Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/6/2004 - MinutesROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 6, 2004 Present: Mr. Al Thomason, Chairman Ms. Martha Hooker Mr. Rodney McNeil Mr. Gary Jarrell Mr. Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Ms. Janet Scheid, Secretary Mr. David Holladay Mr. John Murphy Mr. Tim Beard Ms. Tammi Wood Mr. Chris Lowe Ms. Susan Carter, Recording Secretary Absent: Mr. Steve Azar WORK SESSION: Session opened at 3:57 p.m. by Mr. Thomason. Approval of Agenda Ms. Hooker moved to approve the agenda. Motion passed 4 -0. Approval of Minutes Mr. McNeil moved to approve the March 2, 2004 PCPH minutes. Motion passed 4 -0. Approval of Consent Agenda Mr.Thomason moved to approve the consent agenda. Motion passed 4 -0. Site Viewing The meeting was adjourned for site viewing at 4:05 p.m. 1 PUBLIC HEARING: Mr. Thomason called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Hooker gave the invocation and led the pledge of allegiance. Waiver from Section 200.12 of the Roanoke County Public Street and Parking Design Standards and Specifications on Grandin Road Extension near Winnbrook Drive. Mr. John Murphy, Roanoke County Planning Department, presented the staff report. Mr. Thomason then made the motion to approve the waiver. AYES: Thomason, Hooker, McNeil, Jarrell NAYS: None ABSENT: Azar 2. The petition of Slate Hill 1, 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, presented the staff report. He explained the Zoning Map. He read comments sent by VDOT regarding this proposed development. Mr. Thomason asked if a meeting Murphy stated VDOT has contacted Traffic Engineer, to meet next week. had been setup with VDOT. Mr. Mr. Anthony Ford, Roanoke County Mr. Ed Natt, spoke representing the petitioner. He explained the displayed maps. He stated the 20 acres behind Lowes is not being rezoned and will remain R3. He described each parcel involved in the petition. He provided a history of the property. He stated that his clients have been working on this plan for 3 years. He stated they have had many meetings with Roanoke County and VDOT staff members. He stated since last September they have had 45 contacts with VDOT and 15 with .county staff regarding this issue. He explained the site plan. He stated the property can already be developed without rezoning any property. He discussed access points. He stated if the petition is denied, the owners will build in accordance with R3 and C1 zoning regulations. He stated it is impossible to have a precise set of proffers with this size project. He reviewed the proffers. He stated they would comply with stormwater management requirements. He explained the location of the two potential entrances. He stated if the rezoning is approved they agree not to use the entrance near 1 -581. He referred to a 1985 letter from VDOT to Mike Webb at Lumsden Associates approving the entrance near the Moss & Rocovich building for a 400- seat restaurant. 2 Mr. Gene Cress, Mattern & Craig, stated he was retained by the developer. He stated his firm has 20 years experience in traffic study. He noted they compiled the Lowes Impact Study. He explained he had spoken with Mr. Chris McDonnell, VDOT District Office, regarding this study. He stated Mr. Donnell told him he was unaware of any concerns. Mr. Cress provided traffic count figures and he compared traffic count projections for C2 zoning and R3 zoning specific to this petition. Mr. Natt stated if the petition is denied the R3 property will be developed with current rezoning which will stress the county's intrastructure. He stated they would also apply for an entrance permit on Valley Drive if the property remains R3. He stated under R3 zoning they will build approximately 200 units with no proffers. He stated if the R3 portion is rezoned to C2 there would be superior traffic patterns, reduced traffic, and pleasant appearance with the large scale development. Mr. McNeil asked if the property could be developed without VDOT approval. Mr. Natt stated they would need VDOT approval. Mr. McNeil asked if it was normal to ask for a traffic study if the developer is unsure of what type of business would be developed. Mr. Natt stated they need general traffic patterns. He stated they cannot develop without VDOT's approval. Mr. McNeil asked if VDOT needs to know how many vehicles will be going in and out of property and the types of businesses that will be established before approving an entrance. Mr. Natt stated they only need to know that it will be a retail establishment. Mr. McNeil asked why it has taken so long to get the entrance approved. Mr. Natt stated VDOT does not have the manpower. Ms. Hooker asked if the site plan would be proffered. Mr. Natt stated currently there is no site plan. He stated the plan being displayed is the development plan for grading and erosion with the approximate location of the buildings. He stated they have proffered the general proximity of the road. Ms. Hooker noted this petition has offered minimal information in comparison to a recent petition that offered a large amount of information about their development. Mr. Natt stated the previous petition involved a single developer. He stated Roanoke County is reactive instead of being proactive. He stated the petitioner's prospects are not going to wait. Ms. Hooker stated the petitioner has given an indication of the types of things they will not have, omitting what they will have. She noted some of the contacts with staff that Mr. Natt reported may have been regarding the VDOT encroachment issue. Mr. Natt stated if the Planning Commission does not rezone they cannot control the development. Ms. Hooker stated she does believe the facility they want to build would be a nice facility. Mr. Thomason asked about ingress and egress locations. Mr. Natt explained one entrance location would be near the former Woodmaster building. Mr. Thomason asked what the petitioner will do if VDOT will not issue an entrance permit. Mr. Natt stated if VDOT will not issue an entrance permit, it will be as if VDOT has taken the property. Mr. McNeil inquired about the entrance through Lowes. Mr. Natt stated it was not definite but they are extremely comfortable with it. Mr. Cress explained the procedure in order to have the Lowes entrance approved by VDOT. Mr. Thomason asked about stormwater management if the property is developed as R3. Mr. Natt stated they would meet all runoff standards. He stated they do not currently have a plan but will submit one when the site is developed. 3 Ms. Frances Boatman, 5260 Crossbow Circle, President of Quail Valley Homeowners Association, stated the plan presented was generic. She stated it is important to know the appearance, hours of operation, parking configuration, and traffic flow of the development. She stated she does not think VDOT is to blame for the delay. She expressed concern regarding stormwater runoff. She gave a brief history of 4486 Summit Lane. She stated required information had not been submitted by the petitioner. She stated the petitioner is acting as if they are above requirements. She provided traffic and accident counts she received from VDOT. She stated the Planning Commission represents all citizens. She stated this is a family oriented town. She requested the Planning Commission deny the request until more information is received. Mr. Jimmy Starkey, 5260 Crossbow Circle, stated he is retired from property management. He stated the petitioner should provide more information about the development. He stated the petition should be denied based on the adjoiner letters not being sent to all residents in Quail Valley. Mr. Robert Egbert, 3571 Bradshaw Road, stated he is Chairman of the Roanoke River Sierra Club. He stated he is concerned about growth issues in the County. Mr. Egbert stated that the proposed development would set a bad precedent for the county. He expressed concern regarding the steep slope and stormwater runoff issues. Mr. Sherman Bamford, 2423 Winthrop Road, representative of the Sierra Club, stated this is an issue of smart growth. He stated they should proceed in a manner that is respectful of the environment. He stated this location is the southern gateway to the area. He stated the ridgeline on this site is viewed by visitors to the area. He stated steep slopes intensify erosion and problems for downstream residents. He expressed concern regarding increased traffic for neighbors and churches. He stated environmental sensibility is important. He stated E &S issues should be explored before development is approved. Ms. Annie Krochalis, 9428 Patterson Drive, stated more regulations for E &S control should be in place. She stated grading should not be allowed before proper permits are acquired. She stated the steep slopes of the site may create stormwater runoff problems. She expressed concern regarding traffic backups in this area. She stated Slate Hill ridgetop is the southern gateway to the county. She suggested attaching a conservation condition if the petition is approved. Mr. Ralph Davis, 6636 Sylvan Brook Road, stated he congratulated planning staff for making the recommendation to deny the petition. He stated it does not have to be Mr. Natt's way. He stated Roanoke County should model development standards after Albemarle County. He suggested additional verbage for inclusion in the concept review form. He stated the approval of the petition is inconceivable without a development plan. 4 Mr. Natt stated the county would have no control if they do not pass the petition. He stated if Parcel B remains R3 it would create more of a demand on the county's infrastructure. Mr. McNeil asked if the petitioner would be inclined to continue the petition until the information the Planning Commission is seeking is received. Mr. Natt stated his clients do not want to postpone the petition. He stated they would have to meet all county regulations when developing this property. Ms. Hooker asked what types of housing facilities they have previously developed. Mr. Smith stated Smith - Packett developed Pheasant Ridge, Richmond HUD housing, assisted living facilities, and retirement communities. Mr. Thomason noted the Planning Commission recommended a 60 day postponement at the last hearing. He stated the petitioner agreed to a 30 day postponement in order to acquire more information. Mr. McNeil stated although everyone wants to know details about the development, the issue is whether or not to rezone this property. Mr. Jarrell expressed concerns regarding stormwater runoff. Ms. Hooker expressed disappointment regarding information provided. Mr. McNeil then made the motion to deny the rezoning request: AYES: Thomason, Hooker, McNeil, Jarrell NAYS: None ABSENT: Azar 3. The petition of Jeff Bennett to obtain a Special Use Permit to operate a custom manufacturing business on 3.56 acres, located at 4040 Jae Valley Road, Vinton Magisterial District. Mr. David Holladay, Roanoke County Planning Department, presented the staff report. Mr. Holladay stated the petitioner does not intend on having employees but stated the PC may want to apply a condition regarding the number of employees allowed. Mr. Jeff Bennett, 4040 Jae Valley Road, spoke regarding the petition. Mr. Jarrell asked the petitioner if he plans on painting or using any chemicals in his operation. Mr. Bennett stated he will use other facilities if he needs to use paint or chemicals. He stated he sold a larger business and wants only a small business now. Ms. Hooker asked if he would be comfortable being limited to three (3) employees. Mr. Bennett agreed with the number of employees. Mr. McNeil asked if the there is a regulation limiting the number of employees. Mr. Holladay stated there is no written limit. Mr. Larry Wheeler, 3898 Saul Lane, stated he is an adjoining property owner. He stated he has no objection to the petition. Ms. Hooker asked if Mr. Bennett is a good,neighbor. Mr. Wheeler affirmed he is a good neighbor. 5 Ms. Hooker then made the motion to recommend approval of the special use permit with the following condition: The business shall have a maximum of three employees, in addition to the owner. AYES: Thomason, Hooker, McNeil, Jarrell NAYS: None ABSENT: Azar 4. The petition of D. Gregory Roberts to obtain a Special Use Permit to conduct a home occupation in an accessory building on 2.14 acres, located at 5228 Ponderosa Drive, Catawba Magisterial District. Mr. Chris Lowe, Roanoke County Planning Department, presented the staff report. Mr. Greg Roberts, 5228 Ponderosa Drive, spoke regarding the petition. He presented a letter from his neighbor, Dr. Garman, in which he stated that he has no objections to the petition. Mr. John Anderson, 5208 Ponderosa Drive, stated his driveway is less than 300 feet from Mr. Roberts' driveway. He stated he has no objections to the petition as long as only one dog is allowed at a time, no signs are posted, and the address is not listed on the business cards. He stated he has lived in his home 38 years and does not want commercial encroachment near his home. Ms. Hooker then made the motion to recommend approval of the special use permit with the following conditions: No more than one (1) dog on the premises for grooming at any given time. 2. No more than ten (10) appointments per week. AYES: Thomason, Hooker, McNeil, Jarrell NAYS: None ABSENT: Azar 5. The petition of Marc I. Wilson to obtain a Special Use Permit to conduct recreational vehicle sales on 1.4088 acres, located at 3328 Peters Creek Road, Catawba Magisterial District. Ms. Tammi Wood, Roanoke County Planning Department, presented the staff report 2 3 < Ms. Hooker asked Ms. Wood the reason the petition was necessary since Mr. Wilson already conducts vehicle sales on the property. Ms. Wood explained recreational vehicles are considered a separate use. Mr. Marc Wilson, 5009 Glenvar Heights Boulevard, spoke regarding the petition. Ms. Hooker asked the location the vehicles would be displayed. Mr. Wilson noted he has been a car dealer for a number of years. He stated most of his business involves specialty vehicles. He stated there would be an RV on premises but it will not be displayed out front since this would have a negative effect on his current business. He affirmed the RV would be parked on the side of the building. Ms. Hooker asked about the number of RV's on the property at any given time. He stated he would have only one RV on the property at a time. Ms. Hooker then made the motion for favorable approval of the special use permit with the following conditions: Recreational Vehicle sales and service shall be allowed only as an accessory use to Minor Automobile Repair and Automobile Dealership, Used. 2. No more than one (1) recreational vehicle will be displayed for sale at any one time. AYES: Thomason, Hooker, McNeil, Jarrell NAYS: None ABSENT: Azar Update on Comprehensive Plan Ms. Scheid stated the Smart Growth Task Force had their last meeting last week. She stated the scheduled presentation to the BOS should be July 2004. She stated Community Meetings would be held through April and May. She stated a joint worksession is planned between the PC and BOS in May or June. She stated she would provide a schedule of Community Meetings to the Planning Commission when available. Mr. Thomason asked if the Smart Growth participants would be invited. Ms. Scheid stated the Smart Growth participants, civic leagues, and PTA groups would be included. Citizens Comments Ms. Annie Krochalis stated she is in support of the smart growth in the county. She stated it is important to coordinate infrastructure with development. She stated limited discussions of these issues were conducted during the Smart Growth Task Force meetings. She stated further discussions of Smart Growth issues should be conducted between citizens and county representatives. V� Comments Mr. Thomason thanked the commissioners for their participation. Final Orders 1. 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, upon. (Withdrawn at the request of the petitioner) 2. The petition of Kahn Development Company to rezone 9.9 acres from C1 Office District to C2 General Commercial District with conditions and 5.8 acres from R1 Low Density Residential District to C2 General Commercial District with conditions 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. (Continued until April 27, 2004) 3. The petition of Slate Hill I, LLC, Slate Hill 11, 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. (Continued until April 27, 2004) There being no additional business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:53 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved: Secretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission