Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/16/2008 - Planning Commission - Minutes - RegularAPPROVED MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION April 16, 2008 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 April 16, 2008, there being present all the members of said Commission, to wit: Gardner W. Smith, Terrance D. Murphy, Jimmy W. Robertson, Vicki G. Daulton, and Bruce N. Thomasson; with Gardner W. Smith, Chairman, presiding; together with James E. Taliaferro, II, Assistant City Manager and Executive Secretary, ex officio member of said Commission; Melinda J. Payne, Director of Planning and Development; Charles VanAllman, City Engineer; Charles B. Aldridge, Sr., Acting Building Official and Zoning Administrator; Benjamin W. Tripp, Planner; and William C. Maxwell, Assistant City Attorney; and the following business was transacted: ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSION MEMBER DAULTON, AND DULY CARRIED, the minutes of the regular meeting and work session held on February 1 3, 2008, were approved as written – the roll call vote: all aye. In re: Request of A E Elliott Properties LLC, property owner, for rezoning the property located at 904 Apperson Drive (Tax Map #248-7-1) from RSF Residential Single Family District to RB Residential Business District with proffered condition The Executive Secretary reported that this date and time had been set to hold a public hearing to consider the request of A E Elliott Properties LLC, property owner, for rezoning the property located at 904 Apperson Drive (Tax Map #248-7-1) from RSF Residential Single Family District to RB Residential Business District with proffered condition; and 2 WHEREAS, the Executive Secretary further reported that notice of such hearing had been published in the April 3 and 10, 2008, issues of Salem Times-Register, and adjoining property owners were notified by letter mailed April 7, 2008; and WHEREAS, staff noted the following: the subject property consists of one parcel located at the intersection of Apperson Drive and Orchard Drive; the parcel is currently occupied by a mid- size single family residence and is approximately one acre; it is currently zoned RSF; this request is to rezone the property to RB. The applicant states that he would like to use the dwelling for office space, but he would also consider other uses allowed under the zoning, if unable to secure office tenants; the petitioner has voluntarily proffered that the existing dwelling will remain on the property. One issue related to this request is the property is located entirely within the 100 year flood zone; another issue is that this portion of Apperson Drive has existing traffic problems, especially at the intersection of Orchard Drive where traffic from the proposed development would ingress and egress; and WHEREAS, Ed Elliott of A E Elliott Properties LLC, property owner, Salem, appeared before the Commission explaining the rezoning request; he noted that the proposed zoning is consistent with some of the other rezonings that have taken place along Apperson Drive; he has proffered to leave the existing structure on the property; he would like to convert the dwelling to office or commercial space; he feels this will minimize any concerns for traffic or water issues along this stretch of Apperson; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson asked Mr. Elliott if he had a concept of the type of business he might be interested in attracting; Mr. Elliott noted that his desire is for some type of professional office to occupy the space but obviously anything consistent with the zoning would be considered; and 3 WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson asked if he had any tenants interested at this time, and Mr. Elliott noted that he had talked to several proposed tenants, ranging from a law office to someone who needed office and storage space; he further noted that the structure would need to be remodeled to make it suitable for a tenant, but at this point in time, he does not have anything definite until the rezoning request moves forward; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson asked Mr. Elliott if the entrance and exit would be onto Orchard Drive, and Mr. Elliott noted with City approval he was proposing that the entrance and exit be off of Apperson Drive; and WHEREAS, Vice Chairman Murphy asked Mr. Elliott if he was completely familiar with the permitted uses in R-B zoning, and Mr. Elliott noted that he was familiar with the permitted uses; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Daulton asked Mr. Elliott if he would be paving the front area of the property; Mr. Elliott noted that it would depend on what is required by the tenant; he stated that if there is paving required for parking, then he would pave the lot; he further noted that it would be done according to the City’s approval and would be consistent with the zoning ordinance; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Daulton asked if his rezoning request would also include landscaping, and Mr. Elliott noted that it would include landscaping; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson noted he wanted further clarification related to the ingress and egress; he asked Mr. Elliott if the proposed entrance to the property would be directly onto and off of Apperson Drive; Mr. Elliott noted that this was correct, but if the City deemed it better to come in off of Orchard Drive, then this would be fine; further, he wants to do whatever is necessary to minimize any traffic issues; and 4 WHEREAS, Commission Member Daulton asked if he was currently looking for a business that would have a low impact on the traffic, and Mr. Elliott noted that his hunt for a tenant has been fairly low key; he has had some informal discussions, however, he has received more unsolicited calls in the last ten days; he further noted that he has not made a real aggressive effort to find a tenant for the property because he did not want to “put the cart before the horse”; and WHEREAS, Elva King of 921 Tremont Road appeared before the Commission in opposition to the request; she noted that she objected to the request because it will increase the traffic and whether the entrance if off of Orchard or Apperson, she does not think either will work very well for a business because there is going to be traffic going and coming; also, the water runoff is going to affect her property, and she experiences water problems already when there is a lot of rain; she noted that when we have more than an inch of rain it backs up into the yards on the southeast end of Tremont; also, if they are planning to raise the property like they stated in the previous meeting, then this is going to dump a lot of water onto her property that she does not want; further, she asked if they were still planning to divide the property into two lots because he has a for sale sign on the back part of the property; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that the property is two lots currently; and WHEREAS, Chuck Aldridge, Acting Building Official and Zoning