Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/1/2008 - MinutesROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES APRIL 1, 2008 Commissioners Present: Mr. Steve Azar Ms. Martha Hooker Mr. Rodney McNeil Mr. David Radford Mr. Gary Jarrell (Evening Session Only) Staff Present: Mr. Philip Thompson, Secretary Mr. Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Mr. Tarek Moneir Mr. David Holladay (Work Session only) Mr. John Murphy Mr. Tim Beard (Work Session only) Ms. Megan Cronise Ms. Tammi Wood (Work Session only) Ms. Rebecca Mahoney Ms. Lindsay Blankenship Ms. Becky Meador, Recording Secretary WORK SESSION: Mr. McNeil called the work session to order at 4:00 p.m. Approval of Agenda Ms. Hooker moved to approve the agenda. Motion passed 4 -0. Approval of Minutes Mr. Radford moved to approve the minutes of March 4, 2008, and March 18, 2008. Motion passed 4 -0. Approval of Consent Agenda Mr. McNeil inquired about the f='oster's private stable petition from March that had been postponed by the petitioner. Ms. Blankenship stated the Petitioner had requested an indefinite continuance. A date for the public hearing has yet to be determined. Mr. Thompson stated there would be site viewing for Consent Agenda items one (1), 3 rd Day Arcade, and five (5), Patel's hotel. There was also site viewing for Public Hearing Petition item four (4), the Roanoke County broadcast tower, to view the balloon testing. Ms. Wood gave a PowerPoint presentation of the Grant Avenue Development petition. Questions were asked regarding the heights and number of signs for the new Kroger development on Challenger Avenue (Route 460). Parcels one (1) through four (4) will have signs, as well as Kroger. By code, the signs can be within fifteen (15) feet of the Kroger entrance sign. The petition is for a twenty -five (25) foot high sign, which is what Kroger will have also. The site plan was reviewed for traffic pattern and found acceptable. Page 1 of 6 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 1, 2008 Mr. Thompson presented the Quarles Petroleum, Inc. petition. The unmanned gasoline station proposed would be for corporate use only, not for the general public. Ms. Hooker noted that there is another Quarles station nearby the proposed site at which the units have a type of combination lock used to obtain fuel. Mr. Murphy stated the older station would be closed. Quarles is proposing a rain garden to help with run off. Mr. Murphy felt this should be an encouraged practice. The PowerPoint photographs showed materials currently stored on the site, which is a zoning violation being investigated. Mr. Thompson stated that the gas station would be an appropriate use of the parcel. Mr. McNeil questioned the uses of the C -2, General Commercial, zoning. Mr. Thompson stated the Planning Commission could suggest proffers at the public hearing. The Liondo, Ltd. petition was presented by Ms. Blankenship. She stated there were no conditions submitted with the application and the property is currently vacant. Anticipated use is for a carry -out and delivery pizza restaurant. There will be no drive - through or table service. Hours of operation would be 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. There are only nine (9) to ten (10) parking spaces. Mr. Radford noted they had recently put a nice fagade on the front of the building. Mr. Holladay distributed elevation pictures of the proposed Patel hotel for the site viewing. He stated the site plan is for a four (4) story hotel, which is not excessive. The access road to Double Envelope will be moved for continued use. They may request a bank or other small business in front of the hotel in the future. There could be proffers to limit use. Mr. Radford asked if the developer was taping care of the storm water drainage. Mr. Holladay stated he believed they would be using an underground system. Site Viewing- Mr. McNeil adjourned the session at 4:29 p.m. for site viewing. EVENING SESSION: The Evening Session was called to order by Mr. McNeil at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Azar gave the invocation and led the pledge Of allegiance. Ms. Gilkeson presented the petition of Lexington Falls, LLC. Staff held a community meeting on March 17, 2008. Eight (8) residents were in attendance. One concern raised was that Burlington Drive does not have sidewalks or curbing and the children must walk to the corner of Airport Road to catch the school bus. It was noted that Burlington Drive is a substandard road and rezoning would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There were no proposed proffers. Mr. Jarrell asked the width of the road. Ms. Gilkeson stated it was fourteen (14) feet at the narrowest point. Mr. Ben Crew of Balzer and Associates, 1208 Corporate Drive, Roanoke, spoke on behalf of the Petitioner. He stated the staff report was thorough; however, wanted to review some of the high points. He stated that Burlington Drive had been field surveyed and the minimum width was found to be eighteen (18) feet, which is VDOT standard for a road with a shoulder. The existing construction entrance from Burlington Drive is going to be moved to Peter's Creek Road upon completion of that entrance. Mr. Crew stated the primary entrance is from Peter's Creek Road. The Petitioner offered to post the speed limit at twenty -five (25) miles per hour on Burlington Drive. Mr. Mahoney stated that proposal would have to be Page 2 of 6 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 1, 2008 handled through VDOT. Although warranted for the short length of the street, posting a speed limit is not within the power of a property owner. Mr. Jarrell inquired about the discrepancy between the county's measurement and Balzer's measurement of the road width. Ms. Gilkeson stated the county's measurement came from the original petition for the development of the parcel. The county did not field survey again. Mr. Jarrell voiced concern that if the back entrance were to be opened, citizens coming down Airport Road would not continue to the light at Peter's Creek to the main entrance, as it would be more convenient to go through the back entrance. He did understand the business point of view of having this entrance. He was also concerned with the school children walking on Burlington Drive. Mr. Azar asked why the original petition requested only one entrance on Peter's Creek Road and now they found it necessary for a second entrance from Burlington Drive. Mr. Crew demonstrated both entrances on the site plan, stating that they anticipated the majority of customers would use the primary entrance, as the rear entrance would be more difficult to navigate. Mr. Sean Horne of Balzer and Associates discussed the traffic study done at the Petitioner's Daleville, Virginia location. Numbers used in their traffic analysis were composed from the ticket count of an actual like restaurant. Comparing the percentages from traffic on Peter's Creek Road to the analysis, they felt the numbers were solid. He stated their belief that the restaurant's peak hours would not be the same as the peak hours for traffic on Burlington Drive. Mr. McNeil asked for clarification of Balzer's road measurement. It was stated that the eighteen (18) feet was the minimum paved width. Mr. Jarrell felt Balzer's traffic analysis was close, but believes there would be "cut - through" traffic through a back entrance by citizens (not customers) avoiding the traffic light at the corner of Airport Road and Peter's Creek Road. Mr. Horne noted that there were more businesses on Peter's Creek Road than on Airport Road. Ms. Jozann Stevens of 6001 Peter's Creek Road, Roanoke, spoke in opposition of the petition. She stated when the development was originally proposed, the residents were told there would be no rear entrance from Burlington Drive. If she had known it would ever be requested to be opened, she would have opposed the development at that time. Mr. Daniel Mazur of 6143 Burlington Drive, Roanoke, also spoke in opposition of the petition. He stated he has lived directly across from the proposed entrance for seventeen (17) years. He stated he did not believe it was possible that any part of Burlington Drive was eighteen (18) feet wide. He voiced his concern of the present condition of Burlington Drive, presenting the Planning Commission with photographs of various views along the street. He stated cables have been ripped from his house by construction vehicles three (3) times. He also commented that at the original meeting for the development, he was told the street would be cleaned twice weekly, which has never been done. Mr. Mazur would also have opposed the development entirely had he known there would be a petition to open a back entrance from his street. He stated his belief that Burlington Drive could not handle the amount of traffic that would be generated. Jerry Firebaugh, of 6149 Airport Road (business address), has operated his CPA practice from this location since 1977. He asked the Planning Commission to deny the petition. He noted that two (2) dump trucks coming to and from the construction entrance were unable to Page 3 of 6 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 1, 2008 pass each other on Burlington Drive. He voiced concern of the school children walking on the street, as there are no curbs or sidewalks. He stated the intersection at Airport Road and Burlington Drive is always backed up and believed it was not a favorable place for a fast food restaurant entrance. He added that he was told by the owner of the development at the original meeting there would be no entrance to the business from Burlington Drive. With no other resident comments, Mr. McNeil closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Jarrell stated there are too many concerns of the school children, traffic congestion, and cut - through traffic to support the petition. Ms. Hooker understood the reason for the request; however, believed it would be a detriment to the neighborhood. It was believed that the owner did not intend to construct a rear entrance originally, but considered later during the process. Mr. Azar did not believe that Burlington Drive could accommodate the traffic. It was stated that the denial of the petition would not be a detriment to the Petitioner's business. Mr. Jarrell made a motion to deny the petition, which Mr. Radford seconded. Mr. Thompson called the roll and the request was denied 5 -0. AYES: Jarrell, Azar, Hooker, Radford, McNeil NAYS: None It was noted that the petition of Theodore J. Foster was continued indefinitely. The petition of Harinder and Jaswinder Maghera was withdrawn by the Petitioners. Mr. Thompson, Mr. Jim Vodnik, Mr. Patrick Cockram, and Mr. Bill Hunter presented the petition of Roanoke County. Ms. Hooker questioned why Roanoke County encourages the construction of monopoles and is not using one in this case. It was noted that Roanoke County already owns the 100' lattice -type tower at the current