Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/1/2025 - Minutes f ROAN. ., R _ ANOKE COUNTY _ 0 : � a PLANNING COMMISSION ... 1838 .. ... .. ... ... MEETING MINUTES July 1,'2025 - Commissioners Present: Mr. Wayne Bower, Chairman Mr. Kelly McMurray, Vice-Chairman . Mr. Rick James • Commissioners Absent Mr. Troy Henderson Mr. Jim Woltz Staff Present: Mr. Philip Thompson, Secretary Ms. Rachel Lower, Deputy CountyAttOrney P Y Y Ms. Skylar Camerlinck, Planner Ms. Sarah Gilmore, Planner II Ms. Summer Bork, Transportation Planner. Mr. Will King, Planning and Economic Development Intern Ms. Rebecca James, Zoning Administrator Ms. Cecelia Thomas,:Recording Secretary Call to Order Mr. Bower called the m4eting eting to order at.4:06 p.m. : Approval of Agenda .. Mr. James made a motion to approve:the agenda, which passed 3-0 Approval of Minutes Mr. McMurray made a:motion to approve the May 20, 2025, minutes, which passed 3.0..: Consent Agenda 1. The petition of.Hamlar Properties,.LLC;'to rezone approximately 3,8 acres . • from AR, Agricultural/Residential District, to:R-3., Medium Density ulti-Family. Residential District, to construct'a multi-famiily:development located at:3037 and 3133 Rutrough Road, Vinton Magisterial:District. Ms.i Camerlinck presented an overview of the petition, the current use, proposed use, and future land use designation: Mr. James asked if the.concept plans are proffered; which.Ms.... . . . . Camerlinck noted th:at:they are not:at:this:tiime. Mr. James made a motion to approve_the consent agenda, which passed 3-0. Discussion of Planning:Commission Email Addresses The Planning Commission discussed:which email addresses they would prefer to have visible on the Roanoke County Planning Commission webpage. Ms. Lower clarified FOIA policies for the Planning:Commission. i ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 1,2025 Citizen's Comments There were none. Comments of Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff Mr. Thompson noted that next week there are two meetings scheduled on the East Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility study for July 9th and July 10th. He noted that on July 14th there will be a virtual meeting with the housing consultants. Mr. Thompson noted that applicants are continuing to get phishing emails that are pretending to be from Roanoke County requesting money. He noted that the Roanoke County 200 Plan received an achievement award from the National Association of Counties (NACO). Adjournment for Site Visit The meeting was adjourned at 4:31 p.m. EVENING SESSION Call to Order Mr. Bower called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Invocation Mr. MdMurray led the invocation and pledge of allegiance. Public Hearings 1. The petition of Shelley Friend to rezone approximately 4.51 acres from R-2, Medium Density Residential District, to AR, Agricultural/Residential District, to allow for a private stable located at 1709 Mayfield Drive, Vinton Magisterial District. Ms. Sarah Gilmore presented an overview of the petition, the currents use, proposed use, and future land use designation. Shelley Friend, 1709 Mayfield Drive, noted that she was born and raised in Roanoke. She noted that it was her intention to have horses when they purchased the property. She explained that the supplied photo is just an example of something they would like to build. It was noted that the existing agricultural buildings are not meant for sheltering horses. Mr. James questioned when horses were on the property previously. Ms. Friend noted that she did not remember exactly when, but there had been horses on the property prior to her owning it. Mr. Bower opened the public hearing, and with no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mr. James made a motion to approve the rezoning request as it has been requested, which passed 3-0. Page 2 of 7 4 , ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 1,2025 2. The petition of Craighead &Associates to obtain a special use permit to operate a car wash on approximately 0.71 acre on land zoned C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, located at 3664 Colonial Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District. Ms. Summer Bork presented an overview of the petition, the current use, proposed use, and future land use designation. Ray Craighead, noted that the business is car detailing. There will be cars washed inside. There will be three to four bays for cars to be washed inside. Everything will be inside. The fifteen cars was the maximum, with two cars in each bay per hour in an eight hour day. He continued that the use that is there that he already has a CO for is for selling vehicles. He explained that the owner could currently wash all of his own vehicles in the building without a special use permit. However, he has a tenant who would like to be able to pick up outside work. He reiterated nothing will be done outside. He noted that all of the washing will be contained inside in four bays inside. It was clarified that it is a hand washing and hand detailing shop. He noted that there may be some aesthetic improvements, but nothing major. Ray Craighead noted that he is the applicant, but he is operating as an agent for the property. Mr. McMurray questioned if it will be by appointment or walk-ins. Mr. Craighead apologized that he does not know the answer to that question. Mr. Bower opened the public hearing. Charles Trail, 3720 Thompsons Lane, noted that he lives directly behind the proposed cOr wash. He explained that the owner is not the oriOinal owner. The current owner did not acquire this property until 2024. He noted that the current owner did put a car wash in there and the run off was going into the street and the public sewer. He explained that DEQ got involved and stopped the operation. He explained that they did attempt to install another drain system in there, but it eventually closed completely in late 2024. He noted that there is a problem with traffic on Colonial Avenue. He noted that there appeared to be a large group of people killing time at the building that owned loud Motorcycles and cars. He noted that