Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/13/2006 - Planning Commission - Minutes - RegularAPPROVED MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 2006 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 December 13, 2006, 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 November 1 5 , 2006, were approved as written – the roll call vote: all present – aye. In re: Request of AE Elliott Properties, LLC, property owner, for rezoning two parcels located in the 900 block of Apperson Drive (Tax Map #248-7-1 & 2) from RSF Residential Single Family District to HBD Highway Business District and 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 AE Elliott Properties, LLC, property owner, for rezoning two parcels located in the 900 block of Apperson Drive (Tax Map #248-7-1 & 2) from RSF Residential Single Family District to HBD Highway Business District and RMF Residential Multi-Family District; and WHEREAS, the Executive Secretary further reported that notice of such hearing had been published in the November 30, and December 7, 2006, issues of the Salem Times-Register, and adjoining property owners were notified by letter mailed December 1, 2006; and 2 WHEREAS, staff noted the following: the subject property consists of two parcels located at the intersection of Apperson Drive and Orchard Drive; the property is currently occupied by an older single family residence; the total acreage is approximately 1.19 acres (0.595 acres per lot); Parcel A will encompass the northern half of both original parcels, and Parcel B will encompass the southern half; the petitioner is requesting Parcel A be rezoned to HBD and Parcel B rezoned to RMF; the existing residence would be relocated to the Apperson Drive and Orchard Drive corner and a new building constructed to the east of it along Apperson; five two- story town homes, with garages, would then be constructed on Parcel B; parking for commercial and residential uses will be separated; space for employees and patrons of the commercial buildings is located on Parcel A; two outdoor spaces, in addition to garage parking for each town home, are located on Parcel B; the developer is proposing a single, shared entrance to minimize curb cuts on Orchard Drive; a cross-access agreement will be necessary for ingress/egress; all rights and responsibilities of involved parties should be clearly outlined in the Home Owners/Property Owners Agreement; and WHEREAS, Sean Horne of Balzer & Associates, Roanoke, representing the property owner, appeared before the Commission explaining the request to rezone this property from RSF Residential Single Family District to HBD Highway Business District and RMF Residential Multi-Family District; he presented the Commission a package of information showing a site master plan, architectural style of the proposed office building, and architectural style of the proposed town homes; he noted that the property will be subdivided into two parcels, with Parcel A being zoned Highway Business District and Parcel B being Residential Multi-Family; he further noted that the northern parcel will have the existing house relocated for use as a professional office building as well as a new professional office building constructed; on the rear parcel, which is proposed to be rezoned to Residential Multi-Family, the developer is proposing to build five attached town homes with drive 3 under garages; he noted that Apperson Drive is a growing commercial corridor, even though much of it is still residential, and they feel with the existing mix of uses the proposed development is in line with the current development patterns of the existing corridor; the proposed business use on the front of the property is in line with some adjacent business uses, and the residential buffer to the rear will provide a transition from the business use to single family, which is located to the rear of this property; they are also proposing extensive landscaping along Apperson & Orchard Drives as well as internal landscaping leading into the subdivision; they are proposing a Type B buffer containing evergreen trees and evergreen shrubs on the southern property line between the proposed town homes and the adjacent property owner; he noted that the office buildings and town homes will share a common access point from Orchard Drive with a cross-access agreement between the two parcels; this one access point will eliminate multiple curb cuts along Orchard Drive, and there will be no additional curb cuts on Apperson Drive; with the proposed one access point, this should help to keep the traffic impact to a minimum; parking for the office buildings will be provided on that parcel, and the town homes will have two spaces in the front as well as a garage under each unit; with regards to traffic generation, Balzer & Associates conducted a traffic generation study and found that in the total a.m. peak hour there will be an additional 13 trips and the total peak hour in the p.m. will have an additional 13 trips for a total daily traffic increase of 80 trips per day; he noted that these figures are in line with normal residential and business traffic generation models; he further noted that the property is located within a floodplain, and they are proposing to elevate the site to get it out of the floodplain and provide some type of storm water management under the parking lot with a discharge to the ditch along Apperson Drive; they have also considered a second option which would be to provide some type of above-ground detention system; and 4 WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson asked Mr. Horn if they planned to discharge the storm water to the ditch in front, and Mr. Horne noted this was correct; he further explained that the site will be elevated, and they will have to provide engineering studies and detain the storm water to a point where they are not putting more water in the ditch than is there now; further, they will have to prove adequacy at the time the engineering studies are done; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson asked how much they would have to raise the property, and Mr. Horne noted he thought that it was three feet; further, the relocated house will be raised so the finished floor is one foot above the flood plain; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson asked if the town homes would be elevated as well; Mr. Horne noted that the town homes would have to be elevated so that all living space is above the floodplain so this area will have to be filled, but as far as the front portion they will fill it some so that there is not a stair step affect on the property; the buildings will probably be constructed on crawl spaces, but they can only be constructed so high due to handicap accessibility; he does not think that Mr. Elliott wants ramps constructed on the sides of the buildings; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Daulton asked if they knew what the businesses would be, and Mr. Horne noted that he did not know other than it would be professional offices, such as insurance, real estate, medical, etc.; he further noted that it would be rental spaces; Commission Member Daulton stated she understood the townhouses would also be rental, and Mr. Horne noted that this was correct; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson asked if the estimated traffic counts included the office buildings, and Mr. Horne noted that the office buildings and the townhouse units were included in the traffic study; and 5 WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson asked Mr. Horne if the traffic counts took into account the residences located in the subdivision behind this property; Mr. Horne noted that basically what was evaluated was the number of trips that this site would generate during the peak traffic hours, which was 13 in the morning and 13 in the evening; he further noted that the evaluation of the turning lanes did include the traffic that currently comes down Orchard Drive; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Daulton asked Mr. Horne how they came up the 13 trips on the traffic count, and Mr. Horne noted that this is 13 peak-hour trips with a total of 80 trips daily; he further noted that the counts are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual; and WHEREAS, there was further discussion regarding the traffic counts and peak hour trips; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that there is an existing problem related to west bound traffic turning left along Apperson Drive, and he felt that some day the City is going to have to deal with the problem; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson noted he felt the biggest issue they are going to have to overcome is the water; and WHEREAS, Jay Taliaferro, Assistant City Manager and Executive Secretary, noted that the rule of thumb the City uses for residential trips is 10 trips per day per unit; Mr. Horne noted according to the traffic engineering data they have, the number is normally around ten for single family residences, for patio homes this number goes down a little bit, and for townhouses it goes down a little more; he further noted that this data is based on the trip generation manual; he stated if we were to assume ten trips per day, we are basically looking at another 21 trips per day, which works out to 100 trips per day; and 6 WHEREAS, Mr. Horne noted that the traffic count on Apperson Drive is the real problem because according to their data that number is 19,000 vehicles per day; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson asked Mr. Horne if the units would face into the parking lot and would the garages underneath the units be from this side as well, and Mr. Horne noted that this was correct; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson asked how much the townhouse units would rent for; and WHEREAS, Ed Elliott, property owner, appeared before the Commission noting the rental price would be approximately $800 per month; and Mr. Horne noted that the units are a substantial size, approximately a 1,500 square-foot footprint; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson asked Mr. Elliott if he had considered selling the units, and Mr. Elliott noted he has considered selling them; and Commission Member Robertson noted he thought there would be some real interest if they were for sale; and WHEREAS, Greg King, speaking for his mother Elva King who lives at 921 Tremont Road, appeared before the Commission; he noted that her main concern with the request is the water runoff; presently, it does not take much rain to flood her lower back yard, Dr. May’s back yard, and yard of the house at the corner of Brookland Drive and Tremont Avenue; she is concerned with the blacktop being proposed for this site, and since there are no storm drains, she is afraid the water is going to wind up in their yards; further, in the past, the City has had to pump the pond that forms here; she believes that this development is going to exacerbate the existing situation and be a major problem for her, unless the City plans to address the storm water runoff along Apperson, Brookland, and Orchard; further, his mother would like to know if this property will have proffered conditions like Dr. May’s property had 7 to have; she would like to see the property zoned Residential Business where the owners of the business would have to reside in the building like Dr. May does; and WHEREAS, Jim Graham of 1620 Orchard Drive, adjacent property owner, appeared before the Commission noting his concerns about he proposed request; he stated that the traffic on Orchard Drive is almost like Williamson Road in the mornings & evenings with a steady flow of traffic; he noted that there is not a left turn lane from Apperson onto Orchard Drive, which causes the traffic to back up to the Sheetz service station; further, with regards to the water situation, there is a river that runs between his yard and Orchard Drive every time it rains; if the developer will be paving this area, then he does not know where the water is going; he further noted that he has too much money invested to have a bunch of row houses right beside his property; further, he noted with rental property we do not know what type of clientele will be living there; and WHEREAS, Dr. Dale May of 918 Apperson Drive, adjacent property owner and owner of May Chiropractic Clinic, appeared before the Commission; he noted that he remembered a comment Mayor Taliaferro made approximately 21 years ago; he stated that Mayor Taliaferro said that one of these days Apperson Drive is going to turn commercial, and that we should consider the future and prepare for it; he noted that he is in favor of the rezoning request, but he questions the wisdom of moving the buildings forward because we may need to widen Apperson Drive one day; and WHEREAS, David May of 839 Apperson Drive appeared before the Commission stating his property is adjacent to multi-family property so he does not have a problem with Mr. Elliott’s rezoning request; his only concern is the water situation, and he wanted to make sure the Commission is aware of the problem; and 8 WHEREAS, Jim Graham reappeared before the Commission noting that when he built his house six years ago, the City told him that he could not build out of the flood plain so he had to move