Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/13/2008 - Planning Commission - Minutes - Regular APPROVED MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION August 13, 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 August 13, 2008, there being present the following members of said Commission, to wit: Terrance D. Murphy, Jimmy W. Robertson, Vicki G. Daulton, and Bruce N. Thomasson (Gardner W. Smith – absent); with Terrance D. Murphy, Vice 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; Benjamin W. Tripp, Planner; and William C. Maxwell, Assistant City Attorney; and the following business was transacted: ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSION MEMBER THOMASSON, AND DULY CARRIED, the minutes of the regular meeting and work session held on June 1 1 , 2008, were approved as written – the roll call vote: all present - aye. The regular City of Salem Planning Commission meeting and work session scheduled for Wednesday, July 16, 2008, were cancelled due to there being no matters to come before the Commission. In re: 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 on two parcels located in the 600 block of West Fourth Street (Tax Map #143-1-11 & 12) 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 the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a used car sales lot on two parcels located in the 600 block of West Fourth Street (Tax Map #143-1-11 & 12); WHEREAS, the Executive Secretary further reported that notice of such hearing had been published in the July 31 and August 7, 2008, issues of The Roanoke Times, and adjoining property owners were notified by letter mailed August 4, 2008; and WHEREAS, staff noted the following: the subject property consists of two parcels located at the intersection of Wilson Street and 4th Street; the property is currently zoned HBD; the northern lot is approximately 50 feet wide by 170 feet deep, and the triangular portion along 4th Street is approximately 13,200 square feet; both are currently vacant; 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; two related requests were submitted to and considered by both the Planning Commission and City Council in April of 2008; the first request, for rezoning from RSF to HBD, of an adjacent parcel along Wilson Street was denied by the Council; the second request, for a special exception permit for all three parcels to allow the operation of a used automobile dealership, was also denied by the Council; this request is considered separate from the previous two because it does not involve the northern-most parcel and relates only to those zoned HBD; 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 applicant will be required to install one prior to displaying vehicles for sale; in accordance with Section 106-400 the applicant will be required to submit a site plan to the city for review prior to any development occurring on the site; and the applicant may also be required to install storm water management on the site; and WHEREAS, James W. Ferguson of 9212 Bent Mountain Road, Roanoke, and Kevin Ferguson of 10215 Bent Mountain Road, Roanoke property owners, appeared before the Commission explaining the proposed request; he noted that they had appeared before the Commission two or three months ago for the same purpose but that request involved a rezoning of a third parcel; he stated that this request is only for a Special Exception Permit for a used car sales lot on the two parcels located at Fourth and Wilson Streets; he further stated they plan to have a small car lot, which will be a nice clean operation and will not generate any noise; he noted there are a number of permitted uses in the current zoning designation that are a lot worse than a used car lot; and WHEREAS, Roy Fralin of 3014 Forest Acre Trail, Salem, power of attorney for Mary C. Fralin who lives at 222 Wilson Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition to the request; he noted that he was present to speak for the neighborhood; he stated that they want to make sure that the City will enforce the regulations and make the petitioners do what they are supposed to do; he stated that Mr. Ferguson has been taking care of the lot but someone is still using the lot for unlicensed vehicles; he further discussed the problems associated with the adjacent property and asked what would stop the petitioners from merging with the existing car lot; he asked if the City will be able to prevent a situation like the one next door referring to the used car lot across Wilson Street; and WHEREAS, Vice Chairman Murphy noted that if the Special Exception Permit is granted, the petitioners will be required to meet all the regulations imposed by the City Code; and WHEREAS, Mr. Fralin asked if the petitioners would be allowed to use the residential-zoned lot to park cars, etc.; Vice Chairman Murphy noted that they would not be able to use the residential lot for the business, and further, he stated the request before the Commission has nothing to do with that lot; and WHEREAS, Mr. Fralin asked if the proposed car lot will fall under all new regulations of a used car lot, and Vice Chairman Murphy noted that the petitioners must abide by all City regulations currently in place; Mr. Fralin asked if the Special Exception Permit could ever be revoked; and WHEREAS, Assistant City Attorney Bill Maxwell noted that there are remedies for revoking a permit that is in violation of provisions of the ordinance; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson noted that he did not have any concerns with the proposed request, but in sync with Mr. Fralin’s comments, he wanted to make sure that the petitioners are aware of the zoning requirements for a used car sales lot; he suggested that the petitioners meet with City staff and discuss the requirements such as paving the lot, storm water management, etc.; secondly, he noted that there are sections in the ordinance that address sight lines, landscaping, buffers, etc.; he noted that there are a lot of things they need to understand and hopefully not be surprised by down the road; and he reiterated he thought the petitioners should meet with staff when the time is right; and WHEREAS, Mr. Ferguson noted that they have read over the restrictions as well as the requirements for the proposed business and do not have any problem meeting those; further, the vacant residential lot has grown up so much, they probably will not need much else in the way of landscaping; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Daulton asked Mr. Ferguson if he understood the landscaping that will be required for the proposed use, and Mr. Ferguson noted that he understood the landscaping requirements; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson noted he wanted to clarify a comment he made with regards to storm water management; he stated the petitioners can pave the lot any time they want since they own it, but City staff can tell them best how to do it so it will not be an issue; Mr. Ferguson noted that he understood that the lot must be paved, but he wondered if there is an amendment that could be made so they did not have to pave all of it; he stated that the paving contributes to the water problems; and WHEREAS, Vice Chairman Murphy suggested that the petitioners work with staff on this when they submit their site plan; 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 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 on two parcels located in the 600 block of West Fourth Street (Tax Map #143-1-11 & 12) be approved as presented – the roll call vote being as follows: Mr. Thomasson – aye; Mrs. Daulton – abstaining; Mr. Robertson – aye; and Mr. Murphy – aye. In re: Request of HRT of Roanoke, Inc., property owner, and ITT Technical Institute, lessee, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a college/university on the property located at 2159-2163 Apperson Drive (P/O Tax Map #281-1-2) The Executive Secretary reported that this date and time had been set to hold a public hearing to consider the request of HRT of Roanoke, Inc., property owner, and ITT Technical Institute, lessee, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a college/university on the property located at 2159-2163 Apperson Drive (P/O Tax Map #281-1-2); and WHEREAS, the Executive Secretary further reported that notice of such hearing had been published in the July 31 and August 7, 2008, issues of The Roanoke Times, and adjoining property owners were notified by letter mailed August 4, 2008; and WHEREAS, staff noted the following: the subject property consists of one parcel located on Apperson Drive; the property is currently zoned BCD and contains various medical offices and a call center; the property is approximately 19.5 acres; this request is for a special exception permit to allow the operation of a four year college; the applicants state that they plan to lease approximately 18,000 square feet to ITT Technical Institute; Business and Trade Schools are listed in Section 160-216.2 as a by-right use within the BCD zoning district; however, in Section 106-602.9 Business and Trade Schools are defined as “a use providing education or training in business, commerce, language, or other similar activity or occupational pursuit, and not otherwise defined as an educational facility, either primary and secondary, or college and university;” since ITT plans to award four year bachelor degrees, they are classified as a college by the definition found in Section 106-602.5 and require a special exception permit to operate at this location; normally colleges are only allowed within the CUD zoning district, and this request would be for a rezoning; however, since this building contains multiple commercial uses incompatible with the CUD zoning, a Special Exception Permit is being requested to allow ITT to operate at this location; and WHEREAS, Richard Wellford of Poe & Cronk Real Estate Group, representing the property owner, appeared before the Commission explaining the request for a Special Exception Permit to allow a college/university on the property at 2159-2163 Apperson Drive; he noted that ITT Technical Institute will lease the space that was formerly occupied by Virginia College; Virginia College occupied the space up until approximately 2000, but he was not sure if they were a two or four year college but obviously there has been a revision of the zoning ordinance since that time; he further noted that the proposed use is consistent with the past uses of the building and is complimentary with the current uses of the building and it should be a fairly decent source of revenue for the City of Salem; in addition, the proposed college will be a valuable educational resource for the residents of Salem and the region; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson asked Mr. Wellford how large a student population they anticipated, and Mr. Wellford noted that at its busiest approximately 160 students; Mr. Wellford noted that this would be in the evening hours as most of their students are working adults who will be taking evening classes; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson asked where the closet ITT Technical Institute was located, and Mr. Wellford noted that he did not know, but they are not currently in this area; and WHEREAS, Vice Chairman Murphy asked Mr. Wellford if he knew what type of degrees would be offered, and Mr. Wellford noted that he thought it would be computer and engineering degrees but he did not know for sure; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson asked if it would be academic year 2008-09 or would it be 2009-10, and Mr. Wellford noted they plan to have them up and running as soon as possible and he anticipated it being 2008-09 academic year; and WHEREAS, Assistant City Manager Jay Taliaferro asked Mr. Wellford if they have given any thought to how they would handle an expansion of the proposed use; Mr. Wellford noted that they currently have 40,000 square feet of vacant space in the structure, so with ITT Technical Institute taking approximately 20,000 square feet they will still have 20,000 square feet of vacant space; Mr. Wellford asked if the question was in regard to the building or the site; Mr. Taliaferro noted he was referring to both; he stated from a planning perspective he was curious if the future plan would be to expand at this location; Mr. Wellford noted that he had no idea what ITT’s business plan is, but he would assume if they are successful, then yes they would like to expand; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson asked if the other buildings in the complex are presently leased, and Mr. Wellford noted that the back building is approximately 100,000 square feet and roughly half of it is leased and most of the other buildings are leased; he further noted given the nature of the building another likely use for the remainder would be a more industrial-type use; he understands that it is BCD zoning, but they would not have a lot of trucks pulling in there with diesel stacks, etc.; he believes the impact will be fairly light; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Daulton asked if Mr. Wellford’s company leases the property for the property owner, and Mr. Wellford noted that they are the leasing and managing agent for the property; Mrs. Daulton asked if he knew of any other business entity that is interested in the remainder of the structure; Mr. Wellford noted that he did have some other possibilities, but he preferred not to go into those at this time; he stated they have to be conscious of the parking capacity they have; they currently have a heavy user, Liberty Medical Supply, and the college will be a fairly high consumer of the parking availability as well; and WHEREAS, Vice Chairman Murphy asked with regards to expansion if the Special Exception Permit is approved, will they have a fairly long-term lease with ITT Technical Institute; Mr. Wellford noted that it would be a long-term lease with options to extend for some period of time; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson noted that Mr. Wellford stated there would be a lot of students attending in the evening, but he wondered if there would also be a lot attending during the day as well; Mr. Wellford noted he thought it would be approximately one half of what is expected in the evenings; Mr. Robertson noted this should help some with the traffic situation; and Mr. Wellford noted that they hope this is going to work for them; and WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to said request; 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 HRT of Roanoke, Inc., property owner, and ITT Technical Institute, lessee, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a college/university on the property located at 2159-2163 Apperson Drive (P/O Tax Map #281-1-2) be approved as presented – the roll call vote: all present – aye. In re: Consider amending Chapter 106, Article II District Regulations, Section 106-202.3(B)(1) and 106-208.3(B)(1)of THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, pertaining to side yard requirements The Executive Secretary reported that this date and time had been set to hold a public hearing to consider amending Chapter 106, Article II District Regulations, Section 106-202.3(B)(1) and 106-208.3(B)(1) of THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, pertaining to side yard requirements; and WHEREAS, the Executive Secretary further reported that notice of such hearing had been published in the July 31 and August 7, 2008, issues of The Roanoke Times; and WHEREAS, staff noted the following: this request is to amend Section 106-202.3(B) (1) and 106-208.3(B)(1) to clarify the side yard setback requirements; currently the side yard requirement is: Side Yard: Any side yard shall be a minimum of ten percent of lot width. However, total side yards shall not be required to exceed 25 feet. The proposed new language is: Side Yard: Any side yard shall be a minimum of ten percent of lot width. However, under no circumstances shall either side yard be required to exceed 25 feet; and WHEREAS, Jay Taliaferro, Assistant City Manager, appeared before the Commission explaining the proposed ordinance amendment; he noted since the City’s zoning ordinance was rewritten several things have been identified that need to be changed due to an issue arising; this is one of those cases; the way the ordinance is currently written, it is a little unclear as to the intent, and this change, if approved, would clear this up; basically it applies to large width lots that the house or structure clearly would not touch either of the setbacks; this change will limit the maximum width on either side setback to 25’; 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 Chapter 106, Article II District Regulations, Section 106-202.3(B)(1) and 106-208.3(B)(1) of THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, pertaining to side yard requirements be amended as follows: Sec. 106-202.3(B)(1). Site Development Regulations. (B) Minimum Setback Requirements. 1. Principal Structure: Side Yard: Any side yard shall be a minimum of ten percent of lot width. However, total side yards shall not under no circumstances shall either side yard be required to exceed 25 feet. Sec. 106-208.3(B)(1). Site Development Regulations. (B) Minimum Setback Requirements. 1. Principal Structure: Side Yard: Any side yard shall be a minimum of ten percent of lot width. However, total side yards shall not under no circumstances shall either side yard be required to exceed 25 feet. -- the roll call vote: all present – aye. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the same on motion adjourned at 7:24 p.m.