The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/6/2026 - MinutesROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION [AM-44-11-1 - -- b-1-1111vitm-11 October 6, 2026 Commissioners Present: Mr. Troy Henderson, Chairma Mr. Rick James, Vice-Chairm Mr. Wayne Bower Mr. Jim Woltz Mr. Chris Newton Staff Present: Mr. P'hilipth'"o'mpson, Secretary Ms. Rachel Lower, Acting County Attorney Ms. Rebecca James, Zoning Administrator Ms. Marion Pickering, Recording Secretary Mr. Isaac Henry, Principal Planner Ms. Alyssa Dunbar, Development Review Planner Mr. Nathan Grim, Transportation Planner Ms. Sarah Gilmore, Long Range Planner Ms. Skylar Camerlinck, Long Range Planner C*all to Order Mr. Henderson called the meeting to order at 6.04 p.m. Mr. Bower led the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. Approval of Aqenda Mr. Woltz made a motion to approve the agenda, which passed 5-01 Approval of t1finutes Mr. Newton made a motion to approve the minutes of the public hearing held September 1, 2026, and the motion passed 5-0. Mr. Newton also made a motion ag�rove the minutes of the loint work session on Se tember 15, 2026. The motionii.,asseilo Consent Agenda 2, 2026 1. The petition of Serafin Cervantes to obtain a special use permit to operate a sho term rental on approximately 0.32 acre of land zoned R-1, Low Density Residenti District, located at 5227 North Garden Lane, Catawba Magisterial District. Ms. Camerlinck presented. She reviewed the location map, the project site, interior a exterior photographs of the property, and floorplans for the property. She reported I ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October6,202r* existing zoning and surrounding zoning on the parcel and reviewed the future land u designation which is Neighborhood Conservation. Mr, Newton asked if there had be public comment on this petition, and Ms. Camerlinck stated no, as public notices abo the petition have not yet been mailed to adjoining property owners. Ms. Alyssa Dunbar presented. She reviewed a location map and the project site. She a4-visk,;4 that a otintwonidy mitefirr"garCrug ttY(s 41-Wu#7Tj-,Ty, October 19, 2026, at Mountain View Elementary School from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 Dunbar presented photographs of the property, zoning background on the property, and a concept plan submitted in 2019 that is not tied to the property but was included to convey an idea of what use the property might have been developed as in the past. Ms. Dunbar reviewed four phases of the current concept plan the applicant had submitted. She reported on existing and surrounding zoning as well as the future land use designation, which is Principal Industrial, noting that this petition is consistent with that designation. Mr. Bower asked why this development needed a hearing and had not been permitted by right, and Ms. Dunbar advised that a construction yard requires a special use permit in 1-1. Mr. Bower asked if equipment could be stored outside and Ms. Dunbar confirmed there would be a building and a fenced area that provided indoor and outdoor storage. Mr. James asked if additional buffering was being considered, Ms. Dunbar stated a type D buffer is required and shown on the concept plan. Mr. Newton asked if Ms. Dunbar knew how many additional tenants the applicant planned to have and what impact the yard might have on traffic. Ms. Dunbar stated the applicant did not specify how many tenants were planned, while Mr. Thompson advised that the applicant could possibly lease out half the building but leasing arrangements would be market dependent. 3. The petition of the Economic Development Authority of Roanoke County to rezone approximately 1.28 acres zoned WC, Low Intensity Industrial with Conditions, to remove proffered conditions from the property located at 2048 Loch Haven Drive, Catawba Magisterial District. Ms. Camerlinck presented. She reviewed a location map, the project site, photographs of the property, and zoning background on the property, noting that this was another parcel involved in the ongoing effort to remove outdated proffered conditions on parcels around Roanoke County. She advised that in Roanoke County's 1996 rezoning, five proffered conditions were placed on the property which the Economic Development Authority is petioning to remove: 1. 110 materials will be stored outside. 2. No signage will be placed adjacent to Loch Haven Drive. 3. The use of the property shall be limited to custom manufacturing of woodworking and shop related items, '0_;Gmmmt ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October6,202$ 4. The hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., Monday through Saturday. 5. All business activities shall be conducted within enclosed buildings other than essential loading and unloading. fffls. Camerlinck reviewed existing and surrounding zoning on the parcel, and the future land use designation which is Neighborhood Conservation. 