Administrator, and Melinda Payne, Director of Planning and Economic Development, noted that this was correct; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson noted that the lot to the rear was not included in the rezoning request; and WHEREAS, Mrs. King asked if they would have to raise this lot too, because this portion dumps right into her property; and 5 WHEREAS, Chairman Smith stated he did not have any information about the raising of the property, but staff would make a note about it; and WHEREAS, Nancy Hayes of 129 Ferrum Drive appeared before the Commission in opposition to the proposed rezoning request due to the increased traffic; she noted that they are new residents to Salem and she has two children that she takes to school so she is in and out on Orchard Drive quite frequently during the day; she noted that she has to wait there sometimes five or ten minutes to pull out; she noted that when pulling out at the intersection it is quite dangerous; she further noted that one of her children would be driving very soon and there are a number of new drivers on her street; she is concerned about what type of business will go in this property and how many vehicles will be going in and out; she noted that Mr. Elliott had mentioned he would leave the existing dwelling, and she asked if there would be another hearing if he decided to tear down the dwelling and put something else on the property; she noted she wanted to make sure a McDonald’s or something would attract high traffic will not go here; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that if the property is rezoned, there are specific uses that will apply to the particular zoning; he noted that the developer will have to work with the staff with regards to water runoff, parking, etc.; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Hayes asked for the definition of a proffered condition, and Melinda Payne noted the proffered condition was to leave the existing dwelling on the property as it is; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Hayes asked if the property owner wanted to tear down the house, would this be approved without another meeting before the Commission; Chairman Smith noted that if the owner wanted to tear down the dwelling, then it would violate the proffered condition; he further noted that it protects the exterior appearance of the property; and 6 WHEREAS, Vice Chairman Murphy told Mrs. Hayes that he had a list of the types of business that she could see, and he noted that the uses are limited; he further noted that a Hardees or McDonalds would not be a permitted use in the proposed zoning; Mrs. Hayes asked if they were to change the use, would there be another hearing to let neighbors know; and it was noted that there would be another public hearing, if this were the case; and WHEREAS, Jim Graham of 1620 Orchard Drive appeared before the Commission questioning what types of uses could go in the Residential Business zoning; he asked if an apartment house could go in this zoning; he stated he could understand a lawyer’s office or a doctor’s office but not an apartment house where a bunch of people are going to live; Chuck Aldridge noted that it would require a Special Exception permit; Mr. Graham asked why the request is for Residential Business zoning then; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith stated the Residential Business zoning “is created to recognize that some older residential areas near the center of the city may be suitable for the integration of residential and limited commercial uses of benefit to neighborhood residents”; he further explained that the idea behind the zoning is that there would be some residential living associated as compared to a business location that does not allow residences; and WHEREAS, Mr. Graham noted that he had heard a rumor that they were going to take the top off the existing house and put an apartment there; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith further clarified the proposed zoning for the property; and WHEREAS, Mr. Graham noted that he would not have a problem with an office or business going there but he did not think residential would be a good idea; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson noted that Mr. Elliott, property owner, has stated that he will maintain the integrity of the property as it is and incorporate an office of some type; and 7 WHEREAS, Vice Chairman Murphy asked staff if they could address the issue Mrs. King had about raising the level of the property; and WHEREAS, Charles VanAllman, City Engineer, appeared before the Commission to clarify the issue; he noted that the intentional discharge of water onto an adjacent property is prohibited by state law; however, if a property owner wants to raise their property to protect it, then this is not banned by the state ordinance because they are doing something to improve the property; an argument can be made that you are forcing water onto adjacent property owners, but the state usually does not look at it that way because you are filling a hole on your property; if you discharge water through a pipe onto another property, then this is prohibited; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson noted that this issue came up with another piece of property in this area, but he does not think this will happen in this situation; Mr. VanAllman noted that as long as the existing dwelling remains, he does not believe there will be a problem related to raising the property; and WHEREAS, Mr. Elliott noted that he has no intention of raising the property or increasing the water flow onto someone else’s property; he is interested in putting a tenant into the existing building; he may have to put in a parking lot though, but this would be the only change; he currently has a residential tenant and he would like to get an office tenant for his own economic benefit to maximize the potential of the property; he does not plan to change any of the conditions of the property other than to remodel the interior; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Hayes asked if the city would have to inspect the paving that would be required for the business, and Chairman Smith noted that the city would have to inspect the proposed lot; he further noted that the property owner would have to submit a storm water management plan for the development; and 8 WHEREAS, Ben Tripp, Planner, noted that if the rezoning is approved, Mr. Elliott would be required to submit a site plan for the property before any construction, including a parking lot; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson noted after listening to Mr. Elliott and hearing the proposed use of the property, he personally does not see that a tremendous amount of additional traffic will be generated at this location; he further noted he would suggest to Mr. Elliott that he discusses the entrance and exit with city staff to determine which would be the better location, onto Apperson or onto Orchard Drive; 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 A E Elliott Properties LLC, property owner, for rezoning