they used Colonial Avenue as their own racetrack. He continued saying that the people living along Colonial Avenue deserve better than this. It's a lot of noise, a lot of nuisances, a lot of police calls for people being drunk on the property at two in the morning. He continued thai there were issues with tractor trailers being left running all night fifty feet away from his home. He noted that they are coming back and wanting to do the same thing that DEQ shut down, but sugar coat it. He explained that you cannot sugar coat it. He noted that it is a nice neighborhood that deserves better than what they are getting from this guy. David Thomason, 3660 Parkwood Drive, noted that he is opposed to the car wash because there are six car washes—two with high end detailing all within a mile radius of this location. He noted that if anyone takes Colonial Avenue home at night—it is always backed up. He stated that they do not need the extra traffic coming along. Not to mention you talk about car sales and a food truck there. He opined that they did not account for the increase in vehicles on the property. He continued that this is a bad thing for the neighborhood, and that they are starting to look like Williamson Road. Page 3 of 7 { ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 1,2025 Regarding retention of the water, he opined that they have not put anything in. He recalled that they were told to shut down and they did not. They were told to stop washing cars and they moved it across the street to Paychecks Plus and started washing cars over there. He noted that he has pictures of it all. They are not going to ' listen to what the Planning Commission has to say; they are going to do what they want to do. To wash cars inside an enclosed building, there will be mold all inside of the building. It is not designed for that. He claimed that he knows the building very well because he knows Scott who used to rent that building. He continued that it is not set up for washing cars. They would literally have to rebuild, and no car wash should be there. Mr. Bower closed the public hearing. Mr. James noted that they are a land use body. He noted that this does seem consistent with prior uses, but the definition that is being used for this does seem to complicate the matter. It was clarified that car sales is by right. Mr. McMurray noted that the whole purpose of asking for a special use permit is due to a definition issue. He noted that he is surprised that we do not already have detailing listed as a use in C-2. Mr. Craighead noted that he worked with the applicant to get the drainage fixed with a Roanoke County building permit. He noted that they added a trench drain to the back door so nothing would go out into the street. He explained that this was a gas station/repair shop when it was first built. They have concrete walls that have been furred out with metal furring and fiberglass reinforced plastic which is used in most ca washes. He believes he has addressed most of the concerns. He noted that he was not aware of any late night visits to the property. He also noted that he was also not aware of any off-site car washing that happened across the street. Mr. James questioned when the applicant worked with the County to get things permitted. Mr. Craighead noted that he worked to get that rectified about 6 months ago. It was noted that any washing of the vehicles outside would be in violation of the special use permit. Mr. McMurray made a motion to rebommend approval of the petition to obtain a specil use permit, with the following three (3) conditions: 1. The car wash (detailing busihess) shall be conducted entirely indoors and limit6d to 1,258 square feet as shown on the concept plan. 2. Any new free standing light poles and lighting fixtures shall not exceed fourteen (14) feet in height. 3. There shall be no neon signage or electronic message boards on the property associated with the car wash use. The motion passed 3-0. 3. The petition of Challenge, LLC to obtain a special use permit to construct 28 townhouses on approximately 3.0 acres of land zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District, located at 5811 Cove Road, Catawba Magisterial District. Ms. Skylar Page 4 of 7 C ' S ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 1, 2025 Camerlinck presented an overview of the petition, the current use, proposed use, and future land use designation. David Jones, 26 Church Avenue, noted that he believes that this fits well for the area. Mr. James noted that there has been a condition for general conformance with the concept plan. Mr. Bower opened the public hearing. James Carr, 3002 Tully Drive, noted that this project backs up to his property. He noted that he lives in a very quiet neighborhood. He knows both of his neighbors. He noted that it does not seem wise to try and squeeze all these homes on just three acres of land. He continued that there is only one house there now, and it's like a small farm. He noted that when he looks out his back window, it's wide open. He noted that he knows his neighbors, and he does not see that happening with this use. Jeannette D. Ellis, 2948 Tully Drive, noted that her concern with this is that they have apartments down the road on Cove Road that were built not too long ago. She noted that if you turn on Peters Creek Road, they are putting more townhomes or something there. She does not find it reasonable to add something else to the property. She explained that it is beautiful land back there. She noted that she loves getting up in the morning and having her coffee and watching the deer out there. She explained that the land gives peace and serenity. She noted that if they want to build there, build a nice home there. However, she thinks it is nuts to have apartments there. She noted that there are townhomes on both ends of the road. Sometimes less is more. Mark Whitlow, 5741 Cove Road, noted that the Retreat has 252 units. He noted that the other one to the left has 174 units. The other one being built has 216 units. He noted that is 642 units in less than two miles and questioned why would they need more. He noted that the traffic is so bad on that road right now when school is in session. He noted that he is concerned with privacy. He owns the property to the right of it. He noted that land value—there needs t:) be some kind of buffer or wall and not just a sidevlialk. He noted that he moved back here to have some peace and quiet, and he does not see that happening with 28 more units going in. He noted that the swimming pool on the diagram is almost in his front Yard. He noted that R-2 the way he read it, is a quiet and relaxed living environment. He noted that he just does not see the need of it. Derek Pannell, 5741 Cove Road, noted that he lives in the house his stepfather owns in a property beside the proposed development. He noted that you do still get a kind of country living while being in the city. He noted that there are lots of apartments in the area, and traffic in the area is terrible. He noted that when school is in you cannot get out of your driveway. He noted that he cannot imagine putting 28 townhomes in that area and all the traffic that will add to the area. It was noted that The Retreat had to put in its own treatment facility in the area because the city or county could not handle them hooking up to that. He noted that is why some of the developments across the street could not continue. He asked if the applicant does have to put in his own treatment facility where that will go and will that affect his septic and his water. He noted that there Page 5 of 7 4 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 1,2025 has been an increase in crime recently. He noted that he has concerns about crime and privacy and noted a buffer needs to be in place before this gets approved. He noted especially if people will have pets, he wants a buffer because he does not want animals going in his yard. Larry Heffner, 5818 Cove Road, noted that he lives across the street from the proposed development. He noted that putting all of this into a small area. He noted that the construction that is going to happen to his road is going to be immense. He noted that power, gas, and water is going to have to be put in. He noted that he is a roadway inspector, and he knows what this is going to do to their road. He does not understand why it has to be done there. He is not saying that the applicant is not well intentioned. He is saying he does not understand why 28 homes need to be put where one home sits. He noted that they are taking a neighborhood and making it into so much more. He noted that there is so much there now. He opined that it is a bad decision to try and do this. Mr. Bower closed the public hearing. Water and sewer were discussed along with the development review process. It was noted that if water and sewer are unavailable the project cannot move forward. Buffers and turn lane analysis were discussed. Mr. Jones noted that he was open to discussing a buffer. It was noted that the "swimming pool" on the plan is actually a retention pond. Mr. Bower ade a motion to approve the petition to obtain a special use permit, with the following four(4) conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in general conformance to the concept plan prepared by Balzer Associates dated 3/12/2025 subject to any changes required during the comprehensive site plan review process. 2. The maximum number of townhouses shall be 28. 3. Sidewalk shall be constructed along both sides of the private road from Cove Road to the turnaround. 4. Sidewalk shall be constructed along the Cove Road frontage to the adjacent properties. The motion passed 3-0. 4. Proposed amendments to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendments would: amend Sec. 30-1 (Authority and Citation) in Article I (General Provisions); add or amend definitions dealing with broadcast tower, wireless communication facility, and temporary portable storage containers in Sec. 30-28 (Definitions) and Sec. 30-29 (Use Types; Generally) in Article 11 (Definitions and Use Types); amend Article III (District Regulations) by adding wireless communication facility, Class 1, Class 2, and/or Class 3 as a permitted use and/or as a special use in agricultural zoning districts (AG-3, AG-1, AR, AV), residential zoning districts (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4), commercial zoning districts (C-1, C-2), industrial zoning districts (I-1, 1-2), and the EP (Explore Park) zoning district, and amend the site development regulations of Page 6 of 7 ! . ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 1,2025 the EP zoning district; amend and/or add use and design standards for accessory apartments, mini-warehouse, broadcasting tower, wireless communication facility, class 1, class 2, and class 3, and temporary portable storage containers asia residential accessory use in Article IV (Use and Design Standards); and amend the development standards for ground-mounted and pole-mounted solar energy systems in Sec. 30-100- 13 (Solar energy systems) in Article V (Development Standards). Mr. Philip Thompson presented the proposed zoning ordinance amendments. Mr. Bower opened the public hearing, and with no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mr. McMurray made a motion to approve of the ordinance amendments as proposed by County staff with the two suggested changes. The motion passed 3-0. Citizen's Comments There were none. Comments of Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff Mr. James noted that "detail shop" appears to be something that we should look at defining in the zoning ordinance. Mr. James noted that he has been having issues getting Oneview to load on his iPad. Mr. Thompson noted that the Board of Supervisors did approve the zoning ordinance amendments propred at the Planning Commission's June public herring. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:53 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: 01.tiLit, ditbiliti I Cecelia Thomas I Recor.'- • -cretry, Roanoke County Planning Commission 4111 I S.cl Philip Tzmpson Secret- , Roanoke County Planning Commission Wc.-1 p.c....____ Wayne Bower Chairman, Roanoke County Planning Commission Page 7 of 7