Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/1/2003 - MinutesROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 1, 2003 Present: Mr. Al Thomason Ms. Martha Hooker Mr. Don Witt, Chairman Mr. Steve Azar Mr. Todd Ross Ms. Janet Scheid, Secretary Mr. David Holladay Mr. John Murphy Mr. Chris Lowe Ms. Tammi Wood, Recording Secretary (Ms. Hooker arrived after approval of the Consent Agenda) WORK SESSION: Session opened at 4:00pm by Mr. Witt. Approval of Agenda Mr. Ross moved to approve the agenda as amended. Motion passed 4 -0. Approval of Minutes Ms. Thomason moved to approve the March 4, 2003 PCPH minutes. Motion passed 4 -0. Mr. Thomason moved to approve the March 18, 2003 Worksession minutes. Motion passed 4 -0. Approval of Consent Agenda Mr. Ross moved to approve the consent agenda. Motion passed 4 -0. Discussion of the Sign Ordinance Mr. Holladay reported a discrepancy between the text and the definition regarding Sec. 30 -93 -11 (C), Non - Conforming Signs. He explained that recently a billboard was blown down at which time a sign company submitted a cost proposal to Brenda Manning of VDOT stating the sign replacement would be 38% of value. He stated since Off Premises Signs are assessed as Personal Property by the Commission of the Revenue, they generally depreciate in value. He explained the difference between replacement cost and replacement value and how it could affect the replacement of Non- Conforming Signs. He stated it might be necessary to change the wording of the ordinance from 'replacement value' to 'replacement cost.' He stated it might also be necessary to devise a new definition specific to Off Premise Signs. He stated this might affect the Personal Property values, which are submitted to the Commissioner of the Revenue's office. Ms. Scheid suggested the billboard industry should look at the value of the sign. Mr. Witt noted some On Premise signs are not assessed as Personal Property but as Real Estate. Mr. Ross stated it would be reasonable to use Replacement Cost. Mr. Holladay stated the regulation applies to all signs. Mr. Witt stated it might be necessary to set out differences in replacement language of On Premise and Off Premise signs. Mr. Azar requested clarification of current replacement criteria. Mr. Holladay and Ms. Scheid explained the current procedure. Mr. Holladay stated VDOT's sign replacement regulation is based on replacement cost. Mr. Witt asked if the ordinance should be revised now or if more time is needed to clarify the language used. Mr. Holladay noted using assessment values might cause assessments to increase. Mr. Ross then noted this would increase tax revenues. Mr. Holladay stated in Sec. 30-93 - 11(C)(1) and (C)(2) the language should be changed from 'value' to 'cost'. Regarding Sec. 30- 93.14 (A)(4), Mr. Witt stated he is not comfortable with electronic messages. Mr. Holladay stated these signs include LCD and television screens. Mr. Ross noted since they have only discussed Tri- vision signs, he is not prepared to make a decision on electronic messages. Mr. Thomason suggested there should be more discussion and research before presenting the revisions to the public. Mr. Witt stated since the petition had been advertised, it will need to be introduced at the PCPH. He stated if necessary a motion could be made to continue the petition. Mr. Thomason expressed concern regarding misleading the public. Mr. Holladay stated that one of the sign companies has requested the temporary sign dimensions allowed be increased from 30 feet to 32 feet in Sec. 30 -93 -5 (A)(2), Temporary Signs. Mr. Holladay stated the public might offer some good feedback at the PCPH regarding the Sign Ordinance Revisions. Site Viewing The meeting was adjourned for site viewing at 4:30 p.m. 2 PUBLIC HEARING: Mr. Witt called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Thomason gave the invocation and led the pledge of allegiance. There was the petition of Cotton Hill Land Company, LC to Rezone 22.743 acres from AR Agricultural Residential District to R -1 Low Density Residential District for a development of single family housing located at Virginia Secondary Route 688 (Cotton Hill Road) and Raintree Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. Ms. Janet Scheid, Roanoke County Planning, presented the staff report. Mr. Edward Natt briefly spoke stating he represents Cotton Hill Land Co. He then deferred the presentation of the petition to Mr. Len Boone. Mr. Boone apologized for not being better prepared at the previous PCPH. He