the property located at 904 Apperson Drive (Tax Map #248-7-1) from RSF Residential Single Family District to RB Residential Business District be approved with the following voluntarily proffered condition: the existing dwelling will remain on the property – the roll call vote: all aye. In re: Request of Stephen D. Blankenship, property owner, and Henmark Inc., contract purchaser, for rezoning the property located at 209 Ross Street (Tax Map #76-3-1) from LM Light Manufacturing to RMF Residential Multi-Family District The Executive Secretary reported that this date and time had been set to hold a public hearing to consider the request of Stephen D. Blankenship, property owner, and Henmark Inc., contract purchaser, for rezoning the property located at 209 Ross Street (Tax Map #76-3-1) from LM Light Manufacturing to RMF Residential Multi-Family District; and WHEREAS, the Executive Secretary further reported that notice of such hearing had been published in the April 3 and 10, 2008, issues of Salem Times-Register, and adjoining property owners were notified by letter mailed April 7, 2008; and 9 WHEREAS, staff noted the following: the subject property consists of one parcel located on Ross Street, directly east of Masons Creek; the property is mostly vacant except for a small garage, which was formerly operated as an automobile repair shop; the property is currently zoned LM and is approximately 1.29 acres; this request is to rezone the property from LM to RMF to allow the construction of twelve townhomes; the units will be arranged in two blocks of six with an entrance on Ross Street in the center; parking will be in the rear of the property; the submitted plan requires the closing of a portion of an unopened section of Lenox Avenue on the north side of the property; this will require a separate action of City Council; the eastern portion of this property is located in the floodway and most of the remaining portion is located within the 100 year and 500 year flood zones; the petitioner has indicated that the proposed townhomes will be sold separately; if the rezoning request is approved, the petitioner must appear before the Planning Commission for subdivision approval; and the proposed development will require site plan approval by staff; and WHEREAS, Ben Crew of Balzer and Associates, 1208 Corporate Circle, Roanoke, representing the contract purchaser, appeared before the Commission explaining the request to rezone this property; he noted the request is to allow the construction of 12 townhomes; he stated that the existing site is bordered by the right of way of Lenox Avenue to the north, Ross Street to the east, Young Street to the south, and Masons Creek to the west; the site was previously utilized as an automobile repair shop, there is an existing building on the site, and existing ingress and egress from Ross Street; the current Light Manufacturing zoning will allow a variety of businesses including automobile services, construction yard, custom manufacturing; and general offices; he noted the requested zoning will allow for a smoother transition from the manufacturing businesses located across Masons Creek and better integrate the parcel into the surrounding residential neighborhood; the proposed development provides a use that is consistent with the future land use map designation as a residential use for this 10 parcel; he further noted the development would be accessed from Ross Street, and the parking would be located in the rear of the townhomes; the proposed units would be two-story, two-bedroom units with approximately 1,100 square feet each; the units would be constructed with off-setting front facades to increase the architectural character of the homes; the first story would be constructed of brick and the second story would be constructed of siding material; the units will be sold individually and decorative landscaping will be provided along Ross Street and in the proposed parking area; additional open space will be provided in the rear of the site adjacent to Masons Creek with a majority of the vegetation in this area remaining in place; they feel that the combination of the proposed residential use, architectural character of the proposed townhomes, and landscaping and open space for the residents creates a more compatible site with the residential setting of the existing neighborhood; he noted that he was available for questions and that Mark Henrickson of Henmark Inc. was also in attendance and could answer questions; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson asked approximately how much the units would be sold for, and Mr. Crew noted that the price would be approximately $125,000; and WHEREAS, Vice Chairman Murphy noted he had viewed the concept plan for the development; he further noted that the proposed plan requires the closing of an unopened portion of Lenox Avenue; given the fact that the street closing is in the process with City Council, would the contract purchaser move ahead with the project if the proposed closing does not happen; Mr. Crew and Mr. Henrickson noted that the project would move forward even without the street closing; and WHEREAS, Vice Chairman Murphy asked if not closing the unopened portion of Lenox Avenue this would reduce the number of units; Mark Henrickson, contract purchaser, noted that it would either reduce the number of units or possibly they would change from 19’ wide units to 17’ wide units; however, he noted that they would probably end up losing one unit; and 11 WHEREAS, Commission Member Daulton asked if they could explain what would be done with the area around the creek and also about the landscaping for the project; Mr. Crew noted that the area around the creek would be cleaned up and most of the existing trees will remain as an open space buffer between the creek and the residences; Commission Member Daulton asked if they had mentioned a retaining wall that is proposed, and Mr. Crew noted that they are proposing a retaining wall on the lower side of the parking area; he noted that it would be located between the open space and the parking area; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson asked if the wall would be to prevent any flood problems, and Mr. Crew noted that the wall would be primarily for the parking area so it can be appropriately constructed; and WHEREAS, Amos Puckett of 1500 Young Street appeared before the Commission; he noted that Mr. Crew did not mention that the property is located in a flood zone; he further noted that his property is located in a flood zone; he stated if they build on this property, then it is going to put the floodwaters on him; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith asked Mr. Crew if he could comment on Mr. Puckett’s comment; Mr. Crew noted that the property is located in a flood zone and what they will be doing is filling on the site to bring the proposed development to the appropriate elevation; they will not be infringing on any floodway or Masons Creek area; they will just be filling in the flood plain area; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson asked how