Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/21/2010 - RegularBradley E. Grose, Mayor Robert R. Altice, Councilmember Carolyn D. Fidler, Vice Mayor Matthew S. Hare, Councilmember William "Wes" Nance, Councilmember Vinton Town Council Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 21, 2010 AGENDA Consideration of: A. 7:00 P.M. — Roll Call and Establishment of a Quorum B. INVOCATION — Pastor Robert Wayne C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE U. S. FLAG D. CONSENT AGENDA E. AWARDS, RECOGNITIONS, PRESENTATIONS 1. Police Officer of the Month for August, 2010 —Stephen Foutz F. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND PETITIONS G. OLD BUSINESS H. TOWN ATTORNEY I. TOWN MANAGER J. MAYOR K. COUNCIL L. ADJOURNMENT Vinton Municipal Building 311 South Pollard Street Vinton, VA 24179 (540) 983-0607 NEXT TOWN COUNCIL MEETINGS: Regularly Scheduled Meeting of October 5, 2010 Council Retreat at the Vinton War Memorial from 5:00 p.m. — 8:00 p.m. on September 22 and from 8:00 a.m. — 4:00 p.m. on September 23, 2010 NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMPLY WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. Reasonable efforts will be made to provide assistance or special arrangements to qualified individuals with disabilities in order to participate in or attend Town Council meetings. Please call (540) 983-0607 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting date so that proper arrangements may be made. WORK SESSION 1. Discussion — Request to Allow the Keeping of Chickens within the Town Limits 2. Discussion — Hardy Road Rezoning Request 2 Vinton Police Department 311 SOUTH POLLARD STREET VINTON, VIRGINIA 24179 HERBERT G. COOLEY CHIEF OF POLICE PHONE (540) 983-0617 FAX (540) 983-0624 A State Accredited Agency September 8, 2010 To: Stephen S. Foutz, Police Officer From: Herbert G. Cooley, Chief of Police Re: Officer of the Month Congratulations! You have been nominated and selected as Officer of the Month for the month of August 2010. In August you were the primary officer on a call regarding an elderly man who was missing from a local assisted living facility. You spent the entire day gathering information, following up on leads, coordinating with other agencies, and constantly updating and reassuring the family. The gentleman was found safe and well the following day. Your commitment to duty and your personal, caring interaction with the family presented a very positive image for yourself and the Vinton Police Department. Good Work! Herbert G. Cooley, Chief of Police CC: Chris Lawrence, Town Manager Mayor and Members of Council Darleen Bailey, Town Clerk ACTION NO: 0 ITEM NO: TO: TOWN MANAGER'S OFFICE (i FROM: Anita J. McMillan, Planning and Zoning Director DATE: September 16, 2010 SUBJECT: Chickens in Urban Residential Areas ISSUE/PURPOSE: The Town has received a request from two citizens; Janet Scheid, 1453 Wolf Creek Drive, and Dawn Michelsen, 225 North Maple Street, for the Town to consider allowing them to raise chickens. Currently, under the Town Code, livestock including, but not limited to cattle, horses, sheep, goats, swine, fowl or rabbits are not allowed to be kept in the town limits. Town Staff includingChris Lawrence, Elizabeth Dillon, Anita McMillan, and Keith Dalton met on April 19, 2010, with Ms. Scheid and Ms. Michelsen. According to them, they would like to be able to raise chickens for eggs. Listed are reasons given by Ms. Michelsen as to why she would like to be able to have chickens on her property: l . Eggs that are fresh, great tasting, nutritious, and right outside her back door 2. Good hobby for retirement years 3. Easy and inexpensive to keep 4. Chemical free bug and weed control by chickens 5. Free and great fertilizer 6. Fun and friendly pets without the barking, hair balls and expensive vet bills 7. Fit into their values and lifestyle — non chemical, earth friendly — does not add to the costly environmental impact of conventionally raised food 8. Will not have unnecessary antibiotics and hormones in their body 9. It will create progressive image of Vinton — Ms. Michelsen remembers how impressed she was that Vinton was the first community to have recycling in Roanoke Valley 10. Ms. Michelsen feels that it is a great use of their property. 11. There will be no impact on their neighbors (they have 1.5 acres). They have spoken to the neighbors who think it is a great idea. One neighbor offered chain link fencing 12. It will show school age children the direct relationship with the food source and what they eat - deprogramming of fast food lifestyle 13. It is very important to be successful — there is a wealth of knowledge, resources, and experiences regarding urban chickens available. City of Roanoke: Sec. 6-93. - Definition. The word "poultry," as used in this article, shall mean any domesticated birds raised for food, either meat or eggs, feathers or show, including, but not limited to chickens, ducks, geese, swans, turkeys, guinea fowl and pigeons. Sec. 6-94. - Violation of article as nuisance. In addition to any penalty imposed for a violation of any provision of this article, such violation is hereby declared a public nuisance and any person suffering injury or damage therefrom may seek the correction, removal or abatement of such nuisance through appropriate suit in equity. Sec. 6-95. - Limitations on keeping. No person shall keep, place or maintain more than ten (10) poultry birds on any parcel of real property which contains area less than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet in any area of the city not zoned for agricultural use. No person shall keep, place or maintain more than forty (40) poultry birds on any parcel of real property in any area of the city, except an area zoned for agricultural use or a farm five (5) acres or larger in size. As used in this section, "farm" shall be defined as a parcel of land devoted to production for sale of plants or animals or to the production for sale of plant or animal products useful to man. Sec. 6-96. - Fencing; roaming at large. All poultry shall be kept in securely and suitably fenced areas, and no fenced area or pen for poultry shall be permitted closer than fifty (50) feet to any house or other building used for residential purposes by anyone other than the person maintaining such poultry or his immediate family. No poultry shall be permitted to roam at large. Sec. 6-97. - Maintenance of area where kept. Every person maintaining any area for keeping poultry shall keep it clean, sanitary and free from refuse. All poultry feed or other material intended for consumption by poultry shall be kept in containers impenetrable by rats or other rodents, and such containers shall be equipped with tightly fitting caps or lids. The presence of rats in an area used for the keeping of poultry shall be prima facie evidence that such area is maintained in violation of this section. City of Salem: Sec. 14-1. Keeping noisy, etc., animals or fowl. (a) No person shall, either on his own property or on any property in which he has any interest or over which he exercises any control, keep, maintain or allow to remain any animal or fowl which sets up, causes, emits or gives vent to incessant or intermittent or other noises or commotions of such a character and kind as to disturb any citizen of the city in the reasonable use and enjoyment of his property or so as to cause any person of ordinary sensibilities any actual physical discomfort. 0) (b) The keeping by any person of any animal or fowl which sets up, brings about, causes, emits or gives vent to such noises shall constitute a nuisance abatable as such by a proper suit in equity in the circuit court for the city, but this shall be in addition to and not in lieu of the punishment provided. Sec. 14-36. Confinement; permitting to trespass on property of others. All persons owning or having in their possession, under their control or on their premises chickens, ducks, guinea-fowl and any other like fowl shall strictly confine, keep up and pen the same so that they cannot get off the premises owned or controlled by any such person owning or having or in charge of such chickens, ducks, guineas and like fowl. If any chickens, ducks, guineas and like fowl are allowed, permitted, or in any way trespass upon the property of others, then the owner or the person having charge of such chicken, duck, guinea or other fowl on his premises shall be punished as provided in section 1-7. Each time any chicken, duck, guinea or other like fowl trespasses upon the property of another shall constitute a separate offense. Sec. 14-37. Keeping certain fowl as nuisance. The keeping by any person of any chickens, turkeys, ducks or other poultry or fowl which either disturbs any citizen of the city in the reasonable use and enjoyment of his property or causes any person of ordinary sensibilities any actual physical discomfort, or creates or brings about an insanitary situation or condition detrimental to the health of any citizen of the city, shall constitute a nuisance abatable as such by a proper suit in equity in the circuit court for the city, but this shall be in ® addition to, and not in lieu of, the punishment provided. Town of Rocky Mount Sec. 10-72. Where poultry may be kept. It shall be unlawful for any person to keep or maintain within the town any poultry within 500 feet of any residence or commercial building of another located within the town; provided, that if the keeping of such poultry within the town, regardless of the distance such poultry are kept from the residence or commercial building of another, becomes a nuisance or health hazard, the owner of such poultry shall, immediately upon notification by the town authorities, abate and remove such nuisance or health hazard. Attachments: Articles from websites on urban chicken — 4 Pages Pictures of chicken coop — 2 Pages. 0 Chickens given roosts in urban backyards - USATODAY.com Page 1 of 2 El • s Chickens given roosts in urban back,%,vards Posted 1/2/2009 1:56 AM By Trevor Hughes, USA TODAY By Martin E. Klimek for USA TODAY Rob Ludlow, 33, and his daughters Alana, 5, left, and April, 2, interact with their hens in their Pleasant Hill, Calif. backyard on Dec. 6. California Web developer and business consultant Rob Ludlow gets laughs when he tells people his pets make him breakfast. It's no joke. Ludlow, his wife, Emily, and their two daughters have five egg -laying hens living in the backyard of their Bay Area home in Pleasant Hill, Calif. "Can your dog or cat claim the same?" Ludlow asks. He is among the growing number of city dwellers across the country choosing chickens as pets — raising them for eggs that proponents say taste fresher, for pest control, for fertilizer and, as the economy continues to struggle, for a cost -saving source of protein. Enthusiasts have been pecking away at multiple local laws this year and have persuaded officials in c ities such as Fort Collins, Colo., Bloomington, Ind., and Brainerd, Minn., to change the rules. Ludlow, who began raising chickens five years ago, has become somewhat of an expert on the topic through his website, BackYardChickens.com, which, he says, has grown to a community of 19,000 members around the world the past two years. Ludlow has tapped into what he and others say is a growing trend among residents from California, New York, Washington, Oregon, Colorado and elsewhere. Their efforts, he says, are a sign of the tough economy and harken back to the victory gardens planted by Americans in previous economic downturns and during the two world wars. "It's like that saying,'a chicken in every pot. Well, I think it should be a chicken in every backyard," Ludlow says. Longmont, Colo., city planner Ben Ortiz says elected officials in his city of about 85,000 near Fort Collins are considering whether to let residents raise chickens. Ortiz says many residents have cited financial sustainability as a major reason. "There may be some pent-up demand for this kind of thing," he says. New York City, Los Angeles, Portland, Ore., and Seattle all permit urban chickens, Ortiz says. Such cities generally limit residents to five or fewer hens, with no roosters, a review of their laws shows. Sonya Chamberlain of Brainerd, Minn., is the only person in her city licensed to keep backyard Advertisement We focus Oil autonlatjny Niarrlott'3 Hotel}' global Invoice process. So they don't have to. Learn rnore (it Rea[Business.con-i Xerox Qi. Print Powered By t ; r; r.Dynamics http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2009-01-02-urban-chicken N.htm 9/16/2010 Chickens given roosts in urban backyards - USATODAY.com Page 2 of 2 E s chickens, after her successful effort this fall to change the law. But she still doesn't have chickens, she says, and has been concentrating on building a coop in her city of about 14,000. "In Minnesota, you don't want to get chicks in December," she says. Chamberlain cites access to eggs produced without antibiotics, a fresher taste and a greater emphasis on locally produced food as benefits of backyard chickens. "For me, it's primarily a local foods and sustainability issue. My whole front yard is vegetables, and this is a natural extension of that," she says. Ortiz says Longmont officials began considering the proposal after some residents noted that Fort Collins approved a similar law in September. "What precipitated this is the sustainability movement. That seems to be the rationale that a lot of these people are employing," Ortiz says. Ludlow says the chickens eat leftover food and provide a daily lesson for children about where their food comes from. Chamberlain says she took her request to city hall, drawing inspiration from friends in Portland, Ore., and websites such as Ludlow's and the Albuquerque -based UrbanChickens.org. Both sites discuss everything from the best types of food to how to answer neighbors' concerns. Ortiz says skeptics in Longmont worry that the hens will be noisy, smelly and dirty, attract rodents and predators, and pose health risks from disease. "Who wants to be looking at a makeshift chicken coop and hens running around 365 days a year?" asks Longmont resident Stephen Donnellan, a retired insurance claims adjustor. "To me, it's laughable. This idea of having fresh eggs — you can go to a nearby farm." Donnellan, who says he likes his eggs with bacon, calls backyard chickens a fad that will pass. "We live in a city. They belong on a farm," he says. Chamberlain says her experience in Brainerd shows that people who grew up in rural areas seem most opposed to the chickens, which they see as livestock. "They said, what happens if there's chickens running amok?" she says. Hughes reports for the Fort Collins Coloradoan Advertisement P 7, _ new cr,'trF'g ' g-� i� e lld r? . +}�r {I9 P i 3 d Kii p % LV �Y refl�A1CXIRY 7 and i:�3(}3 tol+<fiI �� ITS �SEEHO�W Ni Print Powered By (KrA l is-_�rrr ��`Dynamics �' http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2009-01-02-urban-chicken N.htm 9/16/2010 U.S. City Dwellers Flock to Raising Chickens I Worldwatch Institute Page 1 of 2 E, ORLDWATCH NSTITUTE i i;on !�.,r [, iusi,t!nthir 'rYurl�.; Home About Worldwatch Publications Vital Signs Online Blogs ReVolt Nourishing The Planet Green Economy Transforming Cultures Press Room Programs Global Partners Support Us Contact Us Sign Up for e-mail updates from Worldwatch Institute ® RSS. Feed Poll What do you think is the most important step that the global community can take to reduce hunger and poverty?: C) Increase funding for agricultural research and investment 0 Recognize the important role that women farmers have in producing food in the developing world (� Recognize the role of small farmers in food production and compensate them for carbon sequestration projects Vote Home - livestock U.S. City Dwellers Flock to Raising Chickens by Ben Block on October 6, 2008 In the backyard of a suburban home in Denver, Colorado, 22 chickens are hiding out from the law. They arrived when a member of BackyardChickens, an online forum, ordered the birds in the mail this past May. "I actually get my chicks in today hopefully, and I am worried that animal control will be at the post office waiting for me with hand -cuffs," the new poultry farmer wrote. An underground "urban chicken" movement has swept across the United States in recent years. Cities such as Boston, Massachusetts, and Madison, Wisconsin, are known to have had chickens residing illegally behind city fences. But grassroots campaigns, often inspired by the expanding movement to buy locally produced food, are leading municipalities to allow limited numbers of hens within city limits. Login I Register I Shopping Cart Photo Courtesy Growing Gardens At July's Tour De Coop, about 600 people visit, on average, 17 backyard chicken farms in Portland, Oregon, during the annual event organized by urban agriculture group Growing Gardens. Cities such as Anne Arbor, Michigan; Ft. Collins, Colorado; and South Portland, Maine have all voted in the past year to allow residents to raise backyard poultry. "It's a serious issue - it's no yolk," said Mayor Dave Cieslewicz of Madison, Wisconsin, when his city reversed its poultry ban in 2004. "Chickens are really bringing us together as a community. For too long they've been cooped up." Raising backyard chickens is an extension of an urban farming movement that has gained popularity nationwide. Home - raised livestock or agriculture avoids the energy usage and carbon emissions typically associated with transporting food "Fresh is not what you buy at the grocery store. Fresh is when you go into your backyard, put it in your bag, and eat it," said Carol -Ann Sayle, co-owner of five -acre (two -hectare) farm in Austin, Texas, located within walking distance from the state capitol. "Everyone shduld have their own henhouse in their own backyard." "Buying local" also provides an alternative to factory farms that pollute local ecosystems with significant amounts of animal waste - which can at times exceed the waste from a small U.S. city, a government report revealed last month. In the United States alone, industrial livestock production generates 500 million tons of manure every year. The waste also emits potent greenhouse gases, especially methane, which has 23 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. Meanwhile, advocates insist that birds raised on a small scale are less likely to carry diseases than factory -farmed poultry, although some public health officials are concerned that backyard chickens could elevate avian flu risks. Chicken: The 'Buy Local' Mascot After the trend first gained popularity in London, England, with the invention of the "eglu" chicken house about ten years ago, large numbers of city dwellers began to raise chickens in the U.S. cities of Seattle and Portland, said Jac Smit, president of the Urban Agriculture Network. "It's no longer something kinky or interesting," Smit said. "The 'chicken underground' has really spread so widely and has so much support." Within the past five years, the trend has expanded to cities where raising hens was already legal, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Chicago. "Chicken has become the symbol, a mascot even, of the local food movement," said Owen Taylor of New York City, who knows of at least 30 community gardens that raise poultry, mostly for their eggs. One Brooklyn home has raised upward of 50 hens. 'We're the biggest city in the country, so to have it here I think blows people's minds." K.T. LaBadie, a University of New Mexico graduate student, was born into a family that grew its own fruits and vegetables. So when she moved to Albuquerque and met a friend who was raising his own chickens, poultry was a logical progression in her own home. She began with two hens, and now she has four. "It felt like a good compliment to our backyard gardening. We get compost from the chickens that goes back into the vegetable beds," LaBadie said. "And there's really nothing better than harvesting tomatoes and peppers from your garden and being able to make an omelet with it using a meal that was based in your backyard." The spread of backyard chickens has promoted spin-off businesses that cater to the local market. Some communities are relying on mobile slaughterhouses to manage and distribute the poultry meat, according to Smit. "It's no longer huge slaughterhouses doing millions [of birds]. It's a guy driving around on a truck, visiting neighborhood to neighborhood," he said. "And it's not chickens only.... Duck, turkey, and quail are particularly attractive." In Portland, Oregon, residents have organized a farming cooperative [video] to raise hens for egg production. 'The money is used to maintain the cooperative. It's not necessarily organized to be a profit-sharing venture," said Debra Lippoldt, executive director of Growing Gardens, a Portland urban agriculture advocacy group. Public Health Concerns http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5900 9/16/2010 U.S. City Dwellers Flock to Raising Chickens I Worldwatch Institute Page 2 of 2 If avian influenza eventually evolves to infect humans, experts fear that backyard chickens wilt be vectors of the disease. . Government officials have threatened to ban free-range chickens in cities in Thailand, Indonesia, and Hong Kong, where bird flu has spread in the past. Governments around the world are also concerned that wild fowl will infect backyard chickens, leading to calls for similar bans in the Canadian province of British Columbia and in Australia. But several public health officials argue that homegrown poultry are not a disease threat if the chickens are properly maintained. "Make sure the roof of the pen has a solid cover to protect birds from fecal matter that may drop from birds flying overhead," said University of California at Davis poultry specialist Francine Bradley in a statement released in 2005, at the peak of avian flu concerns. "We always tell people, don't let anyone near your birds who doesn't need to be there [due to fears of people carrying the virus]." Sustainable farming advocates insist that backyard chickens are less of a concern than factory -farmed poultry, which the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production has said poses serious risks of transmitting animal -borne diseases to human populations, especially due to the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance. 'When it comes to bird flu, diverse small-scale poultry farming is the solution, not the problem," the international sustainable agriculture organization GRAIN concluded in a 2006 report. For urban poultry farmers, a more relevant health issue is whether the chickens, which many owners consider to be pets, can survive urban wildlife, even in New York City. "It's awful how often flocks are decimated by raccoons or hawks or possums," said Owen Taylor, who runs the City Farms livestock program, an extension of the sustainable food organization Just Food. As the backyard chicken movement spreads, urban farmers are finding new ways of experiencing city living, whether their chickens are pets or dinner. "Raising chickens on a backyard stoop, especially if you have children, is agreeable," Smit said. "How you convince the kids you'll cut its neck and eat it is another thing." Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org. For permission to reprint this article, please contact Julia Tier at jtier@wor(dwatch.org. Comments by Ben Block contact us I sign up for e-mail updates I join us I sitemap I privacy policy I terms of use - m 2008 Worldwatch Institute 1 1776 Massachusetts Ave., NW I Washington, DC 20036 1 Phone: (202) 452-1999 http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5900 9/16/2010 Page 1 of 1 httn•//www cam/imauec/wa(11461 ino, All 4/?O10 Page 1 of 1 httn://static.mvnetchicken.com/image-,/nrndnet imngPe/Pomm/T 4119/I(I n 311 S. POLLARD STREET VINTON, VIRGINIA 24179 PHONE (540) 983-0605 Karla Turman FAX (540) 983-0621 Enforcement Officer/Associate Planner INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Chris Lawrence, Town Manager Cc: Anita McMillan, Planning & Zoning Director Mike Kennedy, Public Works Director Date: August 11, 2010 Subject: Hardy Road Rezoning Request On July 28, 2010, staff received an application for rezoning from Juanita Setzer, owner of 1037 Hardy Road. The application also includes 1015, 1021, 1027 and 1045 Hardy Road. Ms. Setzer is acting on behalf of all of the property owners. Ms. Setzer is requesting that the five properties be rezoned from RB Residential Business district to GB General Business district. The application indicates that the proposed land use is retail, and that a new building is to be constructed. When accepting the application, staff recommended to Ms. Setzer that she consider holding a public meeting, consider having a traffic study done on the intersection, and also consider submitting proffers with the application. Ann Pope — the realtor that is representing the property owners — was not happy about the suggestion for a traffic study. She claims that there is no particular project that the rezoning would help to facilitate, and did not believe that a traffic study could be performed without knowing how much traffic would be added to the intersection. I told her that was just a recommendation, as both the Planning Commission and Town Council had requested one being done by Mr. Street. I asked Ms. Setzer if there was a buyer that would be interested in purchasing the property should it be rezoned. She said there was not. That being said, should the properties be rezoned, there is the potential of five separate commercial projects being developed. Today, Ms. Pope told me that Ms. Setzer will not be holding a public meeting. Ms. Pope stated that she has spoken with an engineer regarding a traffic study, but is not sure that one will be completed in time for the Planning Commission's public hearing on September 9. Ms. Setzer did proffer that the following uses would not be permitted on the properties, should the rezoning be approved: Adult date care centers Auto and trucks sales and service establishments Veterinary clinics and animal hospitals Hardy Road Rezoning Request, 8/11/2010 Page 2 Flea markets Halfway house Outpatient mental health centers Outpatient substance abuse centers Those were the uses that Ed Street proffered in 2007 when his company attempted to have four of the properties rezoned for a Walgreens development. I told Ms. Pope and Ms. Setzer that Mr. Street also proffered that no building over 16,000 square feet would be constructed on the property. That was not included in Ms. Setzer's proffer. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, September 9 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Town Council is tentatively scheduled to discuss the request at their work session on September 21, and to hold a public hearing on Tuesday, October 5. Please let me know if you have any questions. TOWN OF VINTON AP L ICATIOl R ,Z i t G Applicant's name: Glr -Z -1' Address: a 2 om Y / e, tA.l wea2 Zip Coda: /�vfd/v 7 Date: Public Dearing: PC Date:_-_ TC Bate: rJ rt r'3 tire: CAC` c l -- o n n Address: vf;j *lv, Loc.aii-ii of P itITi'ty: —j— Tax Map Number: , ,a—& b1, 1'�..3-10 � t,I .-i1- - Phone: 3 Zip Cone: 2 V Z j . . -9 Request Property be rezoned from: K . b to: Size of parcel(s,1: %, % Fob*u iz la.xd uve: �N " �GY I /Q!��C e-� a 1oposed land use: - Future land use M6p: t144 The Planning Comm-iss;on will study rezoning -request to doter= nc t is vued grid just4catioii fok 'tile cl�a�ge iu te< n; of ptzb':iW health, safety, arit� general weiiare. Please answer_the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. �iP.c{�r+�iP hri fitr 'hn tom'^" of "a^^�, u u "iv v2xuL'nts ro bC.ii. State whether new buildin s =`J JY`• 4+ 4' � ice, �. are to be constructed, ,xisting buildings are to be used, or additions made to existing buildings. - 2. Why does applicant believe the location of the use in question on the parti-enlax property is essential or desirable for the pubiu� convenience or n eym-e and WM not to the srrarondiatP neighborhood? (�D�✓C�i�1�j9G'e, �7 Gi e, u r- 10 1 o a a .Y A u r .5 . Ad.cf Yev (:LkI Ve- ( e/Ie t. 'tC'0ivo 6 r0'YIJe fn r r� �G � 5 , 3. Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property its t_he adjoizl ng properties, and the SIIIY011%►dJn ama. as well as the.. imn��.Yg on in:el�ijr gAr nr�pg and f�z9[;�Pa, i�rlµdlib "v A q er roads., .riv �v1J; p I-Slre..,-n. don d fl...-J«._ « �.t I'%..e�l.:.> i'• �a:ra�iawi�.auvx:� a.ri:i tuiGJiGSIU�r'. # -L ' O 11�% 1 All 11 iGR/ Wi e /�2 l 1 t C_S , S` cIr y / e C_S r G r a I ye&ltl, A VO, ► i0-0f.__iY-A �1�S IF1C-G(7"ioIV, 4. Attach Concept Plan of the proposed project. Plan must be 8 ?/B " x 11". Plan shallshow boundares and &Pensiovs of property-, loC_a-fion, widths, and nama_s.n_f All Av;ct;na sir r�7�tra�# cQraPts witliin or °Llace,^t to the. der-lopmn, t; all buld:ings, gall--&.g 44pToposed; d1imeiision, floor area aL bights; di ausi)ns and locations of ail. driveways; .par?cing spaces and loading spaces; existing utilities (water, sewer) and connections at the site; _landscaping and the like. Architect's sketches showing elevations of proposed builrlinos. and - complete plans -are desirable and if available, shoal d he filed with the. apply cation. ,/�/,q 5. it is proposed that the property wilt be put to the following use: �. a, L v. ,5 r n 5 S 6. it is proposed that thee t'oUo-,v ng b ildings vvll be constracteu: 7. Please submit any proffered conditions at the site and show how thev are addressed. I hereby certify that I am, the owner of the property or the ow.rer'T age' M or contract ntrch-ter and /lift artiyno g 4LM the �".'6`.�4edge and COMM,, It u-r he vrv.:er. tOwneritjuthor zed Agent: Date: OO /� V PROFFERS FOR TAX PARCEL NOS.: 061.17-03-10.00 061.17-03-11.00 061.17-03-12.00 061.17-03-13.00 1, Rachel J. Setzer, applicant for rezoning property at 1037 Hardy Road, Vinton, Virginia and the following properties 1015 Hardy Road, 1021 Hardy Road, and 1027 Hardy Road proffer that the following GB uses shall not be permitted on the property: adult day care centers auto and truck sales and service establishments veterinary clinics and animal hospitals flea markets halfway house outpatient mental health centers outpatient substance abuse centers Rachel J.ppSetzer July 23, 2010 Town Council, Town of Vinton 311 South Pollard Sweet Vinton, VA 24179 Dear Council Members: This letter is in support of the rezoning of the Rachel J. Setzer property located at 1037 Hardy Road, Vinton, VA 24179 from RB to GB. I request that my property located at 1015 Hardy Road be rezoned from RB to GB as well. The property across the street and at the intersection of Clearview and Hardy Road Bypass is zoned GB. This would comply with zoning that exists in the immediate area. Thank you for your consideration and attention to this matter. Yours truly, i Charles H. Watson PROFFEVS FOR TAX PARCEL NOS: 061.1741-10.00 . 061.17-03-11.00 061.17-03-12.00 061.17-03-13.00 L Rachel I Setzer, applicant for rezouing property at 107 Hardy Road, Vinton, Vi ginia and the following properties 1015 Hardy Road,1021 Hardy. Read; and 1027 Hardy Road proffer -that the following GB um shall not be perlmitted on the property: adult day care centers auto and truck sales and serviceestablisiments veterinary clinics And animal bospi als flea markets hairway house outpatient mehtatheaM centers outpatient substance abuse centers Rslchel Je.5etzer I, Charles Hsmid Watson M arm in agreement with these proffers. July 14, 2010 Town Council, Town of Vinton 311 South Pollard Street Vinton, VA 24179 Dear Council Members: This is in support of rezoning of the Rachel J. Setzer property located at 1037 Hardy Road; Vinton, VA 24179 from RB to GB I request that my property located at 1021 Hardy Road be rezoned from RB to GB also. Property across the street and at the intersection of Clearview and Hardy Road Bypass is zoned GB. This would comply with zoning that exists in the immediate area. Sincerely Yours, Virginia B. Smith &/.t7 -r1 PROFFERS FOR TAX PARCEL NOS.: 061.17-03-10.00 061.17-03-11.00 061.17-03-12.00 061.17-03-13.00 I, Rachel I Setzer, applicant for rezoning property at 1037 Hardy Road, Vinton, Virginia and the following properties 1015 Hardy Road, 1021 Hardy Road, and 1027 Hardy Road proffer that the following GB uses shall not be permitted on the property: adult day care centers auto and truck sales and service establishments veterinary clinics and animal hospitals flea markets halfway house outpatient mental health centers outpatient substance abuse centers Rachel d. Setzer I�/�(j� 1, Virginia B. Smith, am in agreement with these proffers. U f� 7 Signed,c July 14, 2010 Town Council, Town of Vinton 311 South Pollard Street Vinton, VA 24179 Dear Council Members: This is in support of rezoning of the Rachel J. Setzer property located at 1037 Hardy Road; Vinton, VA 24179 from RB to GB I request that my property located at 1027 Hardy Road be rezoned from RB to GB also,. Property across the street and at the intersection of Clearview and Hardy Road .Bypass is zoned GB. This would comply with zoning that exists in the immediate area. Si 'cerely7 Yours, Geraldine W. Miller (-, / - / rl.- 9 - ),a? PROFFERS FOR TAX PARCEL NOS.: 061.17-03-10.00 061.17-03-11.00 061.17-03-12.00 061.17-03-13.00 I, Rachel J. Setzer, applicant for rezoning property at 1037 Hardy Road, Vinton, Virginia and the following properties 1015 Hardy Road, 1021Hardy Road, and 1027 hardy Road proffer that the following GB uses shall not be permitted on the property: adult day care centers auto and truck sales and service establishments veterinary clinics and animal hospitals flea markets halfway house outpatient mental health centers outpatient substance abuse centers Rachel��J. ppU LSetzer GLC�` X 1, Geraldine Miller, am in agreement with these proffers. Signed July 14, 2010 Town Council, Town of Vinton 311 South Pollard Street Vinton, VA 24179 Dear Council Members: This is in support of rezoning of the Rachel J. Setzer property located at 1037 Hardy Road; Vinton, VA 24179 from RB to GB I request that my property located at 1045 Hardy Road be rezoned from RB to GB also. Property across the street and at the intersection of Clearview and Hardy Road Bypass is zoned GB. This would comply with zoning that exists in the immediate area. Sincerely Yours, Tiana L. Tran PROFFERS FOR TAX PARCEL NOS.: 061.17-03-10.00 061.17-03-11.00 061.17-03-12.00 061.17-03-13.00 ocoI. I7_b3-- )4-D e✓' �'-i/-ice I, Rachel J. Setzer, applicant for rezoning property at 1037 Hardy Road, Vinton, Virginia and the following properties 1015 Hardy Road, 1021 Hardy Road, and 1027 Hardy Road proffer that the following GB uses shall not be permitted on the property: 4i`LSD) ', r' Qi adult day care centers auto and truck sales and service establishments veterinary clinics and animal hospitals flea markets halfway house outpatient mental health centers outpatient substance abuse centers Rachel �J.. Settzer _... I,Tiana Tran, am in agreement with these proffers. Signed 1�- Pd,%A i „r.,., Date P 1 r 6-� 1- j o TOWN OF VINTON 311 S. POLLARD STREET VINTON, VIRGINIA 24179 August 11, 2010 Ms. Rachel Juanita Setzer 1894 Mountain View Road Vinton, VA 24179 Dear Ms. Setzer: PHONE (540) 983-0601 FAX (540) 983-0621 AMENDED NOTICE Karla Turman Associate Planner/Code Enforcement The Town of Vinton has received your petition for a rezoning of four tracts of land: 1015, 1021, 1027, 1037 and 1045 IIardy Road, tax map numbers 061.17-03-10, 061.17-03-11, 061.17-03-12, 61.17-3-13 and 61.17-3-14.1 from RB Residential Business District to GB General Business District. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow for commercial development. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, September 9, 2010, at 7:00 p.m., to receive public comments on the rezoning request and make a recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Council will consider the Planning Commission's recommendation, receive public comments, and make a final decision to either approve or deny the rezoning request on Tuesday, October 5, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. Each of the public hearings will be held in the Council Chambers of the Vinton Municipal Building, located at 311 South Pollard Street, Vinton. You or your representative should attend each of the public hearings to answer any questions that the Planning Commission or the Town Council may have. Prior to the Planning Commission public hearing on September 9, 2010, the Planning Commission will meet for dinner at 5:30 p.m. in the administrative conference room. Dinner will be immediately followed by a work session. Please give me a call at (540) 983-0605 should you need any further information concerning this notification. Sincerely, Karla Turman Associate Planner c: Chris Lawrence, Town Manager Anita J. McMillan, Planning and Zoning Director "' . 311 S. POLLARD STREET VINTON, VIRGINIA 24179 n PHONE (540) 983-0601 Karla Turman FAX (540) 983-0621 Associate Planner/Code Enforcement August 17, 2010 Mr. Charles H. Watson 326 Fernbank Drive Shepherdstown, WV 25443 Re: Rezoning Request Received for 1015 Hardy Road, Tax Map # 061.17-03-10 Dear Mr. Watson: The Town of Vinton has received a petition from Rachel Juanita Setzer, acting on your behalf, for a rezoning of four tracts of land: 1015, 1021, 1027, 1037 and 1045 Hardy Road, tax map numbers 061.17-03-10, 061.17-03-11, 061.17-03-12, 61.17-3-13 and 61.17-3-14.1 from RB Residential Business District to GB General Business District. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow for commercial development. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, September 9, 2010, at 7:00 p.m., to receive public comments on the rezoning request and make a recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Council will consider the Planning Commission's recommendation, receive public comments, and make a final decision to either approve or deny the rezoning request on Tuesday, October 5, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. Each of the public hearings will be held in the Council Chambers of the Vinton Municipal Building, located at 311 South Pollard Street, Vinton. You or your representative should attend each of the public hearings to answer any questions that the Planning Commission or the Town Council may have. Prior to the Planning Commission public hearing on September 9, 2010, the Planning Commission will meet for dinner at 5:30 p.m. in the administrative conference room. Dinner will be immediately followed by a work session. Please give me a call at (540) 983-0605 should you need any further information concerning this notification. Sincerely, I�andR'1�. Karla Turman Associate Planner c: Chris Lawrence, Town Manager Anita J. McMillan, Planning and Zoning Director N OF VINTON 311 S. POLLARD STREET VINTON, VIRGINIA 24179 PHONE (540) 983-0601 Karla Turman FAX (540) 983-0621 Associate Planner/Code Enforcement August 17, 2010 Ms. Virginia B. Smith 1021 Hardy Road Vinton, VA 24179 Re: Rezoning Request Received for 1021 Hardy Road, Tax Map # 061.17-03-11 Dear Mrs. Smith: The Town of Vinton has received a petition from Rachel Juanita Setzer, acting on your behalf, for a rezoning of four tracts of land: 1015, 1021, 1027, 1037 and 1045 Hardy Road, tax map munbers 061.17-03-10, 061.17-03-11, 061.17-03-12, 61.17-3-13 and 61.17-3-14.1 from RB Residential Business District to GB General Business District. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow for commercial development. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, September 9, 2010, at 7:00 p.m., to receive public comments on the rezoning request and make a recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Council will consider the Planning Commission's recommendation, receive public comments, and make a final decision to either approve or deny the rezoning request on Tuesday, October 5, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. Each of the public hearings will be held in the Council Chambers of the Vinton Municipal Building, located at 311 South Pollard Street, Vinton. You or your representative should attend each of the public hearings to answer any questions that the Planning Commission or the Town Council may have. Prior to the Planning Commission public hearing on September 9, 2010, the Planning Commission will meet for dinner at 5:30 p.m. in the administrative conference room. Dinner will be immediately followed by a work session. Please give me a call at (540) 983-0605 should you need any further information concerning this notification. Sincerely, Karla Turman Associate Planner c: Chris Lawrence, Town Manager Anita J. McMillan, Planning and Zoning Director TOWN OF VINTON 311 S. POLLARD STREET VINTON, VIRGINIA 24179 PHONE (540) 983-0601 Karla Turman FAX (540) 983-0621 Associate Planner/Code Enforcement August 17, 2010 Mrs. Geraldine W. Miller 1422 Duke Drive Vinton, VA 24179 Re: Rezoning Request Received for 1027 Hardy Road, Tax Map # 061.17-03-12 Dear Mrs. Miller: The Town of Vinton has received a petition from Rachel Juanita Setzer, acting on your behalf, for a rezoning of four tracts of land: 1015, 1021, 1027, 1037 and 1045 Hardy Road, tax map numbers 061.17-03-10, 061.17-03-11, 061.17-03-12, 61.17-3-13 and 61.17-3-14.1 from RB Residential Business District to GB General Business District. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow for commercial development. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday; September 9, 2010, at 7:00 p.m., to receive public comments on the rezoning request and make a recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Council will consider the Planning Commission's recommendation, receive public comments, and make a final decision to either approve or deny the rezoning request on Tuesday, October 5, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. Each of the public hearings will be held in the Council Chambers of the Vinton Municipal Building, located at 311 South Pollard Street, Vinton. You or your representative should attend each of the public hearings to answer any questions that the Planning Commission or the Town Council may have. Prior to the Planning Commission public hearing on September 9, 2010, the Planning Commission will meet for dinner at 5:30 p.m. in the administrative conference room. Dinner will be immediately followed by a work session. Please give me a call at (540) 983-0605 should you need any further information concerning this notification. Sincerely, " lk- r -)4 n Karla Turman Associate Planner c: Chris Lawrence, Town Manager Anita J. McMillan, Planning and Zoning Director TOWN OF VINTON 311 S. POLLARD STREET VINTON, VIRGINIA 24179 PHONE (540) 983-0601 Karla Turman FAX (540) 983-0621 Associate Planner/Code Enforcement August 17, 2010 Ms. Tiana L. Tran 1238 Hunters Knoll Drive Goodview, VA 24095 Re: Rezoning Request Received for 1045 Hardy Road, Tax Map # 061.17-03-14.01 Dear Ms. Tran: The Town of Vinton has received a petition from Rachel Juanita Setzer, acting on your behalf, for a rezoning of four tracts of land: 1015, 1021, 1027, 1037 and 1045 Hardy Road, tax map numbers 061.17-03-10, 061.17-03-11, 061.17-03-12, 61.17-3-13 and 61.17-3-14.1 from RB Residential Business District to GB General Business District. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow for commercial development. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, September 9, 2010, at 7:00 p.m., to receive public comments on the rezoning request and make a recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Council will consider the Planning Commission's recommendation, receive public comments, and make a final decision to either approve or deny the rezoning request on Tuesday, October 5, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. Each of the public hearings will be held in the Council Chambers of the Vinton Municipal Building, located at 311 South Pollard Street, Vinton. You or your representative should attend each of the public hearings to answer any questions that the Planning Commission or the Town Council may have. Prior to the Planning Commission public hearing on September 9, 2010, the Planning Commission will meet for dinner at 5:30 p.m. in the administrative conference room. Dinner will be immediately followed by a work session. Please give me a call at (540) 983-0605 should you need any further information concerning this notification. Sincerely, k&&.jcM.M Vl Karla Turman Associate Planner c: Chris Lawrence, Town Manager Anita J. McMillan, Planning and Zoning Director 311 S. POLLARD STREET VINTON, VIRGPdA 24179 PHONE (540) 983-0605 Anita J. McMillan FAX (540) 983-0621 Planning and Zoning Director August 24, 2010 First Class Mail Dear Property Owner: Pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, the Planning Commission and the Town Council of the Town of Vinton, Virginia, hereby give notice of public hearings to be held on Thursday, September 9, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. and Tuesday, October 5, 2010, at 7:00 p.m., respectively, in the Council Chambers of the Vinton Municipal Building, 311 South Pollard Street, Vinton, Virginia. The Planning Commission will also hold a work session/dinner at 5:30 p.m. in the Administration Conference Room, prior to the public hearing, on September 9, 2010. The purpose of the public hearing is to receive comments concerning: Petition of Rachel Juanita Setzer, et al, for a rezoning of five tracts of land: 1015, 1021, 1027, 1037, and 1045 Hardy Road, tax map numbers 061.17-03-10, 061.17-03-11, 061.17-03-12, 061.17-03-13, and 061.17-03-14.1 from RB Residential Business District to GB General Business District. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow for commercial development. Further information concerning each public hearing may be obtained in the Planning and Zoning Department located at 311 South Pollard Street, Vinton, Virginia 24179, (540) 983-0601. Interested persons maybe heard at the above public hearings. Given under my hand this 6`" day of August 2010. Sincerely, Anita J. McMillan Planning and Zoning Director cc: Chris Lawrence, Town Manager NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMPLY WITH DISABILITIES ACT. Reasonable efforts will be made to provide assistance or special arrangements to qualified individuals with disabilities in order to participate in or attend the meetings. Please call (540) 983-0601 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting so that proper arrangements may be made. (8/12/2010) Karla Turman Re-` Hardy Road Rezoning From: Karla Turman To: Kennedy, Michael CC: Bailey, Darleen; Hiner, Joey; Lawrence, Chris; Linkous, Christopher; ... Date: 8/ 12/2010 3:59 PM Subject: Re: Hardy Road Rezoning Request Attachments: RB and GB Regulatoins.pdf Mike and others: I have attached a document showing the regulations for RB and GB districts. The blue highlights indicate that use is allowed in an RB district, but should an RB property with that use be rezoned to GB district, the use would become noncomforming (grandfathered); the yellow highlights indicate uses that are allowed in the GB district that are not allowed in the RB district. I would like to point out other differences in the districts that need to be considered: Lot area and lot width: RB district requires that a lot be at least 6,000 square feet in area and have a width of 50 feet at the setback line. GB does not have a minimum lot area or lot width requirement, unless specifically status in the permitted uses section. Setback requirements (on an interior lot): RB's setbacks are: Front 25', Side 5', Rear 25' GB's setbacks are: Front 20', Side 0', Rear 0' Note: Four of these properties have an R-1 Residential District to the rear of the property, meaning that any new construction would have to provide a minimum of 25' transitional yard. The property at 1045 Hardy Road would have to provide a 15' transitional yard, due to the duplexes behind it on S. Preston Road which are zoned RB. Building Heights: RB: 35' maximum GB: 60' maximum Please let me know if you have any other questions. Karla C i.,L f—Q,r4 t,6 L" it- K o ukt ENDIX B—ZONING § 4-23 DIVISION 5. R-B RE,SIDENTIAL-BUSINESS uses are owned and operated by a govern - DISTRICT mental agency, civic association or other not -for -profit organization and are not op - Sec. 4-22. Intent of district. erated for. commercial purposes. Pursuant to the general purposes of this appen- dix, the intent of the R-B residential -business district is to accommodate a limited range of offices and similar uses that are compatible with moderate density residential in order to provide for mixed use and other alternatives for conver- sion of dwellings or for new construction in areas that are undergoing change and are no longer viable as exclusively residential in character. The district is also intended as a means to ease the transition between residential and commercial areas by providing for a mix of uses and develop- ment standards that are compatible with nearby residential areas. Sec. 4-23. Permitted uses and structures. (a) Uses and structures permitted by right. The following uses and structures are permitted by right in the R-B residential -business district, sub- ject to all other applicable requirements of this appendix: (1) Single-family dwellings: (2) Ttvo-family. dwelling's.. s (3) Offices. (4) Medical and dental clinics and laborato- ries. (5) Banks and other financial services. (6) Photography and other artists' studios, including incidental retail sales. (7) Barber and beauty shops, including inci- dental retail sales of related products. (8) Music and dance instruction. (9) Business schools. (10) Libraries and museums. (11) Bed and breakfast establishments (12) 'Tourist homes. (13) Churches and other places of worship. (1.4) Parks, playgrounds, other recreational fa- cilities and community centers, when such Supp. No. 7 (15) Public schools and private schools having substantially the same curriculum as pub- lic schools. (16) Minor public utilities. w (17) Family ,day homes and child day care centers. (18) t Adulday care_homes and adult day care centers. (19) Group h6dies. (20) Hns. (21) Signs as permitted in article V of this appendix. (22) Accessory uses and structures. (b) Special uses. The following uses and struc- tures are permitted in the R-B residential - business district, subject to approval of a special use permit by the town council as set forth in article VII of this appendix (1) Townhouse's; subject to il'evelopment star'= dards specified ri ai tiele V: (2) Assisted cflre facilities ; (3) Funeral homes. (4) Fire stations and rescue squad facilities. (5) Major public utilities. (6) Outdoor display of monuments. (7) Antennas and any related unmanned build- ings for mobile and land based wireless transmission and subject to the provi- sions set forth in article V, division 9, subsection 5-65(a). (8) Personal service business. (9) Twafamily(dwell ngs that d`o noG meet the lot urea aiid lot`twidtli requirements `of ction 4=251oftlis chvsoiiw (Ord. No. 655, § 4-23, 9-3-1996; Ord. No. 690, 4--7-1998; Ord. No. 857, 10-2-2007; Ord. No. 870, 5-20-2008) CDB:19 § 4-24 Sec. 4.24. Mixed use provision. VINTON CODE Nondwelling uses permitted by right in this district may be located in the same building as a permitted dwelling use, provided that applicable building code and fire safety requirements are met and lot area requirements for the dwelling use are met. Areas used for parking and related access aisles and driveways for nondwelling uses shall not be included in calculating required lot area for any dwelling use. Sec. 4-25. Lot area and lot width require- ments. The following lot area and lot width require- ments shall be applicable to uses other than parks, playgrounds and public utilities in the R-B residential -business district (see article V for sup- plementary regulations): (a) Lots shall be not less than 6,000 square feet in area and 50 feet in width, except as provided in paragraphs [subsections] (b) and (c) of this section. (b) Two-family dwellings shall be located on lots of not less than 12,000 square feet and 75 feet in width, except as provided in subsection 4-23(b) of this division. (c) Any lot which is not served by both public sewer and public water systems and for which private systems are permitted shall be subject to the lot area and lot width requirements applicable in the R-LD dis- trict. (Ord. No. 776, 12-17-2002; Ord. No. 870, 5-20- 2008) Sec. 4-26. Yard requirements. The following yard requirements shall apply in the R-B residential -business district (see article V for supplementary yard regulations): (a) Front yard. There shall be a front yard of not less than 25 feet. (b) Side yard. Side yards of not less than five feet shall be provided, except that a side yard of not less than 25 feet shall be provided for a main building devoted to a nondwelling use where a side lot line abuts property in an R-1 or R-2 district. (c) Rear yard. There shall be a rear yard of not less than 25 feet. Sec. 4-27. Height limit. (a) Generally. No building or structure in the R-B residential -business district shall exceed a height of 35 feet. (See article V for supplementary height regulations.) (b) Accessory buildings. No accessory build- ings shall exceed the height of the main building on the lot, nor shall any accessory building lo- cated within 25 feet of a property line exceed 15 feet in height. DIVISION 6. GB GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT` Sec. 4-28. Intent of district. Pursuant to the general purposes of this appen- dix, the intent of the GB general business district is to accommodate a wide range of retail and service uses which serve the community as a whole or cater to the traveling public. The district is intended to be applied along primary traffic routes and to areas having direct access to such routes, in order to provide safe and efficient access while avoiding the routing of traffic onto minor streets or through residential areas. The district regulations are designed to afford flexibil- ity in permitted uses of individual sites in order to promote business opportunities, economic devel- opment and the provision of services. The district regulations are also designed to provide for har- monious development, and compatibility with ad- jacent residential areas. Sec. 4-29. Permitted uses and structures. (a) Uses and structures permitted by right. The following uses and structures are permitted by right in the GB general business district, subject to all other applicable requirements of this appen- dix: Supp. No. 7 CDB:20 (1) Adult day care centers Sorr Li `L "Cross reference —Licenses, § 86-246 et seq.{ J/ 1 I/l'� C- �,6 :�h`ti� APPENDIX B—ZONING § 9-29 (2) Artists' studios, art galleries, art supply ing supplies sales, provided that all stor- shops and custom frame shops. age is conducted within a completely en- (3) Auto and truck sales and service estab- closed building_ lishments, provided the following condi- (9) Business schools. tions shall be met. (10) Child day care centers. a. No service or repair of vehicles or storage of inoperable vehicles shall be conducted outside a completely enclosed building; b. Any such use located within 100 feet of a residential or R-B district shall be provided with screening as set forth in article V of this appendix; C. All areas for parking or display of vehicles shall be paved; d. Outdoor activities related to the use shall not be conducted within five feet of any side or rear property line, and all areas devoted to the parking, circulation or display of vehicles shall be separated from public streets as provided in section 4-31 of this ap- pendix; e. The minimum lot area for such use shall be 10,000 square feet, and the minimum lot width shall be .100 feet; f. Outdoor lighting, if provided, shall be permanently affixed; g. A permanent structure or structures meeting the requirements of the Uni- form Statewide Building Code shall be provided for such use; h. No newly constructed building shall be situated so that motor vehicle entrances to or exits from the build- ing face a public street. (4) Auto wash facilities. (5) Bakeries where products are sold princi- pally at retail on the premises. (6) Banks and other financial services. (11) Churches and other places of worship. (12) Contractors' offices, shops and display rooms, but not including warehouse facil- ities or outside storage or display. (13) Dwelling units contained within the same building as nondwelling uses permitted in this district, provided that such dwelling units shall be located above the first floor of the building or to the rear of other permitted uses, and the amount of floor area devoted to dwelling units shall not exceed two times the floor area devoted to other permitted uses. (14) Farmers' markets and outdoor sales of crafts, foods or seasonal items. (lb) Fire stations and rescue squad facilitiessLL (16) Funeral homes..] <�_t Qb (17) Garden centers. (18.) Gasoline service stations, self-service gas- oline stations and auto service centers. (19) Hospitals. (20) Hotels and motels. (21) Laundromats, laundry and dry cleaning pickup stations and household linen and diaper services. (22) Libraries and museums. (23) Medical and dental clinics and laborato- ries. (24) Minor public utilities. (25) Nursing homes. (26) Office supply, office and business support services, photocopy, blueprint and custom printing establishments. (27) Offices. (7) Bed and breakfast establishments. (28) Parking areas, parking lots and parking (8) Building supplies and materials sales and garages as a principal or accessory use of mechanical, electrical, plumbing and heat- property. This shall not include the park- Supp. No. 7 CDB:21 § 4-29 VINTON CODE ing or storage of recreational vehicles, watercraft, utility trailers, or recreational equipment trailers. (29) Parks, playgrounds, other recreational fa- cilities and community centers owned and operated by a governmental agency, civic association or other not -for -profit organi- zation. (30) Personal service businesses a L P E rJ 29 (31) Pet shops, pet grooming shops, veterinary clinics and animal hospitals, provided that all facilities shall be located within com- pletely enclosed and air conditioned build- ings which are soundproof to the extent that sounds produced by animals kept or treated therein are not audible outside the building. (32) Post offices and package mailing services, but not including package distribution centers. (33) Public; schools and private schools having substantially the same curriculum as pub- lic schools. (34) Recreation and entertainment uses, in- cluding theaters, auditoriums, club and lodge meeting facilities and assembly halls, when such uses are located within com- pletely enclosed buildings. (35) Restaurants, cafes, delicatessens, tea- rooms, coffee houses, ice cream parlors, refreshment stands, catering businesses and similar food and beverage service establishments. Seating areas outside of enclosed buildings and intended for ser- vice to or consumption of food or bever- ages by patrons may be provided, but not within any public right-of-way, and pro- vided that: a. No deck, patio, terrace or other out- side area for the service or accommo- dation of patrons shall be situated within 100 feet of any property in any residential or R-B district; b. Covered trash containers shall be provided in service areas, and fences, walls or vegetative screening shall be provided around service areas, except at entrances and exits, to prevent refiise from blowing onto adjacent properties or streets; C. No music or public address system shall be operated in a manner that sound produced is audible beyond the boundaries of the premises. (36) Retail stores and shops (37) Service businesses which rent, service or repair audio or video equipment, home appliances, fuuniture, personal recreational equipment, home yard and garden equip- ment, tools, bicycles, locks, computers, office machines and similar household or business items, provided that no products shall be stored or displayed outside a completely enclosed building. (38) Shopping centers containing uses permit- ted in this district. (39) Signs as permitted in article V of this appendix. (40) Tourist homes. (41) Wholesale merchandising brokers, but not including wholesale storage or warehouses. (42) Accessory uses and structures. (43) Commercial indoor sports and recreation uses, including bingo halls, bowling al- leys, ice and roller skating rinks, off-track betting centers, racquetball, swimming, and/or tennis facilities, when such uses are located within completely enclosed buildings. (b) Special uses. The following uses and struc- tures are permitted in the GB general business district, subject to approval of a special use per- mit by the town council as set forth.in article VII of this appendix: (1) Commercial indoor amusement uses, in- cluding game rooms, billiard and pool halls, and video arcades. Establishments which provide multiple coin operated amusement or entertainment devices or machines, which would include pinball machines, video games, and other games Supp. No. 7 CDB:22 APPENDIX B—ZONING § 4-33 of shill or scoring, and would include pool Sec. 4-31. Yard requirements. and/or billiard tables, whether or not they The following yard requirements shall apply in are coin operated. the GB general business district (see article V for (2) Auto and truck general repair, including supplementary yard, transitional yard and screen - the installation and removal of engines, ing requirements): transmissions or other major body or me- (a) Front yard. There shall be a front yard of chanical parts, auto upholstery shops, and not less than 20 feet, provided that areas auto, truck or trailer rental, but not in- devoted to the parking or circulation of eluding body repair or painting. vehicles shall be separated from public streets by yards of not less than ten feet in (3) flea markets. depth which shall be graded and land- (4) Greenhouses. scaped with grass, other vegetative ground cover, shrubs, trees or other plant mate- (5) Major public utilities. rials in a manner that will prevent ero- sion, accumulation or spread of dust and (6) Miniature golf courses, golf driving ranges, collection of surface water or drainage batting cages and similar outdoor recre- thereof onto adjacent areas. ation uses. (b) Side yards. No side yards shall be re- (7) Miniwarehouses and warehouses. quired, provided that where a side lot line abuts or is situated across an alley from (8) Sports complexes. property located in a residential or R-B - (9) Antennas and any related unmanned build- district, transitional yard and screening ings for mobile and land based wireless requirements as specified in article V of transmission and subject to the provi- this appendix shall be met. sions set forth in article V, division 9, (c) Rear yard. No rear yard shall be required, section 5-65(a). provided that where a rear lot line abuts or is situated across an alley from prop- (10) Towers and/or monopoles, with a related erty located in a residential or R-B dis- unmanned equipment building and sub- trict, transitional yard and screening re- ject to the provisions set forth in article V, quirements as specified in article V of this division 9, section 5-65(b). appendix shall be met. (11) Counseling services. Sec. 4-32. Height limit. (12) Halfway house. No building or structure in the GB general (13) Outpatient mental health centers. business district shall exceed a height of 60 feet, provided that no building or structure situated (14) Outpatient substance abuse centers. within 100 feet of property located in a residential (Ord. No. 680, § 4-29, 9-16-1997; Ord. No. 690, or R-B district shall exceed a height of 35 feet. 4-7-1998; Ord. No. 793, 11-4-2003; Ord. No. 863, (See article V for supplementary height regula- 11-6-2007) tions.) Sec. 4-30. Lot area and width requirements. DIVISION 7. CB CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT* There shall be no minimum lot area or lot . width requirements, except as specified in section Sec. 4-33. Intent of district. 4-29 for certain uses, provided that minimum lot Pursuant to the general purposes of this appen- area for any use not served by public sewer and dix the intent of the CB central business district public water systems shall be as determined by the health official. `Cross reference —Licenses, § 86-246 et seq. Supp. No. 7 CDB:23 STAFF REPORT PETITIONER: Rachel Juanita Setzer, et al PREPARED BY: Karla D. Turman CASE NUMBER: 1-09-10 DATE: September 1, 2010 A. NATURE OF REQUEST Rachel Juanita Setzer, et al, the petitioner, is requesting a rezoning of five tracts of land: 1015, 1021, 1027, 1037, and 1045 Hardy Road, tax map numbers 061.17-03-10, 061.17-03-11, 061.17- 03-12, 061.17-03-13, and 661.17-03-14.1 from RB Residential Business District to GB General Business District. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow for commercial development. B. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The five tracts of land that are currently zoned RB Residential Business District are developed with single-family brick dwellings. The intent of the RB district is to accommodate a limited range of offices and similar uses that are compatible with moderate density residential in order to provide for mixed use and other alternatives for conversion of dwellings or for new construction in areas that are undergoing change and are no longer viable as exclusively residential in character. The RB District is also intended as a means to ease the transition between residential and commercial areas by providing for a mix of uses and development standards that are compatible with nearby residential areas. GB General Business District allows for a wide range of retail and service uses, which are intended to serve the community as a whole or cater to the traveling public. The GB District is intended to be applied along primary traffic routes and to areas having direct access to such routes, in order to provide safe and efficient access while avoiding the routing of traffic onto minor streets or through residential areas. The district regulations are designed to afford flexibility in permitted uses of services. Uses by right that are allowed in GB District include institutional, office and/or commercial uses, such as but not limited to adult day care centers, auto wash facilities, banks, doctor offices, retail stores and shops. In addition, a list of uses such as amusement centers, flea markets, and auto and truck general repair are permitted in the GB District, subject to approval of a special use permit. C. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Background — On July 28, 2010, staff received an application for rezoning from Juanita Setzer, petitioner, and the owner of 1037 Hardy Road. The application included 1015, 1021, 1027 and 1037 Hardy Road. It was later amended to include 1045 Hardy Road. The petitioner is acting on behalf of all of the property owners. The petitioner requests that the five properties be rezoned from RB Residential Business district to GB General Business district. The application indicates that the proposed land use is retail, and that a new building is to be constructed. When accepting the application, staff recommended to the petitioner that she consider holding a public meeting, consider having a traffic study done on the intersection, and also consider submitting proffers with the application. Ann Pope — the realtor that is representing the property • owners — felt that a traffic study was not warranted, as there is no particular project that the rezoning would help to facilitate. Staff told her that it was a recommendation based on both the Planning Commission and Town Council requesting that one be done in November, 2007 by a previous petitioner that requested a rezoning of four of these five tracts of land. On August 11, Ms. Pope told Hardy Road Rezoning Request, Staff Report Page 2 staff that the petitioner would not be holding a public meeting. Ms. Pope said that she had spoken with an engineer regarding a traffic study, but did not feel it would be done prior this public hearing. Staff asked the petitioner if there was a buyer that would be interested in purchasing the parcels should they be rezoned. She said there was not. That being said, should the properties be rezoned, there is the potential of five separate commercial projects being developed. Location — Five tracts of land: 1015, 1021, 1027, 1037, and 1045 Hardy Road. Topography/Vegetation — The five parcels are relatively level and sloping up away from the street and developed with brick homes and mature trees. Adjacent Zoning and Land Uses — The properties to the west are zoned RB District and are developed with a bank and single-family structures. The properties to the east are zoned RB District and are developed with single-family dwellings, duplexes, and a townhome development. The properties to the immediate south are zoned R-1 Residential District and are development with single-family dwellings: the Dillon Woods subdivision. The properties to the north of Hardy Road are zoned GB District and RB District and are developed with a drug store — CVS Pharmacy, single-family dwellings and duplexes. D. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT • Site Layout/Architecture - No development has been proposed for the purpose of this request. Site Access — Hardy Road, a five lane right-of-way with bicycle lane, and sidewalks fronting the properties. Hardy Road Improvement Project funded by Virginia Department of Transportation and Town of Vinton was completed in 2003. Utilities — Public water and sewer services are available. The petitioner has submitted the following proffers: Proffers for Tax Parcels Nos.: 061.17-03-10.00 061.17-03-11.00 061.17-03-12.00 061.17-03-13.00 061.17-03-14.01 The following GB uses shall NOT be permitted on the property: • Adult day care centers • Outpatient mental health centers • Auto and truck sales and service establishments • Outpatient substance abuse centers • Flea markets • Veterinary clinics and animal hospitals • Halfway house Hardy Road Rezoning Request, Staff Report Page 3 E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/FUTURE LAND USE The 2004 — 2024 Town Comprehensive Plan designates these properties and the two properties to the west, which are developed with a bank and single-family structures, as retail/service commercial land use area. The proposed rezoning of the five tracts of land from RB District to GB District is consistent with the future land use designated in the Comprehensive Plan. F. STAFF COMMENTS Planning and Zoning Department: On February 16, 2010, Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 897, which amended the Town of Vinton's Comprehensive Plan to include the Vinton Area Corridors Study. The Vinton Area Corridors Study includes four future land use scenarios. The Town of Vinton adopted Future Land Use Scenario 4, which designates these properties and the two properties to the west as retail/service commercial land use area. In conjunction with an application for rezoning of property, the petitioner may voluntarily proffer reasonable conditions in addition to the regulations specified for the zoning district and a . locality may not accept proffered conditions once public hearing has begun. The Planning Commission and the Town Council shall not be obligated to accept any or all proffered conditions. The general purpose of zoning is to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. There are other permissible considerations for zoning action, such as to provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access and safety from fire, flood, crime, and other dangers; to reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets; and to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive, and harmonious community. Any proposed use on the five tracts of land will require a minimum of fifteen (15) feet buffer be provided to the west and east of the property because the properties to the west and east are zoned RB District. A minimum of twenty-five (25) feet buffer will be required to the south of four of the five tracts (1015, 1021, 1027, and 1037) of land because the properties are zoned R-1 Residential District. Vinton Public Works Comments: General Comment The rezoning application does not identify any specific plan for new development, so the comments that follow pertain to the physical characteristics of the site that should be considered in any new development review. The comments below may be of more or less significance, depending upon the scope and type of new development. Hardy Road Rezoning Request, Staff Report Page 4 Traffic Volume Impact Traffic volume on Hardy Road, 2009 VDOT data, is 11,000 vehicles per day (Average Annual Daily Traffic, AADT) and 12,000 vehicles per day (Average Annual Weekday Traffic, AAWDT). Traffic on Route 24 (Hardy Road) at the Bypass Road intersection is 23,000 vehicles per day (AADT) and 24,000 vehicles per day (AAWDT). Bypass Road traffic is 15,000 vehicles per day (AADT) and 16,000 vehicles per day (AAWDT). Traffic volumes on these streets are increasing about 2% per year. These are significant traffic volumes and the resultant increase from any new development would need to be carefully considered. Trip Generation Trip forecasting can be made using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. This is a nationally recognized and accepted resource for estimating trips generated by new development. However, since no specific plan for new development is known at this time, a specific forecast cannot be made. Using the manual for the existing five single family dwelling units, it can be estimated that each unit will generate about 6 trips per day for a total of 30 trips. New development, depending upon business type, could generate several hundred trips per day to more than a thousand. Deceleration Lane If a deceleration lane is required or proposed for any new development, safety would be a concern for traffic traveling east on Hardy Road. Vehicles traveling eastbound may mistake this deceleration lane for a travel lane, quickly change to the lane, and then attempt to change back upon realizing this is intended as a right turn lane. Appropriate pavement markings and warning signs should alleviate this safety concern. Traffic Conflicts Potential for conflict could be high depending on the type of new development and traffic volume generated. The degree and severity of conflict would directly relate to the number and location of exits and entrances at the proposed new development; and the permitted turning movements from those exits and entrances. The Nelson Street intersection, the east and west bound turning movements entering/exiting the CVS store, vehicles crossing Hardy Road, and the nearby South Preston Street intersection are all significant factors that must be considered in traffic conflict evaluation. Water and Wastewater Water and Wastewater capacity in the general area should be adequate to meet the domestic demand and loading for the new development. However, an absolute determination cannot be made until the type of any new development is known. Fire protection requirements cannot be addressed until the type of development is known. 0-" Id MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE TOWN OF VINTON PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 9, 2010, AT 7 P.M., AT THE VINTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 311 SOUTH POLLARD STREET. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Dave Jones, Chairman Bill Booth Paul Mason Bob Patterson Dawn Michelsen, Vice Chairperson STAFF PRESENT: Anita McMillan, Planning and Zoning Director Karla Turman, Associate Planner/Code Enforcement Officer Julie S. Tucei, Planning and Zoning Coordinator Elizabeth Dillon, Town Attorney COUNCIL PRESENT: Robert Altice, Vinton Town Council Matt Hare, Vinton Town Council OTHERS PRESENT: Anita Setzer, Petitioner Tiana L. Tran, Petitioner Gerry Miller, Petitioner Sean Horne, Balzer and Associates, Roanoke, VA Ann Pope, Long and Foster, Roanoke VA Richard and Debra Brogan, Vinton, VA Ray Allen, Vinton, VA Charles McCarty, Moneta, VA Keith and Shane Setzer, Vinton, VA Mary Beth Layman, Vinton, VA Janet Scheid, Vinton, VA Tommy Wood, Vinton, VA Wayne and Nancy McGuire, Vinton, VA Sandra Jacobs, Vinton, VA Anthony Conner, Vinton, VA Galen Conner, Vinton, VA Dean Bushnell, Vinton, VA Tommy Overstreet, Vinton, VA Bob Lewis, Vinton, VA Dan Hudson, Roanoke, VA AGENDA I. Call to Order H. Approval of Minutes: 1. Public Hearing, April 27, 2010 2. Public Hearing, July 27, 2010 III. Approval of Planning Commission Bylaws IV. Public Hearing Petition: Petition of Rachel Juanita Setzer, et al, for a rezoning of five tracts of land: 1015, 1021, 1027, 1037 and 1045 Hardy Road, tax map numbers , M PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 9, 2010 PAGE 2 061.17-03-10, 061.17-03-11, 061.17-03-12, 61.17-3-13 and 61.17-3-14.1 from RB Residential Business District to GB General Business District. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow for commercial development. V. Other Business VI. Adjournment The meeting of the Vinton Planning Commission was called to order at 7 p.m. Four members including Chairman Jones, Commissioner Booth, Commissioner Mason, and Commissioner Patterson were present. Vice Chairperson Michelsen was absent. The first item on the agenda was the approval of minutes from the meetings held on April 27, 2010, and July 27, 2010. Mr. Patterson made a motion to approve both sets of minutes as submitted, and Mr. Booth seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken, and all four members in attendance voted in favor of the motion. The second item on the agenda was the approval of the Planning Commission Bylaws. Ms. McMillan stated that Ms. Turman had worked on the revisions to the bylaws. She also said they realize there are two new members on the commission and are willing to give them more time to review the bylaws if needed. She mentioned that the bylaws were last updated in 2004. Both new members, Mr. Booth and Mr. Mason, stated that they have no problem with the bylaws as given to them in their packets for review. A motion to approve the bylaws as written was made by Mr. Booth and seconded by Mr. Patterson. A roll call vote was taken and all four members in attendance voted in favor of the motion. The next item was a rezoning request for five properties along Hardy Road. Chairman Jones stated that speakers will be limited to five minutes to speak and should have signed the attendance sheet in advance. He then introduced the request: The petition is from Rachel Juanita Setzer, et al, for a rezoning of five tracts of land: 1015, 1021, 1027, 1037 and 1045 Hardy Road, tax map numbers 061.17-03-10, 061.17-03-11, 061.17-03-12, 61.17-3-13 and 61.17-3-14.1 from RB Residential Business District to GB General Business District. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow for commercial development. Ms. McMillan asked Ms. Turman to present her staff report. Ms. Turman read the report for the benefit of those in attendance. A copy of the complete report will be made a part of the permanent record. One portion of the Ms. Turman's report regarding proffers was amended — proffers can be accepted up to the Town Council public hearing on the request. Chairman Jones then asked Ms. Tucei to call the first name on the sign in sheet. Ms. Pope was called. She stated that she is representing the sellers of the properties. She said they had an engineer do a traffic summary of the area. Ms. Pope stated that she has a possible buyer for the properties, but they will not commit to the purchase until it is rezoned. She also said the potential buyer was leery because they felt Vinton does not welcome new businesses in Town. She then asked Sean Horne of Balzer and Associates to present the traffic summary he performed. Mr. Horne stated that certain things cannot be detennined without knowing specifically what would occupy the property. He based the summary on generic retail type uses and found that right and left turn lanes would be needed. The next speaker called was Ms. Brogan. She said she would like to see Vinton grow, and there is a need to think about rezoning so the properties can be used again. She said she felt that care should be taken with how the property is developed and who will be allowed to occupy the area. , Mr. McCarty was the next speaker. He stated that he started in business in Vinton in 195O—he said he titin%s PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 9, 2010 PAGE 3 he is the oldest active business owner in Town. He mentioned the fact that Hardy Road has five lanes whereas Interstate 81 only has four lanes. Mr. McCarty said that he feels that Vinton is very anti - business. He stated that the area's businessmen think that Vinton has a bad business atmosphere. Mr. McCarty mentioned that developers are currently building a new Walgreen's in Rocky Mount. Mr. McCarty stated that he had never seen Vinton as bad as it is now. He listed the properties that he currently owns in Town. Ms. Setzer, the petitioner, was the next person to speak. She greeted the Commissioners and also thanked Ms. Turman for all her help on the request. She stated that she is a long-time Town resident, and she mentioned that she is a retired Roanoke County School teacher. Ms. Setzer spoke about the lights that used to shine in her windows from W. E. Cundiff Elementary School after it was built. She said she was not mad about the lights and that she just bought blinds to block the light. Ms. Setzer would like to rezone 1037 Hardy Road from RB Residential Business to GB General Business. She mentioned that her property has been for sale since 1992. She stated that the other four property owners have joined her in asking that their properties also be rezoned. She feels that RB zoning may have been correct at one time, but now it is outdated. Ms. Setzer said now is the time for change, and she feels we need to move on to bigger and better things for Vinton. She said the current zoning does not reflect the conditions that now exist. Ms. Setzer stated that two of the five properties are for rent and vacant at this time. She said her property would be vacant, too, if she had not lowered the rent on it. She said the last tenant she had there was evicted from her property by a judge and left a $3000 debt that has not yet been paid to her. She reminded the commission that just three years ago a multi -million dollar business tried to rezone these properties, but their request was denied. She feels that it was a big loss for Vinton. She said that as she looks around she does not see any multi -million dollar businesses that have located in Vinton within the last three years. Ms. Setzer said that she believes Vinton is in a growth slump. She asked that the Commission not let another golden opportunity fall by the wayside as the Town did three years ago. Mary Beth Layman, of 1028 Almond Drive, was the next to address the Commissioners. She said her property is adjacent to the properties along Hardy Road. She stated that she is concerned that it is five separate parcels up for rezoning, rather than one large parcel, and is also concerned with the traffic situations that five separate businesses could cause. Ms. Layman stated that the existing bike lane already causes people to have to slow way down before turning into Dillon Woods to allow the bikers to pass. She said she would like to know how the traffic concerns will be addressed for the five separate properties. Ms. Layman mentioned that there are many vacant buildings in Town in suitable business areas that could be marketed for new businesses. She would like to know what the exact proposal is for the properties Ms. Layman stated that she prefers RB zoning and then read aloud a few of the allowable uses in RB. She said that, in her opinion, RB is most appropriate zoning. However, if keeping the properties as RB zoning is not a possibility, she said there should be a limited business district that would limit size of buildings and development. Ms. Layman stated that the properties are directly adjacent to a strong neighborhood area. She said sense of community is important to Vinton, and the neighborhoods should be considered during development. The next person to address the Commissioners was Janet Scheid. She said she travels Hardy Road daily and also uses the bike lane and sidewalks frequently. She stated that she has an issue with there being no specific proposal for this property as they had three years ago. She said there were concerns with the traffic situation that could be caused by the development that was proposed years ago, and now there is not even a specific proposal to review. She wanted to know who would pay for the turning lanes that Mr. Home's summary recommended. She said once the rezoning is granted, the Town will lose control over what can go there and how it will look. She mentioned that she knew that RB zoning was not perfect; however, she PLANNING COMMISSION R-1M ACV PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 9,201.0 PAGE 4 mentioned that it does have a business component to it. Tommy Wood spoke next. He stated that these property owners on Hardy Road are in the same situation as he is with some of his properties on Washington Avenue. He said his properties will have to be torn down due to the change of use rules and regulations. He said there are not only Town regulations, but also state and federal regulations involved. He stated the requirements make it impossible for owners to take an older building and update it for a new business. He speculated that it would cost Ms. Setzer a million dollars to convert her house to a business use. He mentioned Mr. Vinyard's empty car dealership in downtown Vinton and speculated that the change of use process is why it is still empty. He said it would be easier to tear it down and build a new structure. Mr. Wood would like to find a way to rezone the properties to GB and also ensure that traffic studies are paid for by the developer, not the taxpayers. He said the businesses in Town need more traffic, and that growth must happen in the Town in order to keep from raising taxes on those who are already here. He feels that something could be worked out between the Town and the property owners to get the zoning correct for these properties because they all want businesses to come to Town. Mr. Overstreet was the next person called upon to speak before the Commission. He said that if you have a business that comes within 15 feet of your back yard, it would make a difference to you. He mentioned that, if they plan to use the five existing houses for new businesses rather than building new structures, it might be different. The next to speak was Mr. Setzer who first said that, if they do not like development, perhaps they should consider moving out into the country. He felt that several speakers who addressed the Commission are making a "mountain out of a molehill". He stated that the last time a rezoning had been requested, Walgreens had a site plan showing the exact layout and had also provided additional buffer for the residential properties to the rear. He mentioned that he believes VDOT would handle the safety and traffic control issues. Ms. Pope added that any project that is brought in would require a traffic study, and the developers of the project would be responsible to pay for it. She also mentioned that previously, with the proposed Walgreen's project, they had proffered a buffer zone of 50 feet. She said they want the residents to be happy with whatever is done with the properties. Mr. Setzer also added that the developer paid for all the studies and. plans the last time the rezoning was requested. He said the developer would take care of any studies that would be needed for future projects on the sites. Ms. McMillan mentioned that the properties are currently zoned RB, which does not allow retail unless it is incidental to the primary use. She also mentioned the change of use is required by county, state, and federal regulations. She said ADA amenities and fire protection measures are required for all new projects, and are required to change a residential use to a commercial use. She reminded everyone that the current rezoning request is for 5 separate parcels, and the minimum buffer required is 25 feet. She mentioned that, if the properties are rezoned, businesses that operate 24 hours a day could locate there, and the Town should consider the residences to the rear. She stated that once the properties are rezoned, developers cannot be held to anything other than what the current zoning ordinance allows. Ms. McMillan said the only proffers given by the applicants are certain uses that will not be allowed on the properties. Ms. McMillan asked if all the property owners are in attendance. Ms. Pope said that not all were at the meeting. The Town Attorney, Ms. Dillon, stated that they would not be able to submit new proffers since not all of the property owners were in attendance. However, she said they could submit additional proffers prior to the Town Council meeting. Mr. McGuire asked if the proposed buyer would be buying all 5 of the properties. Ms. Pope said she is not able to breach the confidentiality agreement at this time, but she did say that one buyer is interested in four of the lots. Mr. Overstreet stated nothing has changed. Mr. Mason asked about the timeline for the project. Ms. Pope said that she felt development would be very soon after the property was sold. Ms. Pope stated that they would be willing to proffer a buffer area of 35 feet on the four larger PLANNING COMMISSION) PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 9, 2010 PAGE 5 properties. Ms. Layman asked if there are any limitations in the ordinance on the hours of operation for a business. Ms. McMillan said they cannot regulate the hours of operation unless they are proffered during the rezoning. Ms. Setzer mentioned that, even in the RB District, a business could operate 24 hours per day. Chairman Jones asked what the Commission's options are, other than to vote yes or no on the rezoning. Ms. Dillon stated they have to decide whether or not they have the information they need to make a decision on it. Chairman Jones asked again about their options. Ms. Dillon said they have to make a decision one way or the other based on the information they have been given. Chairman Jones asked if they can continue it. Ms. Dillon said there does not seem to be any additional information forthcoming. Ms. McGuire asked if one large business that operates 24 hours per day builds on the properties, would they have tractor trailers unloading merchandise during the night while residents are trying to sleep. She stated that they need to consider that. Ms. Dillon mentioned that they could consider a continuation due to more proffers that may be offered and because not all property owners are in, attendance for the meeting. Chairman Jones asked for further questions from the Commissioners. Mr. Booth said he had no comments to make at that time. Neither Mr. Mason nor Mr. Patterson had any further questions or comments. Chairman Jones had written comments from several other people who were not able to attend the meeting and who expressed that they are for the request. He said Dr. Black, Mr. Spessard, and Mr. McGhee were for the request. Mr. Overstreet said he was also representing the Hartsels, who are against the request. Chairman Jones made a motion to close public hearing. Ms. Turman asked for clarification on the noise ordinance in regard to this case, which Ms. McMillan gave her. Ms. McMillan also mentioned that the police department is in the process of revising the noise ordinance. A motion was then made by Mr. Booth to recommend the rezoning of the properties from RB to GB. The motion was seconded by Mr. Patterson. A roll call vote was taken and Mr. Booth and Mr. Patterson voted in favor of the motion. Chairman Jones and Mr. Mason voted against the motion. Ms. McMillan stated that the tie vote is a recommendation to Town Council to deny the rezoning. She stated that the Council will hear the request on October 5th, Chairman Jones asked for each Commissioner to state why he voted for or against the motion. Mr. Booth said that the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map show the lots as General Business. He feels that these properties should be General Business. He said it is not a matter of if it will happen, but when it will. Mr. Booth said he does not see how this can be turned down —Vinton needs the business. He said he does not think traffic flow is a concern. Mr. Patterson said this is progress and feels the Town needs to go with it. He said the proposed 35 feet proffer would help the residents. Chairman Jones said he is not opposed to Vinton moving ahead. He said he did not know at this time what business would come there, and they would not have the proper controls over the development. He said this needs to be done right. Chairman Jones felt that a yes vote today would be wrong. Mr. Mason said he heard several times that Vinton needs to grow. He said he did not have all the information he needed to make the best decision for his community and that is why he voted no. Chairman Jones said their recommendation to Council is to deny the rezoning. He stated that Council could overrule them if they wish to approve the rezoning. In other business, Ms. McMillan said they need to try to have a work session in late September or early October about the Downtown Revitalization Plan. She mentioned that the Town Comprehensive Plan may need to be amended by adopting the Downtown Revitalization Plan to give the Town a better chance at obtaining Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding. Ms. McMillan also updated the commission on the status of Vinton Corridors Plan. She stated that the final plan is forthcoming and asked them to let her know whether they wanted paper copies or CD copies. Upcoming meeting dayg PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 9, 2010 PAGE 6 were discussed. Mr. Mason mentioned that his preference for meeting days would be Mondays, Tuesdays, or Thursdays. Mr. Booth said his preference for meetings is Thursdays. Ms. McMillan mentioned that the Commission will need to start looking at the zoning ordinance as a whole for revisions, instead of just piecemeal as in the past. The zoning ordinance has not been updated fully since 1995. Mr. Booth asked about the recommendation on the rezoning for the properties on Hardy Road that will go to Town Council. He wanted to know if Council will know that there were two votes for and two against. Ms. McMillan said they will outline the votes when reporting to Council and let them know that it was a tie vote. Chairman Jones reminded the Commission members that they must have good attendance for all of their meetings. He lamented that, if all members had been able to attend this meeting, there would not have been a tie vote tonight on the rezoning. There was no further business. Mr. Patterson made a motion to adjourn the meeting, and Mr. Mason seconded it. Therefore, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Anita McMillan Planning Commission Secretary Questions from Wes Nance 1) Traffic study- I realize the petitioner hasn't gotten one. Is a traffic study helpful when we don't know what could possibly go in that space or spaces? Or is it more realistic and informative for that to be done when a plan is in place? KT: As the Balzer engineer noted, a traffic study cannot really be done without knowing what type of business will be located on the property. The petitioners have indicated that they will proffer that a traffic impact analysis will be done for each project should the Town require one. Ms. Pope said she would word it in such a way that if five small businesses were to end up being developed, each business would not have to do a traffic impact analysis unless the Town required it. We will have to review this proffer carefully. 2) If its rezoned, how are the adjoining landowners best protected? Get concessions from the petitioner at the time of rezoning? At the time a plan is submitted to the town? In other words should we (or can we) build in protections up front or is that something staff can do when the development plan takes shape? KT: If there are certain restrictions that the Town would like to see placed on the properties, it would have to be done at the time of rezoning. This can only be done, however, through voluntary proffers offered by the property owners. Once the rezoning is approved, the Town could not place in any restrictions on the properties that are not expressly required by the Town Code. • The petitioners have indicated that they are going to amend their submitted proffers to include at least"a 35' buffer to the rear of the properties on four of the properties (1015, 1021, 1027, 1037) — currently, a 25' buffer would be required. The 5`h property (1045 Hardy Road) will not have a proffer for an additional buffer. Currently, a 15' buffer is required. If the properties are developed individually, or even two parcels together, the developer may struggle with maintaining a larger buffer. 3) How would those promises/concessions/limitations be enforceable? Are they enforceable on subsequent owners? KT: When a property is rezoned with conditions / proffers, those conditions run with the property and are legally binding no matter who owns the property The only time a condition or proffer can be amended or withdrawn is upon Council's approval of a new rezoning application. 4) Is it true that a real estate person has an interested party but does not want to reveal that person? KT: The intention of at least four of the petitioners is to sell their properties to one buyer for one commercial development. Ann Pope, the realtor for the petitioners, has stated that there is a party interested in purchasing at least four of the properties should they be rezoned. The interested party has asked to not be revealed and the realtor does not and probably cannot reveal that information to Council. Knowing the name of the purchaser may not be tremendously helpful because the purchaser can always sell immediately after he or she acquires the property. In fact, sometimes a "straw man" is used for property purchases.