stated they mistakenly assumed there would be no opposition to the new development. He apologized to the community for not soliciting their input and not informing them about the development plans. Mr. Boone reviewed previous proffers and site plans. He discussed the input received at the Community Meeting. He stated it would be best to develop the property as R -1 as opposed to AR based on engineering findings, economics, implementing citizen requests, and the development being self - contained if developed as R -1. He stated the current site plan is for 44 lots none of which are fronting Cotton Hill Road. He stated if developed as proposed, there would be only one ingress and one egress of the property. He stated if developed a public waterline and a hydrant will be added to the area. He stated they have expanded the proffers to include a fence around a portion of the Roanoke Wildlife Refuge. He stated they would like to meet with VDOT prior to the BOS meeting to discuss if the required right of way area could be lessened. He stated if they refuse to lessen it, he will yield the required area to them. He stated they will preserve as many trees as reasonably possible. He reviewed the current site plan including grading of the area. He stated they plan to leave the perimeter of the property virtually undisturbed except for the possibility of a detention pond. Mr. Thomason asked if the fence around the Roanoke Wildlife Refuge would be chain -link or wooden. Mr. Boone stated they were unsure if wooden would suffice for the purpose of the fence, although a wooden fence would be more aesthetically appropriate for the area, Mr. Steve Strauss stated he spoke with the Executive Director of the Roanoke Wildlife Refuge who stated that a chain -link fence was approved. He stated a chain link fence is not appropriate for the neighborhood. Mr. Witt noted Proffer #8 suggested by Planning Staff regarding installation of a water line and fire hydrant. Mr. Boone stated suggested revision to Proffer #8 is acceptable. Several citizens spoke regarding the new development. Dorothy Runion, Executive Director of Roanoke Wildlife Refuge, Ralph Davis, Anne 3 Krochalis, Katharine Shank, Bill Adams, Richard Dirkens, Joan Hopkins, and Claudine Ujvary all spoke regarding the development. Ms. Runion stated she had the impression there would be another Community Meeting prior to the PCPH. She stated the fence, which is to be provided, is a concern since the USDA's regulation requires a 6 -foot fence around the entire property. She suggested using vinyl fencing, which would not decay. She stated her organization is currently working on funding to fence the remainder of the property. She requested the petitioner execute a written contact regarding maintenance responsibility of the fence. Mr. Ralph Davis stated he has had difficulty getting up Cotton Hill Road during inclement weather. He suggested that economic development should not be the only consideration. He stated that incentives should be presented to encourage developers to keep AR zoning for developments and that the zoning changes in the Poage Valley area are making the area more suburb than rural in nature. He expressed concern regarding the need for a traffic light at the Cotton Hill Road/Route 221 intersection. He suggested the waterline be installed within the electrical easement. He also suggested the hydrant be placed near the Blue Ridge Parkway to prevent damage to the tree line. He noted secondary road improvements are unlikely with the current budget shortfalls. Ms. Krochalis stated she was disappointed a second Community Meeting had not been held. She expressed concern returning the petition to the Planning Commission is setting a precedent. She stated that she is a consultant to the Roanoke Wildlife Center and she requested that the fence around that property be included in the final decision. She expressed concern regarding the schools and Cotton Hill Road. She stated that long -term costs of this development will outweigh the benefits to the County. Ms. Katharine Shank stated the fence should meet the agency's requirements. She stated she hoped proffers would be enforced. Mr. Witt informed her the proffers are legally binding if passed by the BOS. Mr. Adams noted Cotton Hill Road and Route 221 are currently overburdened with traffic. Mr. Adams inquired as to the density of the Groves and the Gardens. Mr. Strauss stated the density is approximately 2.5 houses /acre. Mr. Adams recommended keeping the area population under control. Mr. Dirkens from the Church of the Latter Day Saints stated his church wants to be a good neighbor in the community. He expressed concern about the high volume of traffic negatively impacting the safety of church members with young children. He also expressed concern regarding the possibility that the outdoor lighting and outdoor gatherings at the church may disturb the residents of the new development. Mr. Thomason inquired about the specific location of the church. He noted neighboring residents park in the church parking lot when they are unable to get up Cotton Hill Road due to inclement weather. Ms. Hopkins expressed disbelief VDOT does not see a need for a traffic light at the intersection of Cotton Hill Road/Route 221. Mr. Witt agreed there is a high volume of traffic entering Route 221 at this location. Ms. Ujvary expressed concern about the KI increase in traffic. She also asked if dirt will be allowed to wash onto her property during construction of the development. Mr. Witt informed her of the laws, which require developers to control runoff from construction areas. Mr. Boone stated they will alter the fence proffer to include vinyl fencing. Mr. Boone apologized for not having a second Community Meeting prior to the PCPH. He stated he thought the BOS had requested a second meeting prior to the petitioner's second appearance in front of the BOS. Mr. Thomason commended the petitioner on their plan but expressed concerned regarding the condition of the Cotton Hill Road, Mr. Boone staffed they have tried to do everything VDOT has requested. Mr. Boone stated they may also grade the first two lots to improve sight distance. Mr. Azar asked who will be responsible for maintaining the vinyl fence and the length of time they would be responsible for its maintenance. He also asked if the petitioner would replace trees removed in order to install the waterline. Mr. Boone stated a homeowners association would be organized to cover fence maintenance costs. Regarding the replanting of trees, he stated if anything of substance is removed, they will replace it with 4' -5' trees. Mr. Thomason asked if the petitioner could delay the development six more months in order to try to acquire more funding for road improvements. Mr. Boone explained the negative impact it would have on his company and its employees if they delay development. Ms. Hooker commended Mr. Boone and Mr. Strauss for working with the community. Mr. Witt expressed his approval of mitigating concerns regarding the fence issue. He stated if the property remained AR, Ms. Runion would be totally responsible for the fencing of her property. He stated since AR would have allowed 39 lots and the current site plan with zoning R -1 has 44 lots, the increase in vehicles from 5 additional lots appears to be worth the installation of the waterline to Sylvan Brook. Mr. Witt then made the motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request with the following proffers: Development of the property will be limited to forty -four (44) lots in substantial conformity with the plan entitled "Hampshire Prepared for Cotton Hill Land Co., LC" by Lumsden Associates, P.C. under date of January 8, 2003, entitled "Layout With New Proffers for Revised Rezoning Request ", provided, however, that should VDOT require the entrance to be relocated, the internal street pattern may be adjusted to provide for forty -four (44) lots. 2. Other than as necessary for the installation of the road system within the property, the installation of utilities, storm drainage and detention basins required by the appropriate governmental officials for development of the property, and the clearing and grading for the proper use of the building sites on the lots, no trees will be removed. 3. Developer will cause to be recorded among the land records of Roanoke County covenants which prohibit future owners of any lots from removing any tree that measures 3 inches or greater in diameter at a height of 4 feet above the ground as long as said tree is healthy. Said covenants shall further include provisions establishing an Architectural Review Committee which shall be charged with the responsibility of reviewing requests of future owners to change the existing landscaping and grounds on any lot once the lot has been developed and has a home constructed on that lot. Said Architectural Review Committee shall prohibit the removal of any trees 3 inches or greater in diameter at a height of 4 feet above the ground unless the removal of such tree is in the interest of safety as determined by the Architectural Review Committee. 4. No driveways for lots will be permitted on Cotton Hill Road, Raintree Road or Sylvan Brook Road. 5. The property will be accessed by a single entrance from Cotton Hill Road at a location to be approved by VDOT. 6. Developer agrees to dedicate in fee simple to VDOT all property necessary for the improvements to Cotton Hill Road up to a maximum amount as shown on the plan dated March 26, 2003, or such lesser amount as may be agreed upon between the developer and VDOT. 7. Designated areas along Raintree and Sylvan Brook Road, as shown on the plan shall be left in their natural, undisturbed state. 8. A water line easement shall be provided through the property to Sylvan Brook Road. The Developer shall install a water line within said easement and place a fire hydrant at Sylvan Brook Road in a location to be approved by the Roanoke County Fire Department. Developer shall plant trees within the area where trees of any substance are removed as a result of the installation of the water line. 9. Developer shall install a 6 -foot vinyl fence at the rear of Lots 2 through 6 and through Lot 7 to the point where the Runyon's left side (south) property line intersects the rear lot line of Lot 7. The developer shall include in the obligations of the Homeowners Association the responsibility for maintaining such fence. 2 10. Developer shall grade Lots 1 and 44 as necessary for sight distance approval as determined by VDOT. AYES: Witt, Hooker, Thomason, Azar, Ross NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mr. Boone stated they plan to have a Community Meeting in approximately two weeks. 2. There was the petition of Jeff Montgomery to obtain a Special Use Permit to operate a used automobile dealership on .57 acres located at 406 Dexter Road, Hollins Magisterial District. Mr. David Holladay, Roanoke County Planning, presented the staff report. Mr. Jeff Montgomery, President of RPM Motorsports, stated his business sells vehicles solely via the Internet. He stated the business requires an indoor storage facility for the vehicles prior to the sale. He stated all vehicles will remain within the storage building until they are delivered to the buyer. He stated his company will not change the appearance of the community. Mr. Azar asked if any mechanical repair will be performed at this facility. Mr. Montgomery stated they may wash the vehicles at the facility but vehicles are already restored when they receive them. Mr. Ross asked how long Mr. Montgomery had been doing this type of work. Mr. Montgomery stated that he had been working with vehicles all of his life. Mr. Ross asked how many vehicles he sold last year. Mr. Montgomery stated he previously worked at a car lot and did not sell via the Internet last year. He stated he sells approximately 4 -6 specialty vehicles each month. He stated most vehicles are transported in a closed car trailer. There were no citizen comments. Mr. Ross then made the motion to recommend approval of the special use permit with the following conditions: All vehicles and auto parts shall be kept inside the storage building. AYES: Witt, Hooker, Thomason, Azar, Ross NAYS: None ABSENT: None 7 3. There was the petition of Maurice Lucas to obtain a Special Use Permit to operate a private stable on 13.460 acres located at 5500 Huntridge Road, Hollins Magisterial District. Mr. Chris Lowe, Roanoke County Planning, presented the staff report. Mr. Witt questioned the waste management wording. Mr. Lowe stated the language is directly from the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Witt agreed to allow the existing language. Mr. Ross then made the motion for favorable approval of the special use permit with the following conditions: No more than 7 (1 horse per 2 acres) horses shall be permanently stabled on the property. 2. All animal grazing areas shall have sufficient ground cover to minimize storm water runoff and erosion. 3. The area for containment of the horses shall be fenced on all sides. 4. Animal waste shall be managed properly so as to not create a nuisance or health hazard to adjoining or nearby property owners. AYES: Thomason, Hooker, Witt, Azar, Ross NAYS: None ABSENT: None 4. The petition of Graham Family Limited Partnership to obtain a Special Use Permit to construct and operate a car wash located at 7005 Williamson Road, Hollins Magisterial District. Mr. David Holladay, Roanoke County Planning, presented the staff report. Referring to the Concept Plan, Mr. Ross asked how the property is accessed. Mr. Holladay explained in the future the property may be accessed from either side. Mr. Witt inquired about future plans regarding the plated 'paper street.' Mr. Holladay stated the street could be vacated if all adjoining property owners were in agreement. Mr. Natt introduced Mr. Ian Graham and Mr. Jim Graham of the Graham Family Limited Partnership. Mr. Natt presented a new site plan. Mr. Natt stated the petitioner's intent is to improve Boxley Road not to close it. He stated this development will allow pubic utilities to be brought to other lots in this area. He stated the sole entrance to the facility will be off of Boxley Road. Mr. Witt asked who would be responsible for building the road. Mr. Natt stated the petitioner will be responsible for building the proposed road. Mr. Thomason inquired whether or not the facility would be a manned location. Mr. Natt stated the facility will be open 24 hours per day with periodic monitoring of the property. He stated the petitioner currently has a car wash facility in operation on Hollins Road. Mr. Ross reviewed the conditions and site plan. Two citizens spoke. Mr. Herman Estachio and Mr. Paul Black. Mr. Herman Estachio stated his property is adjacent to the petitioner's property. He asked how far the fencing would go up Boxley Road. Mr. Natt explained the site plan. Mr. Witt pointed out lots 7 and 8 are not being rezoned, therefore they do not require any fencing. Mr. Estachio expressed concern regarding trash on the property. Mr. Witt stated the property will be cleaned -up daily but not manned. Mr. Paul Black stated he manages the Hash Estate in North Hills. He stated this development will assist in creating better access to Boxley Road for further development of his remaining property in North Hills. Mr. Ross then made the motion for favorable approval of the special use permit with the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in substantial conformity with the site plan dated March 21, 2003. 2. The site shall be developed in compliance with the Williamson Road Guidelines. 3. Access shall be granted from Boxley Road (Route 1802) only and shall not connect to Greenway Drive. AYES: Thomason, Hooker, Witt, Azar, Ross NAYS: None ABSENT: None 5. The petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission to amend the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Section 30 -93, Signs. Mr. David Holladay, Roanoke County Planning, presented the staff report. Mr. David Holladay expressed the need to discuss tri- vision and electronic message boards in more detail. He stated dwell time and twirl time limitations need to be established. He stated this can be written into the Sign Ordinance exclusively for tri- vision signage. He noted Off- Premises Signs and Temporary Signs need to be discussed. Mr. Holladay reviewed Sec. 30- 93- 11(C)(1), Nonconforming Signs. He stated the ordinance has a definition of Replacement Cost but not specifically Replacement Value, which leaves this issue in interpretation "limbo." He G1 reviewed the Replacement Value definition. Mr. Holladay reported the PC had discussed changing the language to Replacement Cost so that it would conform to the definition. He stated that Mr. Witt previously noted that since Off - Premises signs are assessed as Personal Property, they depreciate each year. He stated On- Premises Signs are considered Real Estate and do not have a Personal Property assessment value associated with them. He stated the ordinance may need to be further defined strictly for Off Premises signs. He also explained one of the sign companies had suggested an increase in the square footage of Temporary Signs in order to accommodate the stock dimensions of the signs. Mr. Holladay noted it has been necessary for all entities to compromise on certain issues. He stated some incentives and flexibility have been incorporated into the revisions. Mr. Ed Natt and several sign company representatives spoke. Mr. Al Williamson, Sign Design, requested a revision to Temporary Signs, Sec.30 -93 -8. He requested the allowable dimensions be extended from 30 feet to 32 feet in a commercial districts and from 15 feet to 16 feet in all other zoning districts. He stated this is to accommodate the stock size of some temporary signs. Mr. Bill Lodzinski, Lamar Advertising, expressed concern regarding the signage already in place. He stated they want to maintain the signs they currently have in place. He stated the Cap & Replace regulation penalizes the