1 Before a certificate of occupancy can be issued for any building construct along the southern border of the property, a row of staggered evergre trees will be installed along said southern border at or near the top of t slope above the existing storm water detention facility. Trees will be spac 12'on center and will extend from one end of the building or buildings alo that border to the other end. It is estimated that this would result in t el h planting of no more than 45 trees. 2. Screening shall be provided for HVAC rooftop units on the building • buildings located along the southern border of the property in order to shiels those units from the view of residents situated directly behind the Integril Windows facility. Screening shall be in the form of covers or parapet wallV,,., and shall be a neutral color. Mr. Grim reviewed existing zoning, surrounding zoning, and future land use designation for the property, which is Principal Industrial, and stated that this petition is consistent with that use. 5. Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The proposed amendment would incorporate the Glenvar Center Plan into the Roanoke County 200 Plan. The Glenvar Center Plan study area is approximately 809 acres in size and is bounded by the City of Salem, Interstate 81, the Roanoke River, and Fort Lewis Church Road in western Roanoke County. The proposed Plan includes recommendations on the future development of this area. MUM !kOANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 6, 2026 online, and paper copies would be placed at the Glenvar Library for review. He noted that this document was still in draft form and if the Commission had any comments or changes to make ahead of the hearing, they should contact Mr. Henry. Mr. Bower made a motion to approve the consent agenda, The motion passed 5-0. Public e * s 1. The petition of The Gallery at South Peak, LLC to rezone approximately 10,83 acres from R-4C, High Density Multi -Family Residential with Conditions, to C-2C, High Intensity Commercial with Conditions, and obtain a Special Use Permit for multi- family dwellings to construct a 285-unit multi -family residential development located at 5555 The Peaks Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District. Ms. Dunbar presented. She reviewed a location map and the project site, noting that letters had been mailed to adjoining property owners resulting in emails, phone calls, and a visit to the Planning Department from residents of the area and those emails, letters, and comments had •' included in the packet for the Commission's review. Ms. Dunbar presented photographs of the parcel, zoning background on the property, a proposed concept plan, a current proffered concept plan, concept elevations, proposed elevation, and the current proffered elevation, Mr. James asked what the difference between the elevations was and Ms. Dunbar stated the only difference was in the colors used. Ms. 1. The Property shall be developed in general conformity with the conce development plan prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C. dated consisting of Sheets through _, and attached hereto as Exhibit (Concept Plan - Th-e—Gallery at South Peak), subject to such min modifications as may be necessitated by final engineering consideratio and such changes as may be required by Roanoke County duri comprehensive site plan review. 2, The facades and finishes of the building on the Property shall be of simil design and materials as detailed on the rendering prepared by Win Snowa Architects, P.C. and dated consisting of Sheets through _, and attached hereto as Exhibit B. I Mr. Bower asked if 260 apartments had been approved two and a half years ago, a Ms. Dunbar clarified that they had been approved in 2022. He asked if the decision befo the Commission tonight is whether to approve an increase of apartments from 260 uni I to 285 units, Ms. Dunbar confirmed and stated that the reason for the rezoning was increase the density. Mr. James stated the footprint and elevation are the same, but tj ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 6, 2026 colors are changed, and the buffer has been added. Ms. Dunbar confirmed that was t case. I M3�# M Z is - - ZNEWsMv M-NOF-ral eFrT-,ATFFWrf7rT#VF , rg7ft- L70*7t7rc-f u1eFMZiFr11nf T+u z5olun FURA, Iney Degan detailed engineering reports and site plans for the apartments and secured approval for building permits, but increasing costs have been a challenge to development. Mr. Lamay stated that Cathcart believes increasing the density will keep the project viable. The new layout allows them to be more efficient with the building footprint and allows a broader range of housing types. They now include efficiency and studio apartments and that is the reason for the increased number of units. Mr. Lamay pointed out various other changes to the development, noting that some amenities were changed to housing units so there will