Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/2/2004 - MinutesROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 2, 2004 Present: Mr, Al Thomason, Chairman Ms. Martha Hooker Mr. Steve Azar Mr. Rodney McNeil Mr. Gary Jarrell Ms. Janet Scheid, Secretary Mr. David Holladay Mr. John Murphy Mr. Tim Beard Mr. Chris Lowe Mr. Bill Richardson Ms. Susan Carter, Recording Secretary WORK SESSION: Session opened at 4:00pm by Mr. Thomason. Approval of Agenda Ms. Hooker moved to approve the agenda as amended. Motion passed 5 -0. Approval of Minutes Mr. Azar moved to approve the January 20, 2004 minutes. Motion passed 4 -0 with Ms. Hooker abstaining. Mr. Azar moved to approve the February 3, 2004 minutes. Motion passed 5 -0. Approval of Consent Agenda Mr. Hooker moved to approve the consent agenda as amended. Motion passed 5 -0. 1 PUBLIC HEARING: Mr. Thomason called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Mr. Steve Azar gave the invocation and led the pledge of allegiance. The petition of Ernest E. Sweetenberg to rezone 1.24 acres from R1 Low Density Residential District to 12 Industrial District in order to operate a construction yard located at 7314 Wood Haven Road, Catawba Magisterial District. (Petition was Withdrawn by Petitioner) 2. The petition of Kahn Development Company to rezone 9.9 acres from C1 Office District to C2 General Commercial District and 5.8 acres from R1 Low Density Residential District to C2 General Commercial District in order to construct a general office and retail sales facility located at Route 419 near its intersection with Keagy Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. Mr. David Holladay, Roanoke County Planning Department, presented the staff report. Mr. Holladay reviewed the March 2, 2004 proffers submitted by the petitioner. Mr. Azar commended Mr. Holladay on his report. Ms. Hooker requested confirmation that the western most portion of the property, currently zoned R -1, will be used for offices which she stated would be less intense than multi - family zoning. Mr. Holladay stated an office would be quieter at night than a multi- family development. Mr. Thomason asked if any other development would be further west from the proposed development. Mr. Holladay stated that this restriction could be suggested to the BOS. Ms. Maryellen Goodlatte, spoke representing the petitioner. She introduced Mr. Todd Walter, Kahn Development. He stated that his proposal is a new style of development. He stated the town center style development is the current national trend. He stated the proposed development would attract higher -end stores. He stated a 26K square ft. grocery store would also be in the development. He stated the restaurants would also be high -end establishments. He conducted a power point presentation to show some similar developments. Mr. Walter characterized the proposed development as one with wide sidewalks, art on the streetscape, decorative lighting, landscaping and awnings or canopies to make each shop special. He stated that up -scale retail centers are becoming accustomed to this design. He stated the design will look and feel inviting. He stated the development would be a benefit to the community. He stated the following are currently involved in the project: Caldwell White Engineering firm, Maryellen Goodlatte, Attorney, Ann Booker and Paul Anderson of Hayes Seay Mattern & Mattern, and DMR Architects of Charlotte, NC. 2 Mr. Eric Deneve, DMR Architects, stated he has designed retail projects for 27 years. He stated the center is unique with mixed uses - restaurants, specialty stores, upscale apparel. He stated the development would be an asset to the community. He stated outdoor dining would be available. He stated he designed village type retail centers in Pinehurst, NC and Columbia, SC. Mr. Deneve described the building facades, They are proposed to be broken up and will be made of different materials allowing the tenants to have individual expressions. He stated that the portion of the proposed village center that fronts on Keagy Road would have one level in the front and two levels in the back. He stated it would appear as one cohesive development. He stated he hopes this design becomes the trend in Roanoke. Ms. Goodlatte stated the grocery store has been reduced from 49K ft. to 26K ft. She stated the office building would be one level. She compared concept plans. She discussed the buffering between the proposed center and the Atkins' home. She stated the project would be a unified development. She stated the residential development and offices would be on the back portion of the development. She stated the petitioner has proffered standards. She stated it will be 'Charleston -like' in design. She stated Kahn Development agreed with the county to have a traffic study conducted. Ms. Goodlatte stated the traffic study has been submitted to the county and VDOT for suggestions and recommendations and that one recommendation is for the reconfiguration of the intersection of Keagy Road and Electric Road, as well as removing the hump on Keagy Road. Mr. Thomason asked about the ingress and egress of the parking area. Ms. Goodlatte deferred the question to Ms. Anne Booker, Engineer for Hayes Seay Mattern & Mattern. She stated most traffic would enter and exit from Route 419. Mr. Azar noted infrastructure to manage the traffic would need to be in place prior to leasing stores. He