Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/11/2009 - Planning Commission - Minutes - RegularAPPROVED MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION November 11, 2009 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, at 7:00 p.m., on November 11, 2009, there being present the following members of said Commission, to wit: Gardner W. Smith, Jimmy W. Robertson, Vicki G. Daulton, and Bruce N. Thomasson (Terrance D. Murphy – absent); with Gardner W. Smith, Chairman, presiding; together with Melinda J. Payne, Director of Planning and Development; Charles B. Aldridge, Sr., Acting Building Official and Zoning Administrator; Charles VanAllman, City Engineer; Benjamin W. Tripp, Planner; Judy L. Hough, Planner; and William C. Maxwell, Assistant City Attorney; and the following business was transacted: ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSION MEMBER DAULTON, AND DULY CARRIED, due to the absence of the Executive Secretary and Assistant Executive Secretary, Judy L. Hough, is hereby appointed Executive Secretary Pro Tem for this meeting of the City of Salem Planning Commission – the roll call vote: all present – aye. ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSION MEMBER THOMASSON, AND DULY CARRIED, the minutes of the regular meeting, work session, and joint work session with Salem City Council held on October 14, 2009, were approved as written – the roll call vote: all present – aye. In re: Request of H-H of VA, LLC, property owner, and CommUNITY Church, lessee, for rezoning the property located at 901 Russell Drive (Tax Map #15- 1-1) from BCD Business Commerce District to RSF Residential Single Family District The Executive Secretary Pro Tem reported that this date and time had been set to hold a public hearing to consider the request of H-H of VA, LLC, property owner, and CommUNITY Church, lessee, for rezoning the property located at 901 Russell Drive (Tax Map # 15-1-1); and WHEREAS, the Executive Secretary Pro Tem further reported that notice of such hearing had been published in the October 29 and November 5, 2009, issues of The Roanoke Times, and adjoining property owners were notified by letter mailed October 30, 2009; and 2 WHEREAS, the Executive Secretary Pro Tem further reported that the City had received a letter from Glenn Feldmann Darby & Goodlatte, the law firm representing the petitioner/lessee, to continue the item to the December 16, 2009, meeting; ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSION MEMBER ROBERTSON, AND DULY CARRIED, the request of H-H of VA, LLC, property owner, and CommUNITY Church, lessee, for rezoning the property located at 901 Russell Drive (Tax Map # 15-1-1) is hereby continued to the December 16, 2009, Planning Commission hearing at the request of the petitioner/lessee – the roll call vote: all present – aye. In re: Request of Brugh Team Real Estate Ventures LLC, property owner, for rezoning the property located at 214 Union Street (Tax Map # 122-7-9) from RSF Residential Single Family District to RB Residential Business District; also included in the request are the following properties: Steven Bahr, 102-104 Union Street (Tax Map #122-7-1); City of Salem, 110 Union Street (Tax Map #122-7-6) and 200 block Union Street (Tax Map #122-7-7); and Kimberly Lynn Duncan, 208 Union Street (Tax Map #122-7-8) The Executive Secretary Pro Tem reported that this date and time had been set to hold a public hearing to consider the request of Brugh Team Real Estate Ventures LLC, property owner, for rezoning the property located at 214 Union Street (Tax Map # 122-7-9) from RSF Residential Single Family District to RB Residential Business District; also included in the request are the following properties: Steven Bahr, 102-104 Union Street (Tax Map #122-7-1); City of Salem, 110 Union Street (Tax Map #122-7-6) and 200 block Union Street (Tax Map #122-7-7); and Kimberly Lynn Duncan, 208 Union Street (Tax Map #122-7-8) ; and WHEREAS, the Executive Secretary Pro Tem further reported that notice of such hearing had been published in the October 29 and November 5, 2009, issues of The Roanoke Times, and adjoining property owners were notified by letter mailed October 30, 2009; and 3 WHEREAS, staff noted the following: the subject property consists of five parcels on the east side of Union Street, south of Calhoun Street; the properties are mostly former residential lots and vary in width from 66 to 122 feet, and in depth from 110 to 164 feet; several of the lots are occupied by former residences that have been converted to commercial and civic uses; others remain residential, and all are zoned for residential; this request is to rezone these properties to allow a homestay inn at 214 Union Street and generally to allow for future commercial development; in October 2009, City Council voted to change the definition of homestay inn to allow an “owner’s agent” to reside on the property in lieu of the actual owner; prior to this change, a bed and breakfast had to be operated out of the owner’s home; this is the first request under the new definition; in order to improve on future land use throughout Salem, the city requested the applicants seek support from their neighbors to the north to include their properties in the request; if approved, these five properties will become Residential Business District providing a higher land use next to our Downtown Business District; in accordance with Section 106-400 of the zoning ordinance, the applicants will be required to submit a site plan to the city for review prior to any construction occurring on the site; the applicants also may be required to install storm water management on the site; this is a dual-frontage lot, and the applicants state access to a new parking area will be from Chapman Street at the rear of the property; and WHEREAS, Phyllis Brugh of 628 Chamberlain Lane, Salem, property owner of 214 Union Street, appeared before the Commission in support of the request; she noted that she and her husband would like to open a bed and breakfast at this location similar to the one they currently operate on Lynchburg Turnpike; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Daulton noted that she is concerned about traffic; she does weddings and since a lot of weddings are performed at bed and breakfast inns, she asked how they would handle the traffic if someone wanted to have a wedding at this location; Mrs. Brugh noted that they have had a lot of requests to have weddings at their current location, and she always tells them it would have to be a small wedding with no more than 15 people, which would be like a dinner party; Mrs. Brugh further noted that she could not imagine having 4 a wedding any larger at this location; in addition, they realize that it would not work for a larger one with regards to parking, etc.; this inn will be small just like the existing one and will have only three to five rooms, depending on how they lay it out ; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson asked if there is additional parking in the rear of the house; Mrs. Brugh noted that there is a lot of room for parking in the rear compared to the existing inn; she stated that her husband had provided copies of the survey plat showing the parking, and in addition there is a privacy fence on one side so the parking will be obscured; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Daulton asked staff if the new landscaping ordinance would apply to this property; Ben Tripp noted that the Urban Forest Overlay District would not apply to this property because it is not located within the overlay district, but there is a variety of landscaping requirements that the owners will have to comply with mainly related to the parking area; and WHEREAS, Charles Hutsell of 220 Union Street, next door to the proposed homestay inn, appeared before Commission in support of the proposed rezoning petition; he stated that in regards to any additional traffic he felt there would not be any more than comes to the City’s Senior Citizens building; and he believes that the proposed bed and breakfast will be an asset to the street and to the City; and WHEREAS, Anne Marie Green of 103 Union Street, at the corner of Union and Calhoun Street, appeared before the Commission noting that she was conflicted about the rezoning request; she stated she had a couple of issues she wanted to discuss; the first issue she thought had been resolved that this will be a homestay inn, and there will be an innkeeper on the premises; it was noted that Mrs. Green was correct; the second issue is the other uses that would be allowed by right in the Residential Business District zoning, i.e., antique shops, daycare center, personal services, fine art studios, and financial offices; she does not believe the other properties that are being requested to be rezoned would be appropriate for those 5 particular uses; further, she does not have a problem with the bed and breakfast, and she believes that the work being done on the house looks very nice; she agreed that the Senior Citizens Center is a far larger impact on their neighborhood than the proposed bed and breakfast will ever be; she noted that her suggestion is that instead of the proposed RB Residential Business District zoning the City should take a look at the RMF Residential Multi- Family district, which is the current zoning for her house and the neighbors on her side of the street and also the parcel across the street from her house; with the RMF zoning the homestay inn and office uses would require a Special Exception Permit, which would give the neighbors more control to come to City Council if they feel a project does not belong there; this is a residential neighborhood, and she realizes that they are a block from Main Street; however, she feels that the Residential Business zoning really opens up the uses for these properties; she further noted that she did not have a particular issue with the Brugh’s project; and WHEREAS, Jack Susser of 115 Union Street, across the street from the Senior Citizens Center, appeared before the Commission noting that he did not have a problem with the Brugh’s request for a bed and breakfast; he believes that this is a good choice, and they are doing a beautiful job with renovating the property; further, he feels that it will definitely be an added benefit to the block and the community; but like Mrs. Green stated he is concerned with their right as neighbors not to have input as to what types of businesses might be automatically allowed and permitted on the other parcels included with the rezoning request; therefore, he would like to see the Brugh’s project approved but under the RMF zoning with a Special Exception Permit; with the RMF zoning, the properties could be used for single or multi-family residences and would keep the community as a residential neighborhood; he further noted with the number of parcels included in the rezoning request, they could have quite a large complex constructed here if a developer were to buy up two or three of these lots; this type of use would be in total conflict with the existing residential community; he stated he hoped the Commission would honor their request for the Special Exception permits rather than rezoning the neighborhood; and 6 WHEREAS, Melinda Payne noted when requests like the Brugh’s come before staff we are looking at areas and not just a single property; we consider the future land use, which is one of the determining factors in how we should rezone properties; when the Brughs brought their request to staff, the City researched to see what would be the better zoning for the property; it was decided that RB Residential Business was more compatible with the Brugh’s request and what the City would like to see for the area in the future; this is why the Commission has before them the request to rezone the Brughs property as well as the four parcels north; this will allow for a block rezoning rather than a spot rezoning for just the Brugh’s property; she understands what the neighbors are asking with regards to the Special Exception Permits, however, in order to get the higher use, staff felt that the homestay inn should be a permitted use within this area because of the nature of the neighborhood; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson asked Ms. Payne if the Commission were to entertain the RMF Residential Multi-Family zoning district instead of the RB zoning, would the petitioners then have to apply for a Special Exception Permit, and Ms. Payne noted that the petitioners would have to apply for a Special Exception Permit; and WHEREAS, Bill Maxwell, Assistant City Attorney, asked which was the higher zoning designation, and Ms. Payne noted that the RB Residential Business district is the higher zoning designation; Mr. Maxwell noted that since the RMF Residential Multi-family district is a lesser intensive zoning and the City advertised for a higher intensive zoning, there would not be a problem with the Commission recommending the lesser intensive zoning; and WHEREAS, Ms. Payne noted that if the Commission recommended the RMF zoning, then the Brughs would have to come back and request a Special Exception Permit in order to operate the homestay inn; under the RB Residential Business designation, homestay inns are a permitted use; when the City began looking at the proposed use, this was discussed extensively whether it should be a permitted use in this area; given what staff believes some of the properties in the City lend themselves to, staff felt a homestay inn should be a by-right use in this area; in addition, Ms. Payne noted that Mr. Bahr’s property is currently zoned RMF, and he is also requesting to rezone to RB Residential Business zoning; and 7 WHEREAS, Commission Member Daulton noted that if a bank were to request to build on several of these properties, they would have to submit a site plan for approval by staff but would not have to come before the Commission; Ms. Payne noted that she was correct; Ms. Payne noted that with the site plan approval there would be parking criteria, storm water management, etc. ; Ms. Payne further noted that the bed and breakfast fits the nature of the community, and as far as the parking, they are only proposing four rooms so the parking will be provided on site; whereas, a bank would require a lot more parking and it would be a lot more entailed to start a business of this nature versus what the Brughs are proposing; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Daulton asked if storm water management would be required for the Brugh’s project since they are just renovating; Chuck VanAllman noted that if they are not increasing the impervious area, then storm water management would not be required; however, if a bank wanted to locate here and they were paving a large area that is currently grass, then storm water management requirements would be necessary; ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSION MEMBER THOMASSON, AND DULY CARRIED, the Planning Commission of the City of Salem doth recommend to the Council of the City of Salem that the request of Brugh Team Real Estate Ventures LLC, property owner, for rezoning the property located at 214 Union Street (Tax Map # 122-7-9) from RSF Residential Single Family District to RB Residential Business District be approved as presented – the roll call vote: all present – aye. ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSION MEMBER THOMASSON, AND DULY CARRIED, the Planning Commission of the City of Salem doth recommend to the Council of the City of Salem that the following properties be rezoned from RSF Residential Single Family District and RMF Residential Multi-Family District to R-B Residential Business District as presented: Steven Bahr, 102-104 Union Street (Tax Map #122-7-1); City of Salem, 110 Union Street (Tax Map #122-7-6) and 200 block Union Street (Tax Map #122-7-7); and Kimberly Lynn Duncan, 208 Union Street (Tax Map #122-7-8) – the roll call vote: all present – aye. 8 In re: Request of William Chad Mann, property owner, and D.C. Properties and Leasing, contract purchaser, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a medical office/clinic on the property located at 1524 Apperson Drive (Tax Map #249-3-2) The Executive Secretary Pro Tem reported that this date and time had been set to hold a public hearing to consider the request of William Chad Mann, property owner, and D.C. Properties and Leasing, contract purchaser, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a medical office/clinic on the property located at 1524 Apperson Drive (Tax Map # 249-3-2); and WHEREAS, the Executive Secretary Pro Tem further reported that notice of such hearing had been published in the October 29 and November 5, 2009, issues of The Roanoke Times, and adjoining property owners were notified by letter mailed October 30, 2009; and WHEREAS, staff noted the following: the subject property consists of one parcel on the south side of Apperson Drive, east of the intersection with Electric Road; the property is approximately .4 acres and is occupied by an approximately 1,300-square-foot former residence that has been converted to office space; it is currently zoned HBD; this request is for a Special Exception Permit to allow an otolaryngology medical office; the applicant states the practice specializes in “ear, nose, and throat” care and head & neck surgery medicine; and this property lies mostly within the 500-year flood zone; and WHEREAS, Dr. David Crouse of 6676 Mallard Lake Court, Roanoke, contract purchaser, appeared before the Commission in support of said request; he noted he would like to use this vacant building for a ear, nose, and throat medical/clinic; and he further noted that he plans to make some renovations to the interior and exterior of the building; and WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to said request; and 9 WHEREAS, Chairman Smith asked if there was anything that needed to be done with the building and parking related to the change in use; Chuck Aldridge noted that he has a sketch of the proposed changes to the building, etc.; Mr. Aldridge noted that his staff had met Dr. Crouse at the property, and he has agreed to the proposed changes they discussed with him; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson asked how many physicians would be at the proposed office, and Dr. Crouse noted that there will be one ear, nose, and throat doctor and one audiologist, who is a provider but not a physician; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Daulton asked Ms. Payne if she could explain for the record why this request requires a Special Exception Permit, and Ms. Payne noted that some years ago the City imposed the Special Exception Permit requirement for all medical offices at a time when substance abuse clinics were establishing throughout the Roanoke Valley, and the City wanted to be able to monitor proposed locations for these types of clinic; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson noted that this property has come before the Commission in the past, and he believes this is probably the best use for the property that has been presented in quite some time; ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSION MEMBER ROBERTSON, AND DULY CARRIED, the Planning Commission of the City of Salem doth recommend to the Council of the City of Salem that the request of William Chad Mann, property owner, and D.C. Properties and Leasing, contract purchaser, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a medical office/clinic on the property located at 1524 Apperson Drive (Tax Map #249-3-2) be approved – the roll call vote: all present - aye. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the same on motion adjourned at 7:35 p.m.