location, which could be moved to the new location. This would be a considerable cost savings for the county taxpayers. A new one would cost approximately $200,000.00. Additionally, without a tower, the county would have to purchase outside internet service at a cost of $6,000.00 per year. It was also discussed that the lattice tower would be more stable, which is recommended for the proposed use. The tower will be painted a flat gray and will be partially hidden by the building to reduce visibility. Ms. Hooker asked how large and what color the dish on the tower would need to be. It will be three (3) feet in diameter and tan in color. The FAA will not require lighting or color markings on the tower. A five (5) foot diameter balloon was flown to show the height of the proposed tower. It was suggested that a gray - colored dish to match the tower may be better suited. The dish will not be placed at the top of the tower, but at approximately 75', which is at about treeline. The use of a monopole versus the lattice tower was discussed. Mr. Hunter stated that a monopole has movement and a stable tower is preferred for a microwave application. It was noted that the pictures of the tower showed three (3) dishes and an antenna. The new location would require only one dish. Co- locations on a single tower were discussed. The practice is used to decrease the number of towers that need to be constructed in an area. It could be possible that other companies may request a dish or antenna on this same tower. It was noted that the Page 4of6 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 1, 2008 proposed tower height of 100' is not a very desirable height for co- locations. It does not stand very high above the treeline. Roanoke is considered a "secondary" market, which is less favorable for co- locations. A cellular company would probably only request one for small, dead spots and it would most likely be a small rectangular box. Mr. Jarrell inquired about using a shorter tower. Mr. Hunter stated that the current tower is segmented in 20' sections, however, he did not know if it could be "structurally" reassembled at 80'. The tower company would have to make that determination. McNeil noted his belief that the tower should be left at 100' to accommodate tree growth. Ms. Elaine Hale of 1360 Carlos Drive, Roanoke, spoke in opposition of the petition. She stated that residents chose the neighborhood because of the beautiful views. She felt the tower would be an eye -sore, look out of place, and devalue property around it. She asked if there was any other possible location. She noted there was already another cellular tower nearby. She stated she would be saddened to have to look at the new fleet services building and vehicles at the entrance to her residential neighborhood everyday. Ms. Hale stated they only learned of this a few days before. Ms. Hooker questioned the notification procedures. Ms. Meador verified that nearly three hundred (300) community resident notification letters had been mailed on February 22, 2008, a community meeting was held on March 10, 2008, adjoining property owners were notified on March 11, 2008, and Public Hearings were published in the Roanoke Times on both March 18, 2008, and March 25, 2008. The property was posted with five (5) signs on March 17, 2008. Ms. Barbara Montrose of 48 Shade Hallow Road, Blue Ridge, spoke in opposition of the tower. She is a realtor and wanted to share information she had researched on behalf of her clients. She listed possible health risks from radiation and microwaves from broadcast exposure. Mr. Hunter stated there would be nominal waves with a focused beam, facing up and away from the residential neighborhood. The radiation leakage should be negligible. Mr. Vodnik expressed the county's desire to be good neighbors. The new Fleet Services building is attractive, and the property will be screened as required by county ordinance. The county will make every effort to make the location as attractive as possible. It was noted that the property is now zoned 1 -2, Industrial. The county's use of the parcel will be miniscule compared to what could be constructed on an 1 -2 zoned property, such as a factory. There was discussion of a few homes being demolished for the new county building. The zoning was possibly done around 1992. The houses predated the zoning. With no further community speakers, the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Jarrell moved to approve the petition with the condition that the tower could not exceed 100' in height. Mr. Thompson called the roll and the motion passed 5 -0. AYES: Jarrell, Azar, Hooker, Radford, McNeil NAYS: None Final Orders There were none. Page 5 of 6 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 1, 2008 Staff Comments The Board of Supervisors requested the Planning Commission attend a work session on April 8, 2008. There will be five (5) work sessions including Mount Pleasant, Slate Hill, and the running of new AEP power lines in two (2) locations. A special meeting of the Planning Commission was called for April 8, 2008, to attend the BOS work session. With no further business or comments, Mr. McNeil adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: 6�4 Becky Mead Recording Secretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission Philip Th pson Secretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission Approved: Rodney McNeil Chairman, Roanoke County Planning Commission Page 6 of 6