also noted the developer will making road improvements instead of VDOT. Brian Leitten, 6043 Lakemont Drive, spoke in opposition to the development. He stated they are trying to place it in a residential area. He stated little of the development would be on Route 419 with most of it being on Keagy Road. He stated it does not conform to the Comp Plan. He expressed the following concerns: increase in traffic, safety risk for children of nearby schools, light pollution, sound pollution, and incompatibility with the Comp Plan. He then read a quote from a Columbia, SC newspaper article regarding a similar development. Mrs. Atkins, 4926 Keagy Road, stated she had lived at her current residence 38 years. She stated they have enjoyed the wildlife in the area. She stated Allstate has a large parking area that creates traffic, speeding, and accidents. She expressed concern regarding groundwater contamination. She also stated she does not like the proposed detention pond because it could be a breeding ground for mosquitoes. She suggested keeping the development on Route 419 and keeping the current zoning of these parcels. Stephen Lemon, Attorney for Martin Hopkins & Lemon, spoke representing Allstate. He expressed concern regarding drainage issues and traffic management. He stated 199 tickets were issued by Roanoke County Police Department in this area. He stated Mr. Bill Manning of VDOT provided him with a traffic count. He expressed concern regarding stormwater draining into a nearby creek. Mr. Thomason displayed Nancy Hartley's, 4912 Sugarloaf Mountain Road, picture of the old Oak Grove School which she attended. He stated the school was built in 1918. Ms. Hooker asked the chairman to remind the speakers not to be repetitive. Mr. Thomason concurred. Beth Doughty, 4328 Foxcroft Circle, spoke in favor of the project. She stated it is a quality project. She noted that the development would be adjacent to a large employer from which it will draw business. Vera Aldridge, 4913 Keagy Road, stated she is very concerned about the traffic and drainage. She stated she feels like they are putting her out. She noted her mailbox is frequently run into by passing vehicles. Ethel Sheets, 4842 Keagy Road, stated her backyard joins the development. She stated they built their home in 1972. She stated she was concerned stormwater runoff would pollute their private well. She expressed concern regarding noise, traffic, wildlife, and wildlife habitat. She stated the development would destroy the natural beauty. She stated the development is not needed and not wanted. Mary Ann Gwyn, 4843 Keagy Road, stated she has resided at her current address for 27 years. She stated 490 students travel the area roads. She expressed concern regarding the safety of the families with increased traffic. She stated a neighbor bought the property and then sold it to a South Carolina development company. She stated she is not against business. She stated this area is residential. She thanked Mr. Thomason and the PC members for their time. Fred Bolyard, 6235 Hidden Valley Drive, stated he has resided at his current residence for 6 years. He stated his distrust of government officials. He referenced the Core Development area and C2 definition. He expressed concern regarding increased traffic on Keagy Road. Il Robert Frank, 6544 Fairway Forest Drive, stated this development is a direct attack into a residential area. He stated it would diminish property values. He expressed concern regarding the saleability of the surrounding property. He expressed concern regarding further development down Keagy Road after this development is completed. He asked for a show of hands of those in the audience, which are opposed to the project. Mr. Thomason asked the citizens to address remarks to the PC and not the audience. Mr. Frank stated it is the duty of the county to take care of the property owners. Dr. Louis A. Perrott, 5911 Lakemont Drive, spoke regarding the importance of enforcing boundaries between commercial and residential areas. He stated boundaries were set in place through the Community Plan. He stated the county does not need another plan if this one is being followed. Marlene Perrott, 5911 Lakemont Drive, stated her backyard faces Keagy Road. She stated she had a meeting with Ms. Scheid and Mr. Chittum in which she asked about revenue to be generated from development. She stated Mr. Chittum stated this information was not a necessity. She stated the development would be taking away green space. Kathy Simms, 5880 Lakemont Drive, stated she moved to her residence 6 months ago from Columbus, Ohio. She stated this area is reportedly the 3r most desirable place to retire. She stated she enjoys the mountains, the peacefulness, and undisturbed surroundings. David Atkins, 5822 Big Horn Drive, gave a brief history of the Oak Grove School. He referenced the Community Plan regarding neighborhoods. He provided information from two former students of the Oak Grove School. Bonnie Barrett, 6051 Lakemont Drive, stated she opposes the development. She stated it is against the Community Plan. She stated the county should keep residential and commercial areas as they are. She stated they should be separate. She expressed concern regarding increased traffic. She stated this development does not fit into the Community Plan. Elena Derosa, 5102 Sugarloaf Drive, stated the development should go into areas which are