Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/4/2001 - MinutesROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 Present: Mr. Al Thomason Ms. Martha Hooker Mr. Don Witt Mr. Kyle Robinson Mr. Todd Ross Mr. John Murphy Ms. Janet Scheid, Secretary Ms. Tammi Wood, Recording Secretary WORK SESSION: Session opened at 4:23pm by Mr. Al Thomason. Approval of A ends Mr. Don Witt moved to approve the agenda. Motion passed 5-0. Approval of Minutes Mr. Thomason moved to approve the August 7, 2001 public hearing minutes with changes. Motion passed 5-0. Mr. Thomason moved to approve the August 21, 2001 work session minutes. Motion passed 5-0. Approval of Consent Agenda Mr. Thomason moved to approve the consent agenda. Motion passed 5-0. There was a brief discussion of the Silberblatt, Windsor House petition. Ms. Scheid gave an overview of the return of the Bowman -Dalton petition. Mr. Holladay discussed the amendment of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, Section 30-21 (B) Enforcement Procedures. The purpose of the amendment is to reduce and unify the violator correction period from 14 or 15 days to 10 days. Mr. Holladay stated that there are always instances that the violations are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Review of Draft Mountain Protection Ordinance Ms. Scheid presented the update on this ordinance. She discussed several charts and scenarios of slope vs. grade. There is a necessity to set a "general' standard due to the number of exceptional cases that may occur. Ms. Scheid passed out a tentative timeline for the upcoming ordinances. Mr. Murphy detailed that the subdivision ordinance began as a "tune-up" but quickly became an 'overhaul." The landscape ordinance will be ready for presentation to the BOS on November 6, 2001. Site Viiewinq The meeting was adjourned for site viewing at 5:15pm. 2 PUBLIC HEARING: Mr. Al Thomason called the meeting to order at 7:00pm. Ms. Martha Hooker gave the invocation and led the pledge of allegiance. The continuation of the petition of Nathaniel C. Haile to obtain a Special Use Permit to develop a golf course on 364 acres and rezone 118 acres from AG -3, Agricultural to AR, Agricultural Residential, located at 3608 Pitzer Road, SE, Vinton Magisterial District. Ms. Janet Scheid, Roanoke County Planning, presented the Staff Report for this petition. Mr. Robinson asked if petitioner had considered proffering a minimum square footage for the houses. Ms. Scheid said that had not been discussed. Mr. Witt asked if the golf course were not built, would 364 houses still be built. Ms. Scheid stated that the acreage could hypothetically support approximately 200 houses. Mr. Haile is planning for 80 houses with the golf course. The main challenge will be the water and sewer, which must cross the Blue Ridge Parkway. Mr. Thomason questioned whether the water and sewer permits had been applied for. Ms. Scheid stated they had not. Mr. Nathaniel Haile, 2701 Homeplace Drive, Blacksburg, VA gave a brief history of the petition. Mr. Robinson stated that he had no problem with the rezoning or the special use permit requests, his only interest were the unanswered questions such as financing and investors. Mr. Haile stated that he had interested private parties and a couple of banks waiting to invest. He stated that the golf course would be developed in stages with the golf course being constructed first and the lots and homes sold after the golf course is completed. Mr. Robinson asked if Mr. Haile had considered a minimum square footage requirement for the housing. Mr. Haile stated that he was focusing on the quality of the housing rather than the square footage. Mr. Ross stated that the issue should be the maximum number of units on the site rather than the square footage per house. Mr. Witt stated that retirement homes of less than 1800 square feet would be very marketable in that area. Mr. Robinson questioned whether a retirement community could be built with the present petition request. Mr. Ross stated that there could be a homeowner's fee agreement — maintenance association could be utilized, and that homes 1500 square feet with wood trims and flooring would be more marketable than 2000 square feet homes with vinyl siding and carpeting. Mr. Robinson stated that his requirements were average for the area and that he was just looking for a minimum standard of building. Mr. Haile stated that the rezoning was crucial to get financing and that he has spent the last six months working on the project. Mr. Haile also confirmed that there has been a concern regarding the proposed 1-73 corridor. Mr. Kyle Robinson then made the motion to recommend approval of the rezoning of 118 acres to AR with the proffer of: • The minimum above grade square footage for single-family residential homes will be 1800 square feet for single story/ranch style homes and 2400 square feet for multi -story (1 '/2 - 2 story) homes. Rezoning: AYES: Hooker, Ross, Robinson, Witt, Thomason NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mr. Robinson made the motion to recommend approval of the Special Use permit for a golf course to include houses with the conditions of: • The Jack Nicholas designers or an equal or greater quality designer must design the golf course. • The fertilizer used to minimize the effect of the surface and ground water pollution. Special Use Permit: AYES: Hooker, Ross, Robinson, Witt, Thomason NAYS: None ABSENT: None 2. 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 3500 block of Pinevale Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. Mr. John Murphy, Roanoke County Planning, presented the Staff Report for this petition. Mr. Thomason asked where the underground water drainage would be. Mr. Murphy stated that it would be in the vicinity of the 16-18 foot drop on the land at the lowest area but that full engineering had not been done on the site yet. Mr. Thomason stated that substantial buffering needed to be placed in the backyard and questioned whether the plan was updated to show the mature trees to remain. Mr. Witt questioned what the buffer is between C-1 and residential zoning. Mr. Murphy referred him to the staff report. Mr. Ross questioned whether the existing buffering is sufficient. Mr. Robinson asked if the property was sold as residential could undesirable changes take place such as unusual exterior painting, utility vehicles parking in the new parking spaces and cutting down of existing trees. Staff replied yes. 4 Mr. Ed Natt, Petitioner's counsel, stated that the petitioner is requesting the rezoning in order to meet a licensing accreditation requirement for the clinic, which must be in place by July 2002. He stated that the building addition would be placed on the original site and only parking on the expanded site. Mr. Natt stated that there were originally three options for the concept plan, and that they chose option #2 because it was the only option to use the existing driveway on Pinevale Road. He stated that 41 parking spaces were required by Roanoke County Code and he did not believe that the petitioner would require all the spaces. Mr. Natt stated that the neighbors would be agreeable to a parking area with fewer parking spaces. It was stated that the Brambleton Center (across the street) parking lot extends deeper into the neighborhood than the petitioner is proposing with his addition. Mr. Thomason questioned if the fence buffering could be extended along the residential area to the first turn of the road. Mr. Natt stated yes. Mr. Ross confirmed that if a new building were constructed on the same lot, 15-16 parking spaces would be required now. Ms. Hooker stated that the Brambleton Center parking lot has many more spaces than the clinic. Mr. Witt questioned if the petition were to be approved, would it be possible to design a standard buffer without a fence. There was a discussion of the concept plan. There were several citizen comments. Mrs. Deanna Bratcher, 3257 Hastings Road, was concerned about the neighborhood protection, feel, and looks. She is requesting that it stay a residential area and that there are a large number of other commercial properties available on Rt. 221. She is also concerned about possible decreasing pro erty value of the adjoiner's property. Mrs. Maxine Henson, 1101 15 n Street, SE, grandmother of a child born with cleft palate and lip which was repaired by Dr. Silberblatt. She would like to see him get what he needs. Ms. Nancy Wingfield, 3522 Pinevale Road, 37 year resident, is concerned about the entrance to the neighborhood, decreasing property value, and the effects on the many families in the area. Ms. Marion Myers, 3516 Pinevale Road, a 14 year resident, whose lot adjoins Dr. Silberblatt's lot stated that he should relocate to another street area. Ms. Joan Bugbee, 3529 Pinevale Road, stated that all neighbors agree that Dr. Silberblatt is a good doctor. She referred to several statements on the application which she disagrees with (no negative impact on adjoining property, not objectionable to the single family residential properties) and had a petition signed by neighbors. Her three main concerns were: Permanent change to the residential character of the neighborhood; Future commercial use by other businesses; Decreasing property values. 5 Ms. Barbara Green, 3234 Oakdale Road, a 32 year resident, stated that the area of the proposed parking lot was a "Gateway to the Neighborhood" and the proposed parking lot will alter the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Ray Cooper, 3234 Oakdale Road, 23 year resident, stated that the Brambleton Center parking lot buffer was not appealing, and he can see through the pine trees. Ms. Patricia Meador, 3245 Oakdale Road, resident since 1941, is concerned that there is no guarantee that there would only be a parking lot there. She appreciates the character of the Dr.'s office, but the lot should stay residential not commercial. Mr. George Bugbee, 3529 Pinevale Road, was originally attracted to the neighborhood by the "leafy lane" and would not have considered buying in the area if he had known that the lot would be rezoned commercial. Mr. Steve Smith, 3223 Lawndale, a 16 year resident, stated that the neighbors were together for a common cause. He had two concerns — water run-off and traffic. Pinevale has water standing on it now and this will increase run-off. Ms. Christie Wray, 3705 Pinevale Road, a 23 year resident, had questions concerning what VDOT bases its traffic count numbers on. She was also concerned about the increased traffic and children having a safe place to play as well as increases in accidents in the area in the recent past. Mr. Dick Ratcliff, 3536 Pinevale Road, stated that he nor many of the other neighbors had not been contacted by the petitioner contrary to Mr. Natt's stating that they had. Mr. Natt stated that Mr. Mundy spoke with six neighbors and notices were placed in 25 additional neighbor's mailboxes. Mr. Natt reiterated that Dr. Silberblatt must have the parking lot to stay at his current location. He also stated that the character of the neighborhood would not be changed because there were no new entrances, and that there was already another parking lot on the other side of Pinevale. He said that this rezoning does not open the door to other rezoning/SUP requests because each one must be requested before the PC and the BOS separately. He stated that the property values would not be affected by the rezoning. Finally he stated that the staff was in favor of the rezoning, design guidelines encourage parking in the rear with adequate screening and buffering; and as far as the residents of the neighborhood are concerned, having a parking lot at Brambleton Center has not effected their moving out or new neighbors moving in to the neighborhood. Dr. Silberblatt, the petitioner, stated that no cleft surgery would be performed at the clinic. He also stated that if he were forced to move from the present site, he would need money to move the clinic and would fully develop both parcels. Mr. Ross stated that he felt the petitioner's request is reasonably well buffered and contiguous with the area. Ms. Hooker concurred with Mr. Ross but could also understand the neighbor's concerns. Mr. Witt mentioned the Neighborhood Conservation Designation and stated that he remembered the Auto Zone issue. He also stated that he likes the building and that its character does create an entry way to the neighborhood. Mr. Witt stated that if the rezoning doesn't pass, the building could become another type of business and that might create additional problems for the neighbors. Mr. Thomason stated that he had lived in the neighborhood for 15 years and was concerned about the area. He felt that many aspects of the proposal were positive such as the business hours, cleanliness of the site, clientele, etc. Mr. Al Thomason then made the motion to approve the rezoning with the following proffered conditions. • That the subject property will be used solely for parking purposes in conjunction with the medical office use on Tax Parcel 77.09-04-36. • That the parking plan will be in substantial conformity with the site plan identified as Option #2 and dated August 14, 2001, using the entrance, as approved by VDOT, in the existing location. • A proper application, in a reasonable period of time will be submitted to the BZA to reduce the number of parking spaces required by the Roanoke County Ordinance. • Substantial buffering will be added to the lot such as will be discussed with the neighbors. Rezoning AYES: Hooker, Ross, Robinson, Witt, Thomason NAYS: None ABSENT: None FINAL ORDERS The petition of Nathaniel C. Haile to obtain a Special Use Permit to develop a golf course on 364 acres and rezone 118 acres from AG - 3, Agricultural to AR, Agricultural Residential, located at 3608 Pitzer 7 Road, SE, Vinton Magisterial District. (Request to be continued by the petitioner.) 2. The petition of the American Tower Corporation to obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a broadcast tower on 34.83 acres located on the Bent Mountain Substation, 8920 Willett Lane, Windsor Hills Magisterial District was denied by the Board of Supervisors at the Public Hearing on August 28, 2001, 3. The petition of The Community of Faith to obtain a Special Use Permit for a religious facility on 1.033 acres located at 5343 Fallowater Lane, Cave Spring Magisterial District was approved by the Board of Supervisors at the Public Hearing on August 28, 2001. 4. The petition of Hugh R. & Carolyn Elsea to obtain a Special Use Permit for a private horse stable on 2.99 acres and a 30 foot right- of-way on adjoining parcel located at 3663 Chaparral Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District was denied by the Board of Supervisors at the Public Hearing on August 28, 2001. 5. The petition of Bowman Dalton, Inc. to Rezone 4.62 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 was continued to the October 2, 2001 Planning Commission Public Hearing by the Board of Supervisors at the Public Hearing on August 28, 2001. 6. The petition of RA -DE Div., Ltd. T/A Perfect Touch to Rezone 1.13 acres from C-1 Office District with conditions to C-1 Office District located at 5681 Starkey Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District was approved by the Board of Supervisors at the Public Hearing on August 28, 2001. Additional Comments Several citizens questioned the procedures of the BOS Public Hearing. It was reiterated that the Planning Commission couldn't guarantee that there will not be changes in the site if it is eventually sold but that requests must go through the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors for a Special Use Permit or a Rezoning. Another citizen asked if anything could be done regarding the lack of buffering at the Brambleton Center. It was stated that the buffering requirements must continue to be met. And the original proffers must be kept. The September Work Session has been cancelled. Mr. Thomason liked using the timed lights. Mr. Witt stated that he disagrees with Mr. Thomason and that the citizens need a right to express themselves and he thought the lights were intimidating. Ms. Hooker felt that it encouraged the citizens to be more concise, but agreed that it is the only time that the citizen has an opportunity to voice their opinion. Mr. Ross stated that he felt the hearing went excellent. Mr. Robinson stated that if there are only 1 or 2 citizen requests for comments, then the lights should not be used, but if numerous requests are received, then the lights should be used. Mr. Ross stated that when the petitioner's counsel presents a rebuttal to citizen's comments that the rebuttal should be directed to the Planning Commission and not refer to individual citizens by name. In his opinion this tendency creates tension. Ms. Hooker felt it was poor judgment on the counsel's part. Mr. Robinson agreed with Mr. Ross. There being no additional business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:56pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved: Secretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission 6