does the city handle the water that could potentially impact Mr. Puckett’s property; Mr. Crew noted that the existing water that is on this site will be put into a storm water management area; so the water that is flowing off site today will not be increased by this development up to a ten year storm; and 12 WHEREAS, Mark Henrickson noted that they cannot by law put anymore water downstream in a ten year storm than what is currently there now; and WHEREAS, Mr. Puckett noted that the city had denied his request to fill his property; and WHEREAS, Chuck VanAllman noted that there is a difference between the flood plain, which can be filled, and the floodway, which cannot be filled; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson asked if Mr. Puckett was in the floodway, and he noted that he was in the floodway; Commission Member Thomasson asked if Mr. Puckett could amend his property to protect his own interest, and it was noted that he could not fill because his property is in the floodway; and WHEREAS, Mr. Puckett asked how they could build townhouses on this property, and Mr. VanAllman noted that the property is in the flood plain and not the floodway; Mr. Puckett noted that this property is lower than his; and WHEREAS, Chuck Aldridge noted that the rear of the property is in the floodway, and the developer is proposing to build on the front of the property that is in the flood plain; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that it appears from the definitions that the developer would be approved to build in the location presented, but he is required to insure that he does not increase the amount of water runoff; so there should be no water coming from this development, however, he may get water from the creek; and WHEREAS, Zenda Collins of 238 Wilson Street noted that she thought if they are proposing to build a retaining wall, then it will cause problems for this gentleman because he is downstream; and 13 WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that the engineers will have to develop a detailed plan on how the water will react in a storm and they will have to meet certain standards in terms of not increasing the runoff; so, no matter what is built it has to be able to either detain or retain the water to control the amount of runoff; further, it might help Mr. Puckett because it should slow down what is coming off the property now; and WHEREAS, Ms. Collins noted that where she grew up in New Castle there was problems with her grandmother’s property because of a retaining wall that was built on the adjacent property; and WHEREAS, Chuck VanAllman noted that everything they apply is in the City’s flood plain and storm water management ordinances, and they have to follow the ordinance; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that Mr. Puckett should talk to the Engineering Department for further information; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Daulton asked if the storm water management would be one of the first things done on the property, and Mr. VanAllman noted that facilities for storm water management is one of the first things that would be done in conjunction with erosion and sediment control; and WHEREAS, Sandra Robinson of 1500 Young Street appeared before the Commission noting that she was concerned about the drainage and traffic; she noted that there is a drainage ditch that comes down Young Street from Lakehurst; she asked what would be done about the drainage; also, she noted that the proposed development is going to cause more traffic; she stated that there is only one way to come in from Main Street through the Hardees’ parking lot; unless they come in off of Route 419 down Lakehurst to Lenox; and WHEREAS, Mr. Crew noted the existing drainage on the site today will not be increased for up to the ten year storm when the development is complete; the storm water management on the property will handle the increase in water and the water flow will leave the site at the same rate; and 14 WHEREAS, Commission Member Daulton asked Mr. Crew if he would explain a ten year storm; Mr. Crew noted the rate of runoff that is associated with a ten year storm creates an amount of water volume from a site; further, whether the site is wooded, is a parking lot, or a grassed area, it runs off at different rates; so, all these numbers must be calculated and reviewed by the City prior to the developer starting construction; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that whatever the runoff volume is now, they are required to develop a plan to insure that the runoff volume does not change; it also means that if there is an existing problem with runoff, it will not fix the runoff problem, but will not increase the runoff; and WHEREAS, there was discussion regarding the problem of making a left-hand turn onto Lakehurst if headed eastbound; currently, traffic has to access Lakehurst Avenue through the Hardees’ parking lot; and WHEREAS, Ben Crew noted that he wanted to point out the amount of traffic that could be generated for the Light Manufacturing zoning; the use they are proposing would generate much lower traffic compared to the manufacturing zoning; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted the current use that is in place for this property could have a higher traffic volume versus the amount of traffic that would be generated by the proposed use; WHEREAS, Vice Chairman Murphy noted that he wanted to make sure the petitioner is aware that he will be required to have site plan approval for the project, which could change somewhat if the portion of Lenox Avenue is not closed, and he will also have to come back before the Planning Commission for subdivision approval for the individual lots; 15 ON MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIRMAN MURPHY, 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 Stephen D. Blankenship, property owner, and Henmark Inc., contract purchaser, for rezoning the property located at 209 Ross Street (Tax Map #76- 3-1) from LM Light Manufacturing to RMF Residential Multi-Family District be approved as presented – the roll call vote: all aye. In re: Request of James W. & Joan B. Ferguson, Trustees and Et. Al., property owners, for rezoning the property located at 229 Wilson Street (Tax Map #143-1-13) from RSF Residential Single Family District to HBD Highway Business District; also, consider the request for a Special Exception Permit to allow a used car sales lot for three parcels located in the 200 block of Wilson Street and 600 block of West Fourth Street (Tax Map #s 143-1-11, 12, & 13) The Executive Secretary reported that this date and time had been set to hold a public hearing to consider the request of James W. & Joan B. Ferguson, Trustees and Et. Al., property owners, for rezoning the property located at 229 Wilson Street (Tax Map #143-1- 13) from RSF Residential Single Family District to HBD Highway Business District; also, consider the request for a Special Exception Permit to allow a used car sales lot for three parcels located in the 200 block of Wilson Street and 600 block of West Fourth Street (Tax Map #s 143-1-11, 12, & 13); and WHEREAS, the Executive Secretary further reported that notice of such hearing had been published in the April 3 and 10, 2008, issues of Salem Times-Register, and adjoining property owners were notified by letter mailed April 7, 2008; and WHEREAS, staff noted the following: the subject property consists of three parcels located on Wilson Street at the intersection with Fourth Street; the property is currently zoned RSF and HBD; it is approximately .72 acre and is currently vacant; the first request is to rezone the northern most lot (Tax Map #143- 1-13) from RSF to HBD in order to combine the three parcels; the 16 second request is for a Special Exception Permit to allow a used car dealership; the applicants state that they plan to have a small office and garage on the property; they also state they will not perform any “major work” on vehicles at the site; according to Sec. 106-310.3 Use and Design Standards for Automobile dealerships, used: “Outdoor display areas in conjunction with automobile sales shall be constructed of the same materials required for off-street parking areas as required by Section 106-404 of this chapter”; since currently there is no paved lot, the applicants will be required to install one prior to displaying vehicles for sale; the applicants will be required to submit a site plan to the city for review prior to any development occurring on the site; and the applicants may also be required to install storm water management on the site; and WHEREAS, James W. Ferguson, property owner, appeared before the Commission explaining the proposed requests; he noted that he and his sons purchased the property and their intent is to improve it; first, they are requesting to rezone Lot #18, which is 229 Wilson Street, to the same zoning as the rest of the property; they would like to combine all three lots together and have one large parcel; the remainder of the property is zoned HBD Highway Business District, and they would like to use this part for a used car sales lot; he believes what they are proposing will greatly improve the existing use of the property; he noted that the previous owner has allowed junk autos and a little bit of everything to accumulate on the property; it is his understanding that the property was at one time used for a service station; there is some existing residue such as asphalt under the existing grass, and they intend to remove this and make the lot more usable and attractive than it is at the present time; he does not believe that the proposed use will be a detriment to anyone on the street; they are requesting the Special Exception Permit to sell used cars on the property right now; they do not know how long this will last, but they would like the opportunity to try this for a while; he noted that if anyone had any questions, he would be happy to try to address those; and 17 WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson asked Mr. Ferguson what sort of inventory did he expect to put out as a trial to determine if this will be a successful venture; Mr. Ferguson noted they have discussed putting approximately 20 vehicles and possibly selling storage trailers; they plan to construct a small office and a small garage to make minor repairs; they will not be making major repairs; further, he noted that they will not store junk autos like are present now; he stated that the junk autos belong to the dealer next door who has been asked to remove them; there are several used car lots up and down Fourth Street, and they would like the opportunity to sell vehicles, too; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson asked Mr. Ferguson if he has operated this type of business before or is this a new venture for him; Mr. Ferguson noted that they have not operated this type of business but have worked for other dealers; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson asked Mr. Ferguson if he was familiar with the City’s requirements that must be met before he could sell vehicles; Mr. Ferguson noted that he was not familiar other than they needed a Special Exception Permit; Mr. Ferguson further noted he was familiar with DMV’s requirements; and WHEREAS, Vice Chairman Murphy asked Mr. Ferguson how long they had owned the property, and Mr. Ferguson stated they purchased the property just after the first of the year, about the 4th or 5th of January; and WHEREAS, Mr. Ferguson noted the reason the junk autos are still on the property is that they did not want to cause trouble with their neighbor across the street who is leaving them there; once, they start doing something with the property, they will make sure they are removed; and 18 WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson noted the car dealer across the street had been before the Commission regarding storing autos on this property, and he was not sure if Mr. Ferguson had an agreement with him about storing vehicles; Mr. Ferguson noted that he did not have an agreement, and further, the vehicles were supposed to have been moved by the end of March; and WHEREAS, the Vice Chairman noted that the proposed lot would have to be paved, they would have to submit a site plan, and also provide storm water management, etc.; Mr. Ferguson noted that he was aware of those requirements because he is a building contractor; and WHEREAS, there was further discussion regarding the size of the office building and garage for the proposed use; and WHEREAS, Vice Chairman Murphy asked Mr. Ferguson if the lot they are requesting to rezone is not approved, would they still want to operate the business on the two lots that are already zoned for business; Mr. Ferguson noted they probably would not be using that lot for the business; they were mainly interested in rezoning the lot so that it could be combined into one large lot and perhaps in the future making better use of it; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that the notification of the public hearing went to the adjacent property owners; he asked Mr. Ferguson if he had a chance to talk to any of the neighbors, and Mr. Ferguson noted that he had been really busy and did not have an opportunity to contact any of them; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson asked Mr. Ferguson if he was aware of the City’s buffer yard requirements; Mr. Ferguson noted that he was aware of buffer yard requirements but he was not familiar with the City’s ordinance; and WHEREAS, Roy Fralin, power of attorney for Mary C. Fralin, 222 Wilson Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition to the request; he asked the Planning Commission if they were familiar with the petition in opposition that was submitted to the City; he 19 noted that approximately 95% of the residents on the street had signed the petition; he presented photographs of the existing car lot located on the adjacent corner of Fourth Street and Wilson Street; he noted that it is possible there are fuel tanks still located on this property; most of the neighbors who have lived here for 55+ years can recall them being removed; WHEREAS, Chuck Aldridge noted that if it had been done in a reasonable number of years, then his office might possibly have a record of them being removed; and WHEREAS, Mr. Fralin noted that it has been at least 30-35 years; he further noted that the tanks may have been drained and filled with sand; he discussed the proposed rezoning of the lot and noted that the neighbors do not feel that this will be a benefit to Salem or to them; he stated there is an existing problem with drainage on this property; he also presented to the Commission copies of the transfer of the property; he discussed the names of the previous owners versus the new owners and noted that the names sounded like some of the same people to him; in addition, he noted that he did not think the Commission would want a car lot or junk yard in their front door; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that there are two existing lots already zoned for business; he asked if the neighbors were objecting to any use of the property or if they were objecting to the proposed use or they were just objecting not knowing what the petitioners were going to do with the property; Mr. Fralin noted that not knowing what they are going to do is a question anyone in this neighborhood would want answered; they realize there has been a business here before and they are not trying to keep anyone from using their property; however, rezoning of the residential lot that is close to the existing homes is definitely not to their benefit; and 20 WHEREAS, Zenda Collins of 238 Wilson Street appeared in opposition to the request; she noted that she lives beside the existing car lot, and she does not want to have to look out her front door and see another car lot when the one beside her is trash; she further discussed the conditions at the current lot next to hers; she noted that there is going to be rats, snakes, mice, etc. on this property; she noted that she has two small children that play in this field; further, the basketball court, playground, and softball field up the street has been removed so there is not really anywhere for the kids to play; she thinks that Salem is a beautiful town and she is proud to live here; however, she does not want Fourth Street to look like Williamson Road; she does not want to hurt this man by preventing him from using his property, but she does not think another used car lot is needed; and WHEREAS, Vice Chairman Murphy noted that each of the members of the Commission is extremely familiar with this property; he noted that he did look at the picture they presented and he is aware of the conditions on the property next door to the proposed request; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that the Commission has dealt with this particular property previously, and they are certainly aware of the problems; but, there is a new owner; he stated that there are some uses that the property can be used for without an approval by the Commission; the request here will not change the problems associated with the existing car lot; and WHEREAS, Ms. Collins further discussed the existing car lot’s hours of operation, the loudness of the phone that rings outside, alarms going off all hours of the night, etc.; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that the City has some additional regulations in place that would prevent some of the problems that currently exist; and 21 WHEREAS, Vice Chairman Murphy noted in response to the neighbors’ concerns he thought Chuck Aldridge might be able to comment; Chuck Aldridge noted that he spoke to Mr. Cox, the dealer who owns the junk autos, today; he noted that Mr. Cox removed all except two cars, but then brought in 10 more cars; he further discussed the time it takes with regards to sending him letters, etc.; however, Mr. Cox has promised him that all the cars will be removed by next week; he stated he has not been behind the garage, but he will make a point to go back and inspect this area; and WHEREAS, Richard Willet of 223 Wilson Street appeared before the Commission in opposition to the request; he asked if the Commission had received the petition; it was noted that the Commission did receive the petition; he noted that the neighbors respect the right of someone to lawfully develop their land; he further discussed the size of the lots, and the setbacks of the existing dwellings; the property in question is located in a prime location, and their homes are also located in a prime location; he discussed the current neighborhood and noted it is a special street; they can walk to churches, banks, etc.; he discussed the proposed request noting that he believes the Commission is being asked to approve something that has not been well planned; further, they do not want another used car lot here and do not feel it is the best use of this property because there are too many car lots on Fourth Street; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that the first two lots on this property are commercially zoned, but the third lot is zoned residential; he further noted that something could go on the first two lots; Mr. Willet noted that he understood this; and WHEREAS, Mr. Willet noted he thought this was part of the beauty of zoning; with zoning, one can base their business and home improvement decisions on the current zoning of a property; if it was zoned for a Home Depot next door, no one would have improved their properties; but knowing what is legal next door, people base 22 their decisions based on this; further, he did not see how the Commission can pick and choose whether they approve both requests or just one; it seems to him that it is either yes or no; he further discussed the state’s drainage regulations, which can vary by site and locality; WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that the request is just dealing with the zoning issue; if the request is approved, the petitioner will have to come back with a site plan for the development; and WHEREAS, Mr. Willet stated from the neighbors’ point of view the Commission is being asked to change the law to benefit one person, and they are 100% opposed to this; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that the law exists to protect the citizens, and essentially this is what the Commission is doing; they are being asked to look at the use and decide if it is the best use and with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with the best interest for both the City and the citizens; and WHEREAS, Zenda Collins asked if she could get a list of the rules that the car lot has to follow so she can turn them in every time there is a problem; further, maybe the petitioner can buy the lot next door, kick them out, and fix it up; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that a lot of the arguments are dealing with the existing lot and not with the petitioner here this evening; he noted that city staff could give her a copy of the information she wanted; and WHEREAS, Emmett Ray Holt of 219 Wilson Street appeared before the Commission in opposition to the request; he noted that Mr. Ferguson stated he wanted to try a used car lot here; he asked what would he do with it, if it should happen not to work; we will have another empty building that will be an eyesore; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that Mr. Ferguson stated that he will try something else but he does not know if he has thought this through; he further noted that this was a fair question; and 23 WHEREAS, Mr. Holt questioned if the petitioner will use their street like the other lot does currently; he noted that they try out the cars and use it for a drag strip; he further noted they have children and elderly people on this street; and WHEREAS, Mr. Fralin appeared again and asked if the Special Use Permit request is for the proposed used car lot only or is it also for the existing used car lot adjacent to this property; Chairman Smith noted that the Special Exception Permit request is for the three lots owned by the petitioners; and WHEREAS, Mr. Fralin asked if Mr. Ferguson has given the existing car lot next door permission to store their cars on this property, and it was noted that he has not given them permission; Mr. Fralin asked why they cannot be moved then; Chairman Smith noted that the cars are being moved; Mr. Fralin noted that they had removed all but 2 cars but then in the middle of the night 15 more were moved in; Mr. Aldridge noted that he agreed with Mr. Fralin; Mr. Fralin noted that the neighbors are at wits end and would like the City’s help with the situation; further, Mr. Fralin’s request was acknowledged by city staff and the Commission; and WHEREAS, Mary Holt of 219 Wilson Street appeared in opposition noting that she was concerned about the traffic on the street especially since the City has cut off Calhoun Street; she feels a car lot in this location is going to add more traffic to their street; and WHEREAS, Mr. Ferguson noted that several things have been brought up, and he can sympathize with fears of the neighbors because they do not know what is going to happen with the property; he stated it appears that the car lot across the street is on trial here; their business is not going to be anything like the existing business – they are not going to work on vehicles, they will not have tires piled up, etc.; they will have a nice clean place; he noted that he currently owns property in the 200 block of Fourth Street and have owned it since about 1983; he stated that this property has been kept clean, and he does not know of any problems 24 at this business; further, he noted that a car lot is a different thing, but they intend to operate a clean business and will not work on any cars; if the business does not succeed, then the property is zoned for business so they will think up something else; he does not feel that the proposed business will affect the residents on Wilson Street; there will not be extra cars traveling on Wilson Street because the business would be accessed from Fourth Street; with regards to the gasoline tanks, they have a test that was conducted by the previous owner that states there are no tanks on this property; someone mentioned the name Ferguson was on the former deed, however, they are not related to them in any way; further, the Division of Motor Vehicles tells them what size the building must be, and they do not intend on having anything much larger than is required; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson asked what their hours of operation would be, and Mr. Ferguson noted that they will not be working late hours; he stated he will probably want to go home about 6 p.m.; he further noted that the business across Wilson Street buys vehicles and fixes them up; this is a totally different operation, and he thinks it looks terrible; he stated that one reason they have not forced them to remove the vehicles is that they are going to be neighbors, and they do not want to fight with their neighbors; they wish they would do something about the property there also; and WHEREAS, Becky Fralin, daughter of Mary Fralin who lives on Wilson Street, appeared before the Commission; she noted she was curious about the used car lot problem; it seems to her that whatever methods the City is using to clean up this area does not seem to be working; she asked what could the residents of Wilson Street be assured of that the City will do differently in the event the proposed business becomes an eyesore as well; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted the primary difference is that used car dealers today have to request a Special Exception Permit and are required to follow the current rules and regulations; many of the dealers along Fourth Street do not come under those 25 regulations; in addition, the City has an inspection process and the inspectors check for compliance; Mr. Aldridge’s office is very much involved in enforcing these regulations and if the neighbors will contact his office, they will follow up on the complaint; in addition, he noted that the process can be a little slow some times because it has to go through the court system; and WHEREAS, Mr. Aldridge noted that Chairman Smith was correct; he stated the existing car lot is a grandfathered situation, and these are harder to enforce; he noted that many times they get the number down to one or two cars and then a few days later, they have brought more vehicles in; when this happens, he has to start the process over again; he noted that he has rules and laws that he has to abide by, and he tries to stay on top of them; and WHEREAS, Mr. Fralin asked if the petitioners were only going to have a very small car lot and building, then what is the purpose of rezoning the lot on Wilson Street other than the financial gain and resale value of the lot; Chairman Smith noted Mr. Ferguson discussed this earlier and he thought it had to do with having the additional space if they need it for growth; however, Mr. Ferguson had stated he thought he could put the business on the two lots already zoned for business; Mr. Fralin asked then why does it need to be rezoned; Chairman Smith noted the way to control what is next door is to own the property; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson noted that if the petitioners want to expand the business, then the property would have to be zoned accordingly; and Mr. Fralin noted that the property is not zoned accordingly, and this is what we are here discussing; and WHEREAS, Mr. Fralin asked if the Commission could substantiate the information that Mr. Ferguson stated earlier about the property being cleared of the EPA hazard; Chairman Smith noted that this was not a city-enforcement issue; Mr. Aldridge noted that this would be a federally-enforced issue, which is handled by the Department of Environmental Quality; Mr. Fralin asked how would the neighbors 26 find out answer to their question; Mr. Aldridge noted that if Mr. Ferguson has a copy of the document, then he can present it to his office and he could make them a copy; and WHEREAS, there was further discussion regarding the regulations related to gasoline tanks; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson noted it is very common for a petitioner to want to change the zoning on a piece of property so that all of the lots are zoned the same; it makes the entire property more marketable for him should he try to sell it instead of having split zoning; Mr. Fralin noted that he sort of understood the point he was making, but there is no benefit except to the petitioners; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that the requests before the Commission are obviously for the benefit of the petitioners; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith further noted for the record the existence and review of the petition presented by the neighbors; and WHEREAS, Mr. Willet appeared again and noted that he did not think anyone in the audience has been swayed by the information presented this evening; he noted that they have nothing in writing here, and he is a skeptic of the proposed business; WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted the additional steps the applicants must follow related to site plan approval, storm water management, etc.; and WHEREAS, it was noted that due to a conflict Commission Member Daulton would abstain from voting on this request; and WHEREAS, Vice Chairman Murphy noted that he thought it was a reasonable to request a buffer for the residential area and he feels the lot on Wilson Street is infringing on the neighborhood; 27 ON MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIRMAN MURPHY, 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 James W. & Joan B. Ferguson, Trustees and Et. Al., property owners, for rezoning the property located at 229 Wilson Street (Tax Map #143-1-13) from RSF Residential Single Family District to HBD Highway Business District be denied as presented – the roll call vote being as follows: Mr. Thomasson – aye; Mrs. Daulton – abstaining; Mr. Robertson – aye; Mr. Murphy – aye; and Mr. Smith – aye. ON MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIRMAN MURPHY, 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 James W. & Joan B. Ferguson, Trustees and Et. Al., property owners, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a used car sales lot for two parcels located in the 600 block of West Fourth Street (Tax Map #s 143-1-11 & 12) be approved – the roll call vote being as follows: Mr. Thomasson – aye; Mrs. Daulton – abstaining; Mr. Robertson – aye; Mr. Murphy – aye; and Mr. Smith – aye. In re: Consider revocation of a Zoning and Use Permit issued April 2001 and amended January 2003 to Sara S. Orrick for a dog kennel on the property located at 1542 Epperly Lane (Tax Map #13-1-8) The Executive Secretary reported that this date and time had been set to hold a public hearing to consider the revocation of a Zoning and Use Permit issued April 2001 and amended January 2003 to Sara S. Orrick for a dog kennel on the property located at 1542 Epperly Lane (Tax Map #13-1-8); and WHEREAS, the Executive Secretary further reported that notice of such hearing had been published in the April 3 and 10, 2008, issues of Salem Times-Register, and the property owner was notified by letter mailed April 7, 2008; and 28 WHEREAS, staff noted the following: the subject property consists of one parcel located off Epperly Lane between Kesler Mill Road and Russell Drive; the property is currently zoned RSF and is occupied by a single family residence; this request is for the revocation of the Zoning & Use Permit (now Special Exception Permit) that was granted in April 2001 and amended January 2003 allowing the owner to operate a dog kennel; the maximum number of animals allowed by the amended permit is 20 dogs; over the past couple of years, several complaints about the property were filed with the Zoning Administrator; after each complaint, the property was inspected and found to be in violation of the terms of the use permit; the owner was warned after each inspection and informed that if the situation was not rectified, her permit to operate the dog kennel would be revoked; in August 2007, an inspection found that the owner was in possession of 51 dogs, more than twice the allowed number, in violation of the conditions of the permit; the Zoning Administrator notified the owner of this violation, and the violation of the terms of her Home Occupation Permit, on August 20, 2007; the owner then removed the dogs and notified the city she would discontinue operation of the kennel; a formal action is required by Planning Commission and City Council to revoke the Zoning & Use Permit; and without such action, the property owner could at a later date request to reopen the dog kennel bypassing approval by the city; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that the Commission had previously discussed this item at the work session; he asked Chuck Aldridge if he had any additional comments regarding the request, and Mr. Aldridge stated he did not; Mr. Aldridge noted he thought the request was fairly straightforward and was mostly a housekeeping matter for the record; and WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to said request; 29 ON MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIRMAN MURPHY, AND DULY CARRIED, the Planning Commission of the City of Salem doth recommend to the Council of the City of Salem that the request for the revocation of a Zoning and Use Permit issued April 2001 and amended January 2003 to Sara S. Orrick for a dog kennel on the property located at 1542 Epperly Lane (Tax Map #13-1-8) be approved – the roll call vote: all aye. In re: Discussion held regarding the review and update of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Salem, Virginia The Executive Secretary reported that this date and time had been set to hold a discussion regarding the review and update of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Salem, Virginia; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that the Commission had discussed this item at the earlier work session; he asked if there was any unreadiness or clarity needed for this item; and ON MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIRMAN MURPHY, AND DULY CARRIED, the following resolution was duly passed and adopted as follows: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City of Salem’s amended Comprehensive Plan was approved by the Council of the City of Salem at a regularly scheduled meeting on February 24, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan has been continuously updated and amended through zoning and subdivision ordinance changes approved by the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 15.2-2230 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, the Planning Commission has reviewed the plan and recommends no further amendments at this time; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, that: No amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are necessary at this time. 30 Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows: Bruce N. Thomasson - Aye Vicki G. Daulton - Aye Jimmy W. Robertson - Aye Terrance D. Murphy - Aye Gardner W. Smith - Aye There being no further business to come before the Commission, the same on motion adjourned at 8:55 p.m.