properly zoned. She expressed concern regarding existing businesses going out of business due to the competition. She expressed concern regarding overcrowding of schools due to the multi- family housing plans within this development. Jeremy Kolosine, 1707 Bridle Lane, commended Kahn Development for using flora in their design. He stated it is an issue of trust and public safety. He stated an entrance would be off of Sugar Loaf Mountain Road into the development. He noted 4 people have died on this road. He expressed concern regarding increased traffic. He suggested forcing Allstate to have an entrance off of Route 419. Carl Benjamin, 4748 Hickory Hill Drive, stated this is a Keagy Road project not a 419 project. He expressed concern regarding traffic because the surrounding roads are narrow. He referred to the Community Plan regarding managed growth. He stated Keagy Road is residential. He stated this is an incompatible use. Alan Sublette, 5577 Valley Drive, stated his home is currently in a floodplain. He expressed concern regarding drainage of stormwater runoff. He stated the county is currently trying to help them with their existing drainage problems. He gave pictures to the PC. Larry Kipfinger, 4779 Hickory Hill Drive, stated this development is an invasion of commercial development into a residential area. He referenced the Community Plan. He expressed concern regarding problems from noise, smell of restaurants, light pollution, increased traffic. He stated the current R1 zoning is as it should be. Judy Van Vechten, 4801 Hickory Hill Drive, expressed concern regarding a rise in property taxes. She stated other shopping centers may become empty since shopping outdoors is not appealing. Peter Steinmaker, 6402 Orchard View Lane, stated he is originally from Long Island, New York, which is mostly asphalt and concrete. He stated the surrounding roads are not built for volume. He stated these roads are treacherous in snow and sleet. Helen Sublette, 5577 Valley Drive, expressed concern regarding drainage, lighting, and noise. She stated the development is not wise. She stated the area needs stability. She stated this area is already overstressed. She asked the PC to not do anything to harm the citizens. Lewis Hypes, 4981 Keagy Road, stated one of the vehicle accidents landed in his yard. He stated previous owners have said if they knew about the development they would not have sold the property. He noted there are currently empty grocery stores in the area. Frank Simms, 5880 Lakemont Drive, stated this project is not wanted in the community. He stated it should not be put in this neighborhood. He expressed concern regarding the future of the center in 10 -15 years. 2 David Huff, 5418 Apple Blossom Lane, expressed concern about the area children with the increased traffic. He stated the traffic would go past the Oak Grove School. Cynthia Petzold, 4576 Keagy Road, expressed concern regarding traffic safety. She stated the roads have blind curves and no shoulders and noted the traffic study had been received only today. R. David Barbe, Attorney, Moss & Rocovich, spoke representing Mr. Via. He stated he want to keep his adjoining property as it is. He stated he is still interested in purchasing the C2 property. He stated this area should be protected from incompatible uses. He noted neighborhood safety would be compromised. Donald Hanley II, 6036 Lakemont Drive, stated most of the developments in Kahn's presentation were regarding 28 -30 acre parcels. He stated this development would be on approximately 14 acres. He compared this proposal to Towers Shopping Center. Norma Carlisle, 6394 Hidden Valley Drive, stated she has lived at her residence for 10 years. She stated she has retail experience as a commercial realtor and is in favor of the proposed use. She stated 64% of the land is already C1. She stated the Kahn Development is a 'Class A' development. She stated there is nothing currently in our market like this development. She stated they should work with the developer regarding buffering to prevent noise pollution. Julia Hoover, 6023 Trinity Court, stated there is currently empty retail space in the area. She stated developers should be encouraged to remodel existing retail facilities. Perry Crosier, 2215 Carter Road, stated she is an employee of Allstate and is excited about the development. She noted the bulk of the land is currently C1. Cyrus Carmack, 5004 Sugar Loaf Mountain Road, stated he attended Oak Grove School. He stated he agrees with the plan. Jennifer L. Pfister, 4701 Norwood Street, spoke representing the Deyerle Neighborhood Association. She stated she is opposed the development. She stated the development affects all localities near the proposed site. Page Pace, 6713 Mallard Lake Court, spoke in favor of the development. 7 Gene Richter, 5452 Warwood Drive, stated she has lived at her residence 40 years. She stated it is currently beautiful and she would like it to remain beautiful. She expressed concern for lives of the Hidden Valley Middle School children who may cross Route 419 to get to the new facility. Mr. Billy Driver, Director of Real Estate Valuation, stated he was asked to look at the development with regards to property values. He noted several commercial areas which adjoin residential areas. Ms. Hooker asked if homes sold in these areas after commercial development have held their value. Mr. Driver affirmed the homes have held their value. Ms. Goodlatte stated the detention pond will not be a wet facility but instead a dry pond. She stated all plans would be reviewed by the county's Site Plan Review staff. Ms. Hooker asked if the development would draw new business or rob existing businesses. Mr. Doug Chittum, Director of Economic Development, stated it could take away from existing businesses if there was no growth in the valley. He stated Valley View Mall shows that there is growth in the valley and that this proposed development would create its own niche. He stated Americans set the retail trends. He stated some retail shops do not go into traditional areas. He noted Economic Development Department does not do marketing. He stated he has worked in the Economic Development field for 20 years. Ms. Hooker asked if new development might create a ripple effect. Mr. Chittum stated that older properties would be forced to improve. He stated a new product makes others improve in order to compete. Mr. Chittum noted that in our current climate most new projects are next to neighborhoods. He stated his job is to represent all of the citizens in the county. He stated Economic Development supports the petition. He gave a brief history of the site. Mr. Atkins stated the county needs industry with good paying jobs. Mr. Azar thanked all of the citizens for being there. He thanked Kahn Development for working with staff and citizens. He stated he had concerns regarding the 419 corridor for commercial and residential development. He stated he is committed to making his decision based on the information provided him, not emotion. He stated he would be voting in favor of the petition. Mr. McNeil stated Keagy Road, Route 419, and their intersection could be improved at the developer's expense. He stated the next developer may not offer road improvements. Ms. Hooker stated it is a difficult decision. She stated she has studied the area and its roads. She stated it is an opportunity for road improvements. She noted that the old Oak Grove School is not eligible for historic designation. She stated her belief that change would happen. She stated this is a nice development. She stated a growing number of people are in favor of the development that were not present at this meeting. Mr. Thomason stated he was born in the Roanoke area 77 years ago. He stated he has talked with numerous citizens and received many letters regarding this development. He stated he has walked the property three times. He stated this rezoning issue has been difficult. He stated nothing is constant but change. Mr. Thomason then made a favorable recommendation to approve the rezoning request with the following proffers of March 2, 2004: 1. Concept Plan: a. The property shall be developed in substantial conformity with the concept plan dated January 22, 2004, revised February 26, 2004, made by DMR Architecture, P.L.L.C., subject to those changes that are required by the County during comprehensive site plan review and subject to petitioner's right to relocate or reconfigure the buildings, service areas and parking layouts shown on the concept plan. Building relocation, however, shall not change the overall concept of retail and commercial uses oriented toward Route 419 and Keagy Road, and office or residential uses buffering the retail and commercial uses from the adjacent residential properties along Keagy Road. The entire site will include sidewalks connecting all buildings to encourage pedestrian connectivity between all uses and parking areas. b. A nature /walking trail shall be incorporated into the design of the center. It is anticipated that the trail will be located along the edge of the property, where possible, and will provide walking opportunities for users of Keagy Village as well as neighbors by connecting to on -site sidewalks and street crosswalks. C. Any building constructed along the western boundary of the property (adjoining tax map parcel number 67.1 5 -2 -5, the home of Mr. and Mrs. Atkins) shall be no more than one story high and shall contain only office uses. Screening (which shall consist of plantings and a stained wooden fence starting approximately 50' from Keagy Road) shall be installed within a 30' buffer on the developer's property along said line substantially as set out in a conceptual landscape plan dated February 23, 2004 made by the Land Plan 9 Group. Said landscape buffer shall be in place no later than the time the parking lot and/or office building adjacent to the 30' buffer strip is completed. A decorative brick column shall be placed at the end of the fence closest to Keagy Road. 2. All buildings shall be designed to be compatible with one another. All facades of buildings shall be of similar design, compatible materials and similar detailing. 3. Plazas, hardscape, landscaped areas and site amenities shall also be compatible to the established building character and shall include outdoor seating areas, varied paving materials to add contrast and texture, and decorative containers with seasonal landscape. Restaurant tenants will be encouraged to provide outdoor dining areas with tables, chairs and umbrellas. 4. Roofline treatment shall be of compatible design on all buildings. 