Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/6/2001 - MinutesROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 6, 2001 Present: Mr. Al Thomason Ms. Martha Hooker Mr. Don Witt Mr. Kyle Robinson Mr. Todd Ross Mr. John Murphy Ms. Janet Scheid, Secretary Mr. John Murphy Mr. Chris Lowe Mr. Tim Beard Ms. Tammi Wood, Recording Secretary WORK SESSION: Session opened at 4:05pm by Mr. Al Thomason. Approval of Agenda Mr. Al Thomason moved to approve the agenda. Motion passed 5 -0. Approval of Minutes Mr. Al Thomason moved to approve the October minutes. Mr. Todd Ross seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0. Approval of Consent Agenda Mr. Al Thomason moved to approve the consent agenda. Motion passed 5 -0. Update on Windsor House There was a brief update on the issues related to Windsor House. It was questioned whether shared parking with adjoining businesses had been considered. Site Viewing The meeting was adjourned for site viewing at 4:13pm. PUBLIC HEARING: Mr. Al Thomason called the meeting to order at 7:00pm. Mr. Todd Ross gave the invocation and led the pledge of allegiance. There was a petition of Windsor House, Inc. to rezone .398 acres from R -1 Residential District to C -1 Office District with conditions for expansion of a medical clinic and related parking, located at 2501 Pinevale Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. Mr. John Murphy, Roanoke County Planning stated that there was no new information. Mr. Ed Natt made a brief overview statement and stated that the petitioner was appearing with an alternative, labeled Option #3. This plan revised the parking on the rear lot, behind the building and placed the majority of parking in front of the building adjacent to Brambleton Avenue. The portion of the back parcel needed for 10 parking spaces and required buffer yard would be rezoned C -1 while the remainder would remain zoned R -1. Mr. Thomason questioned the square foot difference for the new plan and if the remaining property was still buildable. Mr. Natt stated yes. Mr. Ross favored the new plan and stated it was a good alternative. Ms. Hooker said she appreciated the flexibility of the petitioner working with the neighbors. Mr. Witt asked if the petitioner had considered using the adjacent property's parking area for additional parking, Mr. Natt stated that was not an option because the Brambleton Center's parking lot was already inadequate for the building's square footage. Mr. Thomason asked if the current plan was the only one being considered. Mr. Natt stated yes. Ms. Joan Bugbee, 3529 Pinevale, questioned why there was no documentation stating 10 parking spaces and 15 feet attached to the Option #3 Concept Plan. It was stated that there would be documentation added to the plan prior to the BOS meeting. Mr. George Bugbee, 3529 Pinevale, stated he was against any rezoning at all, but that the current proposal was an improvement and would like to see the rezoning limited to 10 parking spaces. Mr. Thomason clarified that there will be proffers made for Option #3. Mr. Ray Cooper, 3234 Oakdale Road stated that with one part of the property rezoned it would be "chipping away" the residential zoning and would be less appealing to potential buyers should Dr. Silberblatt relocate. Mr. Barbara Green, 3234 Oakdale Road stated that she had only a short time to review the new option. She mentioned that she had talked to Mr. McNamara (BOS) regarding the necessity of the 5000 2 square foot expansion and she understood that there would be other functions included in the building (hairdresser, day spa). Mr. William Wingfield, 3522 Pinevale Road, a resident since 1964 opposed the rezoning. Ms. Nancy Wingfield, 3522 Pinevale Road, stated that the new option was an improvement from the original, but still does not want a parking lot on Pinevale Road. Mr. J. Weldon Myers, 3516 Pinevale Road underscored what was said. Ms. Christy Wray, 3704 Pinevale Road questioned if any additional research had been done on the increased traffic flow. Mr. Ed Natt stated that he would proffer that a portion of the R -1 lot would be rezoned to include sufficient space for 10 additional parking spaces and an additional 15 feet for buffering. Mr. Natt stated that Option #3 was not Dr. Silberblatt's choice and that he had considered other options. The size of the structure will be reduced therefore all parking may not be needed or constructed. Regarding the traffic patterns, no new exits or entrances will be constructed. The hairdressers are necessary to have in conjunction with the medical work of the applicant and they currently exist in his building. It was confirmed that the remaining lot will remain R -1 and can be used for R- 1 uses. Mr. Witt questioned if the concept plan showed the 15 feet buffer yard all the way around the 10 parking spaces. Ms. Scheid stated that the new Screening, Landscaping and Buffer Yard Ordinance (being considered this night) would require a minimum of 20 feet between C -1 and R -1 zoning districts. Mr. Thomason then made the motion to approve the rezoning of the site plan for the new Option #3 as amended by Mr. Natt with the following proffered condition. • The Plan will be in substantial conformance with the concept plan Option #3 (undated) to allow 10 parking spaces and either 15 feet or 20 feet, which ever is the required buffer yard per the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. Rezoning: AYES: Hooker, Robinson, NAYS: None ABSENT: None Witt, Hooker, Ross, Thomason 2. There was a petition of Stephen D. and Ruth E. Nash to obtain a Special Use Permit for 11.71 acres for a private stable located at 4911 Poor Mountain Road, Catawba Magisterial District. Mr. Chris Lowe, Roanoke County Planning, presented the Staff Report for this petition. 