be a wider variety of options that include a lower price point in accordance with the 419 Town Center Plan. However, they are not proposing improvements that extend beyond their current existing footprint, Mr. Newton asked what the difference in average price point would be between 260 and 285 units. Mr. Lamay stated it would be about 5% right now. Mr. Newton asked if he had spoken with nearby residents about their concerns. Mr. Lamay stated he had not but advised that they planned to move the existing gates further into the site. Ean��l Beverly Bryson, owner of lot 11 at The Estates, and resident of 4950 South Peak Estat Drive, Jama Purser, resident of 5418 The Peaks Drive, Michael Harf, resident of 54 The Peaks Drive, Mr. Raymond Cobb, resident of 5444 The Peaks Drive, Mr. Dougl Gridor, resident of 2125 Yellow Mountain Road on behalf of his mother who resides The Peaks Drive, Mr. Theron White, resident of 5476 The Peaks Drive, and Mr. Gord Burch, resident of 5486 The Peaks Drive, all addressed the Commission. I 110TOMUL rVITMOTO-We COMM M certainly be made worse by such a development; a belief that Cathcart should be held liable in the event of harm caused by this development; concerns about the short access road and other efforts which had been undertaken to improve traffic flow in the area which some residents believe have only worsened conditions; a report of refusal on the part of Smith Packett, the owners of the condominiums, to address concerns and needs of their residents; a report that residents of the condominiums had not been advised of the plans for apartments when they purchased their properties, and now residents feel they are experiencing an invasion and their lives are at stake; concerns that the scenic views of current residents will be blocked by the apartment buildings; concerns regarding the ability of fire and rescue services to access all areas adequately in the event of this new d 441-V k1(V11%- concerns for the safety of elderly residents driving on congested, narrow roads; a report that the roads were already being used as a raceway and the presence of apartments might somehow make this worse; concerns regarding the loss of privacy and open space in the area. Five residents requested the denial of this petition, one stated the development should never have been approved at all, and everyone who spoke expressed alarm for the safety and quality of life of the current residents should the proposed petition be approved, Additionally, during the public hearing Mr. Jonathan Tate, resident of 4230 Elm Vierml Road, stated he works for Elm Park Estates, which borders the proposed project. asked if the apartments would provide senior living options. Mr. Henderson said th would endeavor to secure an answer to his question. 11 =0 Q private road system, and Cathcart pays 25% of the annual cost of maintenance and they do their best to maintain the existing roadways and would continue to do so. Mr. James asked him to speak to EMS access and how that would be preserved, both to his development and to the existing condominiums. Mr. Lamay stated the gate into the condominiums would not operate any differently than it does now. The apartments would not have any access control and would be open and readily accessible, and they had fully satisfied the requirements for fire and safety during the review process with the County. Mr. James asked about maintaining construction traffic along the roadway and how they planned to manage that. Mr. Lamay stated Cathcart Group will be using a tiered retaining wall system to elevate them 30 feet above the existing grade to create a natural pad to support the parking element and their plan is to feed the project from that point. They will not park construction vehicles on The Peaks Drive. Mr. Newton asked how long Mr. Lama�,j exrtected the juo�ect would take to reach comicletionr and Mr. L�.ml 26-28 months. Ms. Beverly Bryson asked if Cathcart Group had any plans to install a gate at the entrance to her luxury/exclusive neighborhood, alleging that if a gate was not built for The Estates, she could not build there, and her money would be down the drain. Another unidentified citizen asked the same question. Mr. Lamay said no, they are not installing a gate. Mr. Bower asked Mr. Lamay to elaborate on how they planned to manage parking for construction traffic, Mr. Lamay stated they encourage ridesharing among subcontractors, they plan to try to consolidate material storage and vehicle parking on the lower side of the project off the road once the retaining wall is built, and The Peaks Drive will not be used for parking or storage. Mr. Woltz advised that everyone needs to understand it is 25 additional units under consideration and the rest has already been approved and he wants to make sure that everyone is aware that this is not a rezoning of the entire project. The issue is 25 additional units only. Mr. Henderson clarified that the question being asked is whether the addition of the 25 units would be detrimental. Mr. Newton thanked the citizens who spoke and the staff who worked on the project. He then announced that to his mind, an extra 25 units would be detrimental, as he believes the best thing for Roanoke County is more single-family housing that would allow middle class families to get their foot in the door and achieve the American dream, which is home ownership, and for those reasons, he was not in favor of the additional 25 units. Mr. Henderson asked for a motion and Mr. Newton stated that he, as the representative for the Cave Spring magisterial district, would take it upon himself to make the motion, and proceeded to make made a motion denying the request. Mr. Henderson asked for discussion on the motion. Mr. James stated that it was worth noting that the better part of a year had been spent conducting a housing study, and the results demonstrated that there is precious little land suitable for development and one recommendation they had received based on the study was to take steps to increase the density of some developments to provide adequate housing for all residents of the County. If it is possible to add 25 units to an existing footprint, it would certainly be in ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 6, 202rt keeping with the recommendations the County received from the housing study. stated it is difficult to say that those 25 units would be noticeable or have a detriment effect. Mr. Woltz agreed that time and money was spent on the housing study and whi ownership is important, the bigger issue to consider is how the proposed action is keeping with the study we have just completed. It would not be a difficult or complicat impact or request. Mr. Newton stated he respected the opinions of Mr. James and Woltz and appreciated their consideration, I Mr. Henderson called for a vote, Mr. Thompson clarified that the motion was to deny t applicant's request. I Mr. Bower: No Mr. James: No Mr. Woltz: No Mr. Newton: Yes Mr. Henderson: No Mr. Henderson asked if a different motion could be entertained. Mr. James motioned approve the proposed rezoning with the suggested proffered conditions. He stated th he found that the proposed rezoning request: -1 1. Is consistent with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan's future land us4 designation and consistent with the 419 Town Center Plan and Design Guidelines, good zoning practice, and 3. Will not result in substantial •` to the community. He therefore moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request as it has been requested, with the following two proffered conditions: The Property shall be developed in general conformity with the concept development plan prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., dated - 1 consisting of sheets _ through _, and attached hereto as Exhibit A (Concept Plan — The Gallery at South Peak), subject to such minor modifications as may be necessitated by final engineering considerations and such changes as may be required by Roanoke County during comprehensive site plan review. 2. The facades and finishes of the building on the Property shall be of similar design and materials as detailed on the rendering prepared by Winks Snowa Architects, P.C. and dated _, consisting of sheets through _, and attached hereto as Exhibit B. Mr. Henderson asked for discussion on the motion. He observed that in this motion, tl-m applicant had agreed to move the gate past the second entrance and wondered if t new location had been shown in the concept plan. Mr. Lamay showed the new locati *n the plan. 67F.Wom- Mr. Bower: Yes Mr. James: Yes Mr. Woltz: Yes Mr. Newton: No Mr. Henderson: Yes Mr. Henderson and Mr, James advised that this petition would go before the Board of Supervisors on October 27, 2026, at 6:00 p.m., and all the citizen comments would be included in the Board's packet. NSA IZI IMATT1,101 r_m 001 Comments of Plannina Commission and Staff Mr. t Center where the Board of Supervisors Chair, Tammy Shepherd, and County staff, provided updates on an array of matters. Mr. James offered his compliments to staff on their presentations and hard work on the many projects presented. Mr. Thompson reminded the Commissioners of the community meeting being held Monday, October 19, 2026, 1 Final Orders Mr. Thompson advised that the four items that had come before the Planning Commissi at its last hearing (Plantation Development, LLC, Kent Wheeler — K&K Corp. of Roanok Comfort Systems USA Shoffner, and RYT, LLC) had been approved with all conditio recommended by the Commission. Adiournment Mr. Woltz motioned to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed 5-0. . ..... . ..... Marion Pickering Recording Secretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 6, 2026 Philip T -'mpson Sacre Yry, Rtoano County Planning Commission �*Trey H enderson Chairman, Roanoke County Planning Commission