5. Single, large building masses without articulated facades shall not be permitted. Large building walls shall be required to incorporate multidimensional design features, such as, changes in plane, canopies, awnings, dimensional signage, windows, doors, facias, arcades, and changes in texture, material and color or vary in height to add interest. Retaining walls shall be subject to proffers 7 and 8 relating to construction materials or be composed of textured keystone blocks. 6. Required screening of service and trash areas shall be with finish materials compatible with the adjacent building. The loading area at the northwest side of the proposed grocery store shall be screened with a freestanding wall with similar finish as the adjacent building. 7. Acceptable building finishes include: a. brick b. wood, vinyl or composite wood substitute lap siding and trim C. glass, with clear glass required in retail storefronts d. stucco or exterior insulated finish system (EIFS) e. stone face colored concrete block f. stone or cast stone g. standing seam metal, copper, composite slate tile or asphalt shingle roof 8. The following building finishes are prohibited: a. unpainted or bare metal panels b. 4 x 8 plywood or composite panels 10 C. bare exposed concrete that is not exposed aggregate, hammered, sandblasted or covered with a cement -based 10. Site Signage: a. Off premises signs (billboards) shall not be allowed on the property. b. The main freestanding multi -sided project identification sign shall be at the corner of Keagy Road and Route 419 and shall be monument style utilizing materials approved as acceptable building materials and shall not exceed 25 feet in height. C. Minor freestanding entrance signs shall be multi -sided monument style and shall not exceed 10 feet in height. d. Tenant Signage visible to off -site shall be encouraged to be creative in order to add interest and texture and, in addition to letters, may include logos and images. Projecting blade signs and projecting three - dimensional signs are also encouraged. Box signs, exposed raceways and exposed neon are prohibited. Signage may be internally or externally illuminated. 11. Non - specialty drive -in or fast food restaurants and gasoline stations shall not be permitted. Establishments primarily serving specialty foods (such as coffee, baked goods, e.g.) with drive - through windows are not included within this prohibition but would require a special use permit in accordance with the requirements of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. Drive - through windows are 11 acrylic coating d. unfinished wood other than cedar, mahogany, teak or redwood. 9. Site Lighting: a. All lighting near the property lines shall be shielded "cut off' types to internalize illumination and avoid spillover to adjacent sites and public roads. b. Sidewalks shall be illuminated with decorative pedestrian - scaled pole or building mounted luminaries. C. Plazas may be illuminated similar to sidewalks but may include additional feature lighting for attractions and outdoor dining. e. Landscape lighting may be employed to enhance site entrance and feature areas. f. No exposed neon or fluorescent lighting shall be permitted. g. The maximum height of freestanding light fixtures shall be 30 feet. 10. Site Signage: a. Off premises signs (billboards) shall not be allowed on the property. b. The main freestanding multi -sided project identification sign shall be at the corner of Keagy Road and Route 419 and shall be monument style utilizing materials approved as acceptable building materials and shall not exceed 25 feet in height. C. Minor freestanding entrance signs shall be multi -sided monument style and shall not exceed 10 feet in height. d. Tenant Signage visible to off -site shall be encouraged to be creative in order to add interest and texture and, in addition to letters, may include logos and images. Projecting blade signs and projecting three - dimensional signs are also encouraged. Box signs, exposed raceways and exposed neon are prohibited. Signage may be internally or externally illuminated. 11. Non - specialty drive -in or fast food restaurants and gasoline stations shall not be permitted. Establishments primarily serving specialty foods (such as coffee, baked goods, e.g.) with drive - through windows are not included within this prohibition but would require a special use permit in accordance with the requirements of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. Drive - through windows are 11 not permitted directly facing the street unless they are completely screened. 12. The Concept plan indicates offices uses buffering the retail uses from the adjacent residential properties along Keagy Road. Residential use may be substituted for up to 50% of the office square footage as permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Except as set out in 1(c) above, buildings labeled on the concept plan solely as "office" shall be used only for office or residential purposes. Building configurations, building heights, number of buildings and parking layouts may vary to accommodate the residential substitution. 13. The developer shall comply with all VDOT requirements for improvements to adjoining Route 419 and Keagy Road including any required easements for sight distance as well as the donation of any additional right -of -way along Keagy Road and Route 419. AYES: Thomason, Hooker, Azar, McNeil, Jarrell NAYS: None ABSENT: None 3. The petition of Slate Hill I, LLC, Slate Hill II, LLC, and Woodcliff Investments, LLC, to rezone 4.92 acres from C2C General Commercial District with Conditions to C2 General Commercial District, 8.03 acres from C1 Office District to C2 General Commercial District, and 17.01 acres from R3 Medium Residential District to C2 General Commercial District in order to construct a general office and retail sales facility located at 4486 Summit Street, Cave Spring Magisterial District. Mr. John Murphy, Roanoke County Planning Department, informed the PC a request to continue the petition had been received. Mr. McNeil stated due to lack of sufficient information he would like to make a motion to continue the petition 60 days. Ms. Hooker concurred. Mr. Hunter Smith, spoke representing the petitioner. He stated Mr. Jim Smith had spoken with the county regarding a 30 day extension. He stated 60 days was excessive because they need to move forward. Mr. Murphy explained after the traffic analysis is completed, Roanoke County's Engineering Department would review the information and work on the proffers for the site. Mr. Smith stated VDOT would complete the traffic study within the 30 day extension. He stated he would like a 30 day extension. Mr. McNeil confirmed that if the VDOT information is not available in 30 days the PC would act on the petition at the April 6 th PCPH. Mr. Smith stated he was comfortable with the 30 days. 12 Mr. McNeil amended his motion to grant a 30 day extension to the petitioner: AYES: Thomason, Hooker, Azar, McNeil, .carrell NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mr. Thomason asked if those present would like to wait until the April 6th PCPH to speak to the commission. All but two citizens stated they would wait until the PCPH on the petition. Ms. Elizabeth Abe, 6909 Mary B Place, stated no design concept plan is currently in place. She stated only a silt fence is in place on this property. She expressed concern regarding E & S Control in case of heavy rain. Ms. Hooker asked about E & S control on the site. Ms. Scheid responded that an E & S plan had been submitted by the developer, reviewed and approved by the County. The development is currently in conformance with all County regulations. Ms. Phyllis Williams, 5260 Crossbow Circle, stated she has resided at this location for 1 112 years. She stated prior to Lowes being built, the residents received many promises which were untrue. She stated she has been bothered by noise created by night deliveries. Citizens Comments Ms. Gwyn expressed her disappoint in the PC and staff. She stated 750 people signed petitions and she did not think the PC listened to the citizens concerns. She stated she was very upset with Planning Staff and Economic Development. Mr. Leitten stated the PC has had the Traffic Report for 4 hours, which is not enough time to research. Mr. Steven Carlisle, 6394 Fairway Drive, stated he is proud of his neighborhood. He stated they have been courageous. He stated staff and PC had to make a tough call. He stated they have done a good thing. He stated a plan should be organized to get the plan on track. He expressed concern regarding non -owner occupancy. He suggested organizing a committee to work with developers. Ms. Perrott stated she knows the decision was difficult. She stated Real Estate did not have facts and figures. She stated Mr. Drivers said 'seems to be.' Mr. Via has offered to purchase the property back from the developer. She stated Allstate is C1. She stated this is a slap in the face to their plan. One citizen stated her property is on the back end facing north. She stated she is concerned about safety issues. 13 Another citizen stated she is very worried about the safety of the children regarding increased traffic. Comments Mr. McNeil commended the commissioners. He stated he had the Draft Traffic Plan yesterday. Final Orders The petition of Les and Angela Meadows and Barbara J. Schuyler to obtain a Special Use Permit to operate a Private Kennel on 1.5 acres, located at 5005 Buffalo Circle, Catawba Magisterial District was denied by the Board of Supervisors at the Public Hearing on February 24, 2004. 2. The petition of Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Incorporated, to Rezone 2.37 acres from R -1 Low Density Multi- Family Residential District to C -1 Office District in order to construct a general office located at 3640 Colonial Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District was approved with conditions by the Board of Supervisors at the Public Hearing on February 24, 2004. 3. The petition of Balzer & Associates, Inc. to amend the conditions of Ordinance 032399 -8, Condition 4, to increase the maximum light pole height from 22 feet to 33.5 feet for property located at 3270 Electric Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District was withdrawn by the petitioner. 4. The petition of Land Planning & Design Associates to amend conditions on Planned Residential Development consisting of approximately 220 acres and rezone 32 acres from R1 -C Single Family Residential District with conditions to PRD, located south of the Blue Ridge Parkway at milepost 125, Cave Spring Magisterial District was approved with conditions by the Board of Supervisors at the Public Hearing on February 24, 2004. There being no additional business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:47 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ck' Approved: _? <SC1.VJZ Secretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission 14