3 Ms. Hooker stated that the farm looked beautiful. Mr. Kyle Robinson stated that horses were the only thing that it lacked. Mr. Steven Nash, owner of 4911 Poor Mountain Road since January 2001 stated that he had purchased the property to make it into a farm. Several citizens spoke. Mr. James Gusler, 6225 Poor Mountain Road, stated that he had been in the neighborhood for 10 years and it would be a shame if the owners did not get the special use permit. Mr. Chris Henson, 4963 Poor Mountain Road, stated that he was a neighbor and that due to the amount of industrial business in the area, the idea of a farm with horses was nice and it was a great addition to the neighborhood. Ms. Donna Purdue, 4877 Poor Mountain Road, stated that the surrounding businesses, as well as a holding pond, were very unhealthy. She stated that it should not be a place for industries or horses. She also requested that if the horses are permitted, that a limit be imposed on the number of horses. Ms. Hooker questioned how long Ms. Purdue had lived in the area. She stated since 1968 and that she had had bad experiences in the past with neighbor's horses which roamed freely. Ms. Hooker then stated that the house was in the process of renovation, the fencing was being repaired, the property was zoned appropriately, the petitioners had agreed to the proffers and therefore the SUP was a reasonable request. Ms. Hooker then made the motion to approve the Special Use Permit with the three conditions: • A maximum of (4) four horses on the 11.71 acre parcel • All animal grazing areas shall have sufficient ground cover to minimize storm water run -off and erosion • The area for containment of the horses shall be fenced on all sides. Rezoning: AYES: Thomason, Hooker, Witt, Robinson, Ross NAYS: None ABSENT: None 3. There the petition of Star City Church of Christ to obtain a Special Use Permit for 8.91 acres for a religious assembly located at Va. Rte. 311 /Laurel Mountain Road intersection, Catawba Magisterial District. Mr. Tim Beard, Roanoke County Planning, presented the Staff Report for this petition. Ms. Hooker questioned the flood history of the building. It was stated that in the 1985 flood nothing disastrous happened. It was questioned whether additional parking would be needed. Mr. Beard stated the parking would be on the portion of the property above the building. Mr. 0 Witt asked that Mr. Beard expound upon why VDOT is asking about Stormwater Management facilities on this property. It was stated that none were notated on the concept plan but must be included on the site plans. The septic system requirements were discussed. Mr. Robinson questioned if the parking area had to be pavement if it is over 15 spaces. It was stated yes. Mr. Paul Hatfield, 816 Peyton Street, stated that he appreciated the work done by Tim Beard to meet the zoning requirements to prepare the application. He then gave a brief history of the church and an overview of the concept plan. Ms. Hooker questioned whether the applicant was comfortable with the proffer of no expansion on the current structure. Mr. Hatfield stated that any additional space would be added by building a new structure. Several citizens spoke. Ms. Jamie Hatfield, 1935 Hampton Avenue, SW, wanted to thank the Commission for hearing the petition. Mr. John Huddle, 1865 Laurel Mountain Drive, stated several concerns: congested roads, not a safe access, doesn't meet the County code, additional noise, change to the character of the neighborhood at the neighborhood's gate, lights, potential growth, not a good investment of community resources, flood potential, gravel parking (dust), neighborhood preservation, no allowance of mixed uses. Mr. Thomason questioned how many houses were in the Laurel Ridge community. It was stated +1- 44. Mr. Ross clarified that the petitioner is only required to contact the adjacent owners, not the affected owners. Ms. Sarah Huddle, 1865 Laurel Mountain Drive, was concerned about the safety issues on the roads and that there have been several "near wrecks" at the intersection. Ms. Carol Edwards, 1947 Laurel Mountain Drive, a resident since 1985, was concerned about the property entrance congestion. She also stated that she was there when the floor was replaced in the home and when repairs were made on the pool from the 1985 flood. Mr. Thomason was concerned about the parking in front of the