sign companies and their employees. Mr. Lodzinski stated Lamar has not built a new billboard since 1996. Mr. Ed Natt spoke representing Charles Franklin Advertising regarding the tri- vision signs. Regarding Sec. 30- 93 -4(7), he stated the ordinance should include a consistent definition regarding message boards. Mr. Witt agreed definitions are very important. Mr. Natt stated tri- vision signs would allow more advertisements on each board, which would lessen the number of signage structures. He stated the dwell time is the key issue. He introduced Mr. Miller from Charles Franklin Advertising. Mr. Witt asked Mr. Natt if he was aware the dwell time for the Carilion tri- vision sign on Franklin Road is 15 seconds. Mr. Natt stated that particular sign was negotiated with Roanoke City. He stated 6, 7 or 10 seconds is the optimal dwell time for a sign within the community. Mr. Witt asked Mr. Miller to identify a 'reasonable' twirl time. Mr. Miller stated he believes the average twirl time is 3 seconds. He noted with improving technology the mechanisms continue to move more quickly. Mr. Ross noted he would like to clarify Off - premise signs regarding the Non - conforming Cap & Replace regulation, Sec. 30- 93- 14(A)(3). Ms. Scheid explained the regulation. Mr. Ross stated the revision should be more clearly written. Mr. Witt explained his interpretation. The sign company representatives expressed their interpretation of the language. Mr. Lodzinski stated the language should be clarified. Mr. Natt asked the PC to determine dwell and twirl time for tri- vision signage since Mr. Miller had traveled from out of town. Mr. Witt stated the commissioners would prefer to review the 10 language of all of the proposed ordinance revisions at a PC Worksession. Mr. Natt stated he plans to attend the worksession. Ms. Hooker then made the motion to continue the Sign Ordinance Revisions petition for further consideration: AYES: Thomason, Hooker, Witt, Azar, Ross NAYS: None ABSENT: None & The petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission to amend the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Section 30 -53, C -'l Office District, to include personal services as a Permitted Use. Ms. Janet Scheid, Roanoke County Planning, presented the staff report. Ms. Joan Bugbee stated she had the impression from the Community Meeting that an exception for the two hairdressers at Windsor House was the only option being explored. Ms. Scheid explained staff had researched the issue from a broader perspective. She stated staff considered whether Personal Uses was an appropriate use type in all C -'I zoning, not just regarding the Windsor House property. Ms. Bugbee asked if the Permitted Uses could be limited to hairdressers only. Ms. Scheid stated only the Planning Commission could make that determination. She stated that the recommendation from staff is that little difference exists between the various uses with regards to the amount of traffic generated and the nature of the businesses included in the list of Permitted Uses, Mr. Witt noted this issue had been presented in relation to other rezonings. He stated this is not a reaction exclusively for the Windsor House property. Mr. Ross then made the motion for favorable approval of the revision: AYES: Thomason, Hooker, Witt, Azar, Ross NAYS: None ABSENT: None Citizens Comments There were no citizen comments. Comments Mr. Holladay gave an update of the progress of the Comp Plan Revision. He stated next month he will provide an update of the schedule. He reported on his meeting with the Roanoke County Stormwater Management group. He stated the group plans to develop an outline that they will present at PC Worksession. Mr. Witt encouraged staff to pursue community involvement. 11 Ms. Scheid stated a PC Worksession is scheduled for April 15 to discuss the Sign Ordinance Revisions and the Star Solutions, presentation. Ms. Hooker stated during the PC Work session that she would like to discuss solutions regarding Roanoke County's "One-Armed Bandits"' littering their routes. The petition of Fellowship Community Church to obtain a Special Use Permit to construct and operate a daycare on 15.652 acres located at Red Lane Extension at Interstate 81, Baptist Children's Home, Catawba Magisterial District was approved by the Board of Supervisors at the Public Hearing on March 25, 2003. There being no additional business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved: Secretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission 12