Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/15/2007 - Planning Commission - Minutes - RegularAPPROVED MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION August 15, 2007 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 15, 2007, 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 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 E. 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 THOMASSON, AND DULY CARRIED, the minutes of the regular meeting and work session held on June 13, 2007, were approved as written – the roll call vote: all present – aye. In re: Request of Virginia Parris & Oscar W. Hall Et Al, property owners, and Brenda Busic, contract purchaser, for rezoning the property located at 509 S. Colorado Street (Tax Map #145-8-6) from RSF Residential Single Family District to RB Residential Business District The Executive Secretary reported that this date and time had been set to hold a public hearing to consider the request of Virginia Parris & Oscar W. Hall Et Al, property owners, and Brenda Busic, contract purchaser, for rezoning the property located at 509 S. Colorado Street (Tax Map #145-8-6) from RSF Residential Single Family District to RB Residential Business District; and WHEREAS, the Executive Secretary further reported that notice of such hearing had been published in the August 2 and 9, 2007, issues of the Salem Times-Register, and adjoining property owners were notified by letter mailed August 3, 2007; and 2 WHEREAS, staff noted the following: the subject property consists of one parcel located along the west side of South Colorado Street, south of Third Street; the parcel is approximately 75 feet by 125 feet and is currently occupied by a one-story single family residence and two small outbuildings; it is bordered at the rear of the property by an alley; this request is to rezone the property from RSF to RB to allow the relocation and operation of a nail and tanning salon; the applicant has stated that she currently leases space at 400 East Calhoun Street in Salem and would like to relocate; the applicant states she will offer nail services by appointment and have three tanning suites; renovations to the house will be extensive including upgrades to the electrical service, plumbing and HVAC systems; the applicant also states she will add a paved area to the rear of the property to accommodate parking and an illuminated sign at the front of the building that is in compliance with sign ordinance regulations; in accordance with Section 106-400 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, a site plan shall be prepared for this property and submitted to staff for review because of the conversion from residential use to commercial use; the applicant has not stated how much additional parking she intends to install; and depending on the number of spaces and square footage of impervious surface, she may be required to install storm water management facilities; and WHEREAS, Renee Witt of 2647 Puckett Circle, Salem, business partner of Brenda Busic, appeared before the Commission explaining the request to rezone this property from RSF Residential Single Family District to RB Residential Business District; she noted that she and Ms. Busic would like to convert this house for use as a nail and tanning salon; she noted that Ms. Busic has been in business for approximately 4-5 years in Salem leasing property; the business has grown, and now Ms. Busic wants to own property and has invited her to join the business; she noted that they plan to renovate this property, which was built in 1921; the decor and furnishings etc. will go back to 1921 to honor that time period and the previous owner of the property; they hope it will be a place that people will want to come relax and enjoy; and 3 WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson asked Ms. Witt approximately how many customers per day would they have utilizing the business; Ms. Witt noted that the nail service would be by appointment with approximately 12-15 customers per day and they will have three tanning suites, which will be a walk-in situation; Commission Member Robertson stated he had noticed driving by the house that there is a single-lane driveway that he assumes will be used to access the parking in the rear; Ms. Busic noted that they plan to put parking in the rear of the building; Ms. Witt noted that there is access to the alley so they will have a front and back entrance, and she has estimates for paving the parking in the rear; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson noted he trusted the illuminated sign would be tastefully done in keeping with the 1921 period; he noted that he would hate to see this cute house have a neon flashing sign; Ms. Witt noted that it would not be a neon flashing sign; she stated that the color scheme is pale pink with chocolate accents and would be very tasteful; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Daulton asked how the sign would be illuminated, and Ms. Witt noted they would use a small flood or spot light to illuminate a hand-painted sign; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson asked if city staff would review the site plan, and Ms. Payne noted that this was correct; she further noted that the petitioners are aware of this requirement; and WHEREAS, Chuck Aldridge noted that a sign permit would be required for the proposed sign, and Ms. Witt noted that she had information regarding the sign permit requirement; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Daulton asked how the storm water would be handled, and Chuck VanAllman noted that the storm water management would depend on how much area they would be disturbing; and 4 WHEREAS, there was further discussion regarding the proposed parking and storm water management requirements; 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 Virginia Parris & Oscar W. Hall Et Al, property owners, and Brenda Busic, contract purchaser, for rezoning the property located at 509 S. Colorado Street (Tax Map #145-8-6) from RSF Residential Single Family District to RB Residential Business District be approved as presented – the roll call vote: all present – aye. In re: Request of Jodie L. & Gwen H. Terry and Ricky L. Reynolds, property owners, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a two-family dwelling on the property located at 16 N. Bruffey Street (Tax Map #125-3-11 ) The Executive Secretary reported that this date and time had been set to hold a public hearing to consider the request of Jodie L. & Gwen H. Terry and Ricky L. Reynolds, property owners, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a two-family dwelling on the property located at 16 N. Bruffey Street (Tax Map #125-3-11); and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted the City had received a letter from the petitioners asking to withdraw the item from consideration. In re: Consider amending Chapter 106, Article II District Regulations, Section 106-226.4(A), 106-226.7(B), 106-226.7(C), and 106-226.8(A) of THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, pertaining to the Floodplain Overlay District (FOD) 5 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 106-226.4(A), 106- 226.7(B), 106-226.7(C), and 106-226.8(A) of THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, pertaining to the Floodplain Overlay District (FOD); and WHEREAS, the Executive Secretary further reported that notice of such hearing had been published in the August 2 and 9, 2007, issues of the Salem Times-Register; and WHEREAS, staff noted the following: the amendments to this ordinance are minor dealing with changing dates and names of State departments; the only major change is to Section 106-226.8(A) Existing Structures and Vacant Land; this section has been reworded to state that any “modification, alteration, repair, reconstruction or improvement” to a structure and/or use located in the flood plain to an extent or amount of 50 percent or more of its market value must comply fully with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code; and the existing number (3) has been renumbered (4); and WHEREAS, Chuck VanAllman, City Engineer, appeared before the Commission explaining the proposed ordinance amendments; he noted approximately 2½ to 3 years ago Roanoke City and Roanoke County started a program with some aid from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to re-delineate the flood maps in the Roanoke County area; basically, they were not doing any new studies but taking up to date and newer contour information and mapping out the flood plain areas; since Salem is essentially in the middle of Roanoke County, we were included in this process even though we were not an official participant; the City provided FEMA with the 1992 aerial photography, which is approximately 20 years newer than the previous contour information used on the older Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM); he noted that there are a few minor changes to the maps, and one of the things we are required to do is to amend 6 our ordinance because it makes reference to the effective date of the maps; this date will change to September 28, 2007; the other issue is that a couple of agencies within the Department of Conservation and Recreation have changed, and the ordinance needs to reflect those name changes; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson asked if the changes are mainly language changes, and Mr. VanAllman noted that this was correct; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that every time we do something official related to floodplain and floodway he starts thinking back to the last major flooding we had; he noted that many of the bottom floor apartments are now occupied at one apartment complex that has had major issues with flooding over the years; and WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to said request; 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 Chapter 106, Article II District Regulations, Section 106-226.4(A), 106- 226.7(B), 106-226.7(C), and 106-226.8(A) of THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, pertaining to the Floodplain Overlay District (FOD) be amended as follows: Section 106-226.4 Establishment of Floodplain Districts and Restrictions (A) Floodplain districts shall include all land subject to inundation by the waters of the 100-year flood. The source of this delineation shall be the flood insurance study for the City of Salem, as prepared by the Federal Insurance Administration-Federal Emergency Management Agency, dated October 18, 1995, September 28, 2007, or the most recent revision thereof. The designated floodplain district and accompanying regulations shall be overlays to the existing underlying zoning districts as shown on the official zoning map, and as such the provisions for floodplain 7 districts shall serve as a supplement to the underlying zoning district regulations. The physical boundaries of the floodplain districts are established as shown on the flood insurance rate map (FIRM) from the above-cited flood insurance study, which map is declared to be a part of this ordinance and which shall be kept on file in the office of the Building Official and the Clerk of Council. In the event if any conflict between the provisions of the overlaying floodplain districts and the underlying existing zoning regulations, the more restrictive provisions shall apply. Section 106-226.7 Development Restrictions, Floodway (B) Alternation and relocation of floodway and channel. Prior to any proposed alteration or relocation of any channels or floodways of any watercourse, stream, etc., within the City of Salem, approval shall be obtained from the U.S. Corps of Engineers, the State Water Control Board and the State Marine Resources Commission. Furthermore, notification of the proposal shall be given by the applicant to all affected adjacent jurisdictions, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, (Division of Soil and Water Conservation Dam Safety and Floodplain Management) and the Federal Insurance Administration. (C) Manufactured homes. The placement of any manufactured home within any floodway is strictly prohibited except in an existing manufactured home park or existing manufactured home subdivision. Manufactured homes that are not subject to the provisions of this chapter shall be elevated so that either: (1) the lowest floor of the manufactured home is at least one foot above the base flood elevation; or (2) the manufactured home chassis is supported by reinforced piers or other foundation elements of at least equivalent strength that are no less than 36 inches in height above grade and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system o to resist flotation, collapse and lateral movement. 8 Section 106-226.8 Existing Structures and Vacant Land (A) 3. The owner and/or agents of any existing structure and/or use located in any flood plain overlay districts shall fully disclose in writing to all prospective interested parties including, but not limited to, purchasers and renters that (1) the land and/or structures are located in flood prone areas, and (2) whether any variances have been granted for certain structures located in flood prone areas. The modification, alteration, repair, reconstruction or improvement of any kind to a structure and/or use regardless of its location in the flood plain district to an extent or amount of 50 percent or more of its market value shall only be undertaken in full compliance with the provisions of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. 4. The owner and/or agents of any existing structure and/or use located in any flood plain overlay districts shall fully disclose in writing to all prospective interested parties including, but not limited to, purchasers and renters that (1) the land and/or structures are located in flood prone areas, and (2) whether any variances have been granted for certain structures located in flood prone areas. – the roll call vote: all present – aye. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the same on motion adjourned at 7:17 p.m.