church; Mr. Beard stated that there would be no parking where Swimmer Lane meets Route 311. Mr. Thomason asked about the church's use of the property. Mr. Hatfield stated that the church would likely meet on Sundays from 11:30- 1:OOpm and one weekday night per week from 6- 8:30pm. Mr. Witt questioned the area of the assembly hall. Mr. Hatfield stated that it was about 1600 square feet in the middle of a 3400 square foot building and that they could have a maximum number of 100 people in the building. Mr. Frederick Coughlan, 1882 Laurel Mountain Drive, a resident since 1986, had concerns on the congestion, traffic flow problems and several other roads entering at the same time. Z Mr. William Dunford, 1476 Dunford Drive, had a concern about the dust with a gravel parking lot and stated that the lot should be paved. Ms. Hooker stated that she was hearing a concern from the residents regarding traffic issues and asked Mr. Hatfield what contact he had with VDOT in regard to the petition. It was stated very little. Mr. Hatfield agreed that the concerns were valid. Ms. Hooker questioned whether the petitioner should contact VDOT and meet with neighbors to alleviate their concerns prior to proceeding with the petition. She thought that a continuance should be considered. Mr. Witt stated that he agreed. Mr. Robinson stated that VDOT will have to approve the entrance and that there will be changes. Mr. Robinson stated that a continuance would give the church time to check with VDOT and explore the expenses related to meeting VDOT's requirements and meet with the neighbors. Mr. Ross stated that in reference to the last two church petitions, he voted against them because the churches were in commercial areas, which were not good land uses. He then stated that this petition was a very good location and use of the property. He also stated that VDOT did say improvement would be needed and a continuance would allow the community to be informed by answering their questions prior to the petition. Ms. Hooker re- stated that the area was appropriate for a religious assembly but she had concerns relating to the traffic issues and road entrances. She stated that the continuance would give time to satisfy the neighbors concerns and give the church the opportunity to present these questions to VDOT. Ms. Hooker then made the motion to continue the Special Use Permit request for 30 days. Mr. Witt stated that the object of the continuance is to have the petitioner communicate with the property owners and VDOT and that he concurs with Ms. Hooker. Mr. Ross reiterated the continuance is to facilitate community communication and get a solid answer from VDOT. Mr. Robinson stated that a delayed decision is better than a bad one. Ms. Hooker asked Mr. Hatfield if he was opposed to the continuance and he stated that good community relations were important, but that he was pressured for the loan to clear, etc. He then asked what the next step was. Mr. Thomason then explained the process of the public hearings of the Planning Commission, BOS Meetings. AYES: Hooker, Witt, Ross, Thomason, NAYS: Robinson ABSENT: None G 4. There was the petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission to amend the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, Section 30 -92 Screening, Landscaping, and Buffer Yards. Mr. Chris Lowe, Roanoke County Planning, presented the Staff Report. There were no citizen comments. Ms. Hooker stated "Good Job ". Mr. Ross confirmed that the irrigation section stated that plants needed to be watered, not irrigated by a system. Mr. Robinson stated that he liked the flexibility. Mr. Al Thomason then made the motion to recommend approval for the ordinance as presented. AYES: Thomason, Hooker, Robinson, Ross, Witt NAYS: None ABSENT: None 5. There was the petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission to amend the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, Section 30 -23, Non - Conforming Uses and Structures. Mr. David Holladay, Roanoke County Planning, presented the Staff Report. There were no citizen comments. Ms. Thomason then made the motion to recommend approval for the ordinance as presented. AYES: Thomason, NAYS: None ABSENT: None Hooker, Robinson, Ross, Witt Citizens Comments There were no citizen comments. Comments Final Orders The petition of Bowman Dalton, Inc. to rezone 3.71 acres from C -1 Commercial Office District to R -3 Medium Density Multifamily Residential District for a development of multifamily housing located at 3990 Challenger Drive, Hollins Magisterial District was approved by the Board of Supervisors at the Public Hearing on October 23, 2001. 2. The petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission to amend the Roanoke County zoning ordinance, Section 30 -21 (B) Enforcement 7 Procedures, was approved by the Board of Supervisors at the Public Hearing on October 23, 2001. There being no additional business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:52pm. Respectfully Submitted, P W«Jd Approved: Secretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission