. Adjournment for Site Visits With no further comments, the meeting was adjourned for site visits at 4:51 p.m. Call to Order Mr. McMurray called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Public HearinaPetitions 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 gave an overview of the project, the proffered conditions, and future land use designation. She explained that the application is not consistent with the Core future land use designation, but is consistent with the Transition future land use designation. She noted that it is also consistent with the 419 Town Center Plan. Mr. James questioned the inconsistencies between the future land use designation and the 419 Town Center Plan. Mr. Thompson spoke about the inconsistency stating that the 419 Town Center Plan should have more weight in the decision over the future land use designation. Maxwell Wiegard, 4968 Wing Commander Drive, represented the applicant and presented how the project is in conformance with the 419 Town Center Plan. He explained that the purpose of the rezoning is to avoid split parcels. He explained that the market no longer supports office buildings in the proposed area. He introduced his client Dan Lemay. Dan Lemay noted he is with the Cathcart Group, and provided an overview of the group of companies. He noted that they are headquartered in Charlottesville, Virginia. He explained their business model, and what the amenities that are normally included in their developments. Mr. Wiegard explained that the revised plan that was recently submitted was to remove an entrance off of the Peaks Drive due to comments received from the community. Mr. James questioned the elimination of the third entrance and installation of the landscape buffer and asked if there were any other concerns from citizens that they were not able to address. Mr. Wiegard noted that he would defer to Mr. Lamay. Mr. Lamay noted that following the community meeting, they moved the existing gate further into the community so that the community feels more private. Mr. Woltz questioned if the other entrance that is being changed is past Page 3 of 7 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2022 that gate. It was noted that they hoped to start construction within 12 months of approval, and expected the construction process to take 24 months. Mr. McMurray opened the public hearing. Citizens' Comments R. Reese, 5400 The Peaks Drive, explained that 5400 The Peaks Drive has 32 units and indoor parking for 50 vehicles. He noted that many of the people who live there envisioned buildings of a similar size on the adjacent parcels of land. He noted that the proposed Gallery development is more than seven times the size of the existing buildings. He noted that the large new buildings would require massive retaining walls three tiers high off of the main road. The proposed project would pave over the existing land and would greatly increase the amount of runoff. He worries that this would endanger other walls in South Peak. The Peaks Drive leading to 5400 is only 24 feet wide, has no sidewalks, and many sharp turns. Increasing traffic flow by a factor of ten or more will be hazardous, especially to pedestrians. The outlets to Route 220 and Electric Road have long lights to endure. He explained the lights have very short existing go cycles for the existing traffic and only allow a few cars out at a time. He noted that adding hundreds of cars to these outlets will cause long delays and traffic backups. Renters at the Gallery may vote with their feet when their leases are up. He noted that any trash pickup for the Gallery should not be within sight or hearing of 5400 The Peaks Drive residents, but down near South Peak Boulevard. He stated that he believes the whole project should be re-envisioned to exploit the existing land contours with all of the proposed parcels being reached from South Peak Boulevard, fewer walls would be needed, and less earth would need to be moved. He asked the Planning Commissioners to visit the site and thanked them for their time. Jacob Washofsky, 6872 Sugar Run Ridge Road, voiced concerns about traffic safety, residential density and community cohesion, and environmental impact. He explained his problems with how Cathcart portrayed its proposal in the rezoning application. He noted that they portray that the development will seamlessly fit into the existing area when that could not be further from the truth. In its justification for rezoning, Cathcart suggests that a massive, 260-unit apartment complex complete with space for 450 additional vehicles, furthers the County Ordinance and Purpose. In fact, the opposite is true: Section 30.3 of the Ordinance notes that the purpose is to "reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets" which this will not do; 'facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive, and harmonious community", which this will not do; and to protect against overcrowding, undue density, and transportation congestion, which this will not do. Citing the existing zoning of the South Peaks Condo as R-4, Cathcart also claims that its project is compatible with the existing R-4 development; however, this is false. While the South Peaks Condo building is zoned R-4, it only hosts 32 families, equating to 14.4 units per acre, and putting it far closer to the R-3 designation than to Cathcart's proposed 260 units. There is really no design compatibility and cohesion. These misrepresentations abound in the application and are especially apparent in Cathcart's claims that this massive influx of people and vehicles will not have a significant impact on traffic or safety. Cathcart suggests that since The Peaks Drive is a private road not Page 4 of 7 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2022 serviced by the County, "increased usage of the roads will not lead to increased service by the County" and that the site "provides adequate access for emergency vehicles". These claims are also not true. Access to the Gallery will require increased use of Valley Avenue and South Peaks Boulevard. Roads that are worrisome and treacherous. These roads raise questions about safety for residents and guests. Mr. Washofsky noted his concern with Cathcart's proposal and its impacts. He asked the Planning Commission to require a traffic study and to further investigate the application. Claude Radford, 5480 The Peaks Drive, he noted that they have concerns about the road. He explained issues with sight distance. He noted that the road is frequently used by pedestrians, and the roads need sidewalks to protect pedestrians, especially with the influx of traffic from the proposed application. He gave an example of how long it takes him to leave his home and get to IHOP to explain the current traffic conditions. Janice Albright, 5428 The Peaks Drive, she noted that The Peaks Drive is a narrow drive. She explained that there are many sharp turns and cannot imagine what it would be like to go up the hill during rush hour. She explained that the left turn is a blind curve, and that it would be much better if they could create their entrance and exit off of South Peak Boulevard. She explained that during rush hour the traffic is a nightmare, and she cannot imagine how much worse it will be with the additional cars from the proposed development. Larry Albright, 5428 The Peaks Drive, commented on the impact on Route 220 and Route 419. He noted that Cathcart did not mention the impact on the roads. He stated that he is a computer system architect and engineer. He stated that there is a correlation between traffic that flows on those networks, and traffic that flows in the streets. He explained that the goal is to increase output. He noted that the bottleneck is going to increase when the proposed application goes into effect. He explained that he and his wife moved to Roanoke from Northern Virginia. He would be surprised to learn that Roanoke wants to be Northern Virginia West where traffic is concerned. With no further comments, Mr. McMurray closed the public hearing. Mr. McMurray questioned the location of the entrance to the property. Mr. Lamay noted that they looked at having an entrance come off of South Peak Boulevard and that the drop is 45 feet lower than the grade. He explained their goal was to avoid constructing a bowl like structure. He explained that if they were to start the entrance off of South Peak Boulevard they would not be able to get the ground floor to be above The Peaks Drive to prevent negative drainage from coming towards their occupied group floor level. After the condo meeting they went back and looked at potentially moving the entrance, and it has proven impossible to do and have proper stormwater drainage. They were unable to make it work and have units that were not in a bowl. Mr. McMurray questioned the line of sight issue at the southern entrance and the existing sharp elevation across from that entrance that was mentioned by citizens. Mr. McMurray noted that it does not look like it is part of the project. Mr. Lamay noted that they have not discussed the existing curvature of the road and the correlation to the entrance at this time. Mr. James noted Page5 of 7 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 4,2022 that these roads would be considered private so they do not have to meet any design standards, but they would not want to do anything that would be construed as negligent. Mr. James questioned if they knew whether or not the entrance in question was a safe access point and safe for pedestrians. Mr. Lamay stated that he does not have an opinion on that at this time, and deferred to Tom Dale from Lumsden and Associates to speak on the matter. Tom Dale noted that the sight distance leaving the site does have clear sight lines. He noted that they could look at that entrance to try and make it better. Mr. Woltz noted that they may want to consider looking at making those changes. Mr. James noted that if there is pedestrian usage of the road and there are no adjacent sidewalks then the likelihood of someone being on the road is high. Mr. Woltz noted that making those changes may be outside their project. Mr. Lamay noted that was the point he was going to make. The project line does not reach down that far. They are a contract purchaser for the 10 acres, anything outside of that is outside of their purview. Mr. Wiegard questioned if Mr. Woltz was suggesting that they go back to Lumsden and Associates and look at if there is a way to make the roadway safer. Mr. Woltz suggested that they have Mr. Dale go and see if it is a problem first due to everyone speculating that it is going to be a problem. Once that is done if there is a way to improve it in the project boundaries he would recommend looking into it. Mr. McMurray noted the citizen's concern over the placement of trash receptacles and asked the applicant to explain where they will be located. Mr. Lamay noted that there will be two trash chutes internal to the building. They feel they have addressed this concern. Mr. Bower questioned if they were looking at using underground stormwater retention. The representative from Lumsden & Associates noted that they are looking at starting with that, but they may need to do more to meet the requirements. Mr. Bower noted that water quantity and quality will have to meet the same conditions as it was pre- construction to meet state code. Mr. Bower also asked the applicant about the retention walls. He noted that there has been a retention wall failure near the site in the past, and asked if the applicant could talk about that process. The representative from Lumsden & Associates noted that they do not design the walls, but hire a geotechnical engineer to design the retention walls. He continued saying that if they are built correctly, they do work. Mr. Bower questioned if they had plans to include any sidewalks on this project. Mr. Lamay answered that they do not have plans to include sidewalks on The Peaks Drive due to the existing grade making them unable to be ADA compliant. Mr. Thompson asked Mr. Lamay what they intended to include in their buffer. Mr. Lamay noted that they do not have specifics as to what plants would be included in the buffer. A representative from Cathcart Group noted they typically have very dense buffers with various plants to ensure that if a plant were to die the buffer would remain intact. Mr. Thompson informed the Planning Commission of upcoming improvements on Route 419 and Route 220 where both will be evaluated to make them more efficient. Mr. Thompson noted that the applicant had mentioned a rooftop amenity, and questioned how they would access that. It was noted that they would access the rooftop from the elevator. Mr. Thompson questioned if they have three access points that lead to the underground parking, which was confirmed. Page 6 of 7 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 4,2022 Mr. McMurray made a motion to approve the rezoning with two proffered conditions, which passed 5-0. Comments of Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff Mr. Thompson noted that the Planning Commission had requested to meet with the Board of Supervisors on October 11th, and the Board is requesting that meeting start at 4:00 p.m. Mr. McMurray made a motion to hold a special meeting Tuesday, October 11th at 4:00 p.m. which passed 5-0. Final Orders On the September 6th meeting the Planning Commission voted to approve the rezoning of ABoone Real Estate, Inc. which was approved by the Board of Supervisors at it's September 28th meeting. At the September 6th meeting the Planning Commission voted to incorporate the 419 Design Guidelines into the 419 Town Center Plan which was approved by the Board of Supervisor, at its September 28th meeting. With no further business or comments, Mr. McMurray adjourned the meeting at 9:01 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Melia Thomas Reco • •cretary,, Roanoke County Planning Commission Philip Tho .son Secretary'oanoke County Planning Commission Kel y` urray Chairman, Roanoke County Planning Commission Page 7 of 7