his house closer to the road in order to stay out of it; it seems to him that the developer is trying to building out of it unless the law has changed since then; and WHEREAS, Chuck Aldridge, Acting Building Official and Zoning Administrator, noted that it is not possible to build out of the floodway, but it is possible to raise the elevation and build in the floodplain; he stated that he thought part of Mr. Graham’s property was in the floodway and that where he constructed his house was in the floodplain; Mr. Graham noted that he did not know the difference, but that he did remember being told you could not build out of it; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that issues related to the water, traffic, and moving the existing building had been raised; he noted that when we have new development, one of the protections is that the water runoff is not increased by the new construction, and there are engineering efforts done to try to ensure that; so he wants the residents to understand they are aware of the problem, and the requirement will be on the developer, if the request goes forward, to not increase the runoff; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson asked if Mr. Horne could address the water issue; he also requested that the developer and the City work together on this issue to find a solution to the water problem that would be positive for all involved; Mr. Horne noted the water would go into whatever storage facility they provide, and he noted that there is one other option that he failed to mention; he noted that one of the best options, in his opinion, is provide infiltration so that the water will go directly into the ground rather than into a ditch; he feels that this could possibly help them to not only meet the detention requirement but possibly go beyond the requirement; he further noted that Mr. Elliott will 9 consider all the options to help reduce the situation; knowing that there is a problem in this area, they are willing to work with City staff and the developer to find a solution that best solves the problem; he further noted any solution they come up with will not be able to take all the water away from Apperson, but they can prove that their site is not increasing the amount of water and could possibly show a decrease in what is coming off the property depending on the system they use; 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 AE Elliott Properties, LLC, property owner, for rezoning two parcels located in the 900 block of Apperson Drive (Tax Map #248-7- 1 & 2) from RSF Residential Single Family District to HBD Highway Business District and RMF Residential Multi-Family District be approved as presented – the roll call vote: Mr. Thomasson – nay; Mrs. Daulton – nay; Mr. Robertson – aye; and Mr. Smith - aye. In re: Request of Richard-Wilbert, Inc., property owner, and Cingular Wireless, lessee, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a telecommunications tower facility on the property located at 169 Simms Drive (P/O Tax Map #111-1-3) The Executive Secretary reported that this date and time had been set to hold a public hearing to consider the request of Richard-Wilbert, Inc., property owner, and Cingular Wireless, lessee, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a telecommunications tower facility on the property located at 169 Simms Drive (P/O Tax Map #111-1-3); and WHEREAS, the Executive Secretary further reported that notice of such hearing had been published in the November 30, and December 7, 2006, issues of the Salem Times-Register, and adjoining property owners were notified by letter mailed December 1, 2006; and 10 WHEREAS, staff noted the following: the subject property consists of one parcel located at the southern end of Simms Drive and next to Mason Creek; it is bordered on the west by Sherwood Burial Park and Bonneville Mobile Home Park; the lot is approximately 3.56 acres, of which Cingular is proposing to lease a 75-foot square for the construction and operation of a 120-foot high cellular phone monopole; the current City of Salem Zoning Ordinance outlines Use and Design Standards for towers in Section 106-314.5 and, among other requirements, states that no tower shall be located within 500 feet of any residential district; the adjacent cemetery is zoned RSF, and the proposed site lies well within the 500-foot buffer zone; on November 16, 2006, Cingular was granted a variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals for 336.59 feet of the 500 required; and WHEREAS, G. Michael Pace Jr., of Gentry, Locke, Rakes, and Moore, attorney representing the lessee, appeared before the Commission explaining the proposed request to allow a telecommunications tower facility on a portion of the property located at 169 Simms Drive; he noted that he has been representing Cingular Wireless since 1997, and that one of the original requests was for a tower located behind the Sonic Drive In on Apperson Drive; Cingular Wireless is continuing to develop its wireless network throughout the valley and in the City of Salem; they have some existing sites in the City of Salem, and the site closest to the proposed location is the antennas located on the top of the Salem Bank & Trust building; they are here this evening to request approval of a site that will fill in and connect with a site located on Route 419 at Pinkerton Chevrolet; the purpose of this request is to enhance the coverage; the coverage along East Main Street and along the 419 corridor leading to I-81 provides what they call “in-car” coverage, but it does not provide “in-building” coverage; as the Commission knows, this area is heavily populated with businesses and industries as well as some residential, but mainly, it is a commercial corridor; he noted that he wanted everyone to be clear about the nature of the request; they have coverage for cars, but the people who use their service also work 11 in the area, and in order to provide them “in-building” coverage, this tower location is needed; he noted that they submitted a package of information with the application; he noted that the philosophy and practice is to try to find a co-location opportunity first before they consider coming before the Commission to request a new antenna, and they did that in this case; the co- location opportunities in this area are few and far between; he further noted that they looked at the Kime Lane water tank, but that location had a unique feature; due to changes in elevation between Sherwood Memorial Burial Park and the Lakeside area, an antenna placed on the tank overshoots the coverage area they are trying to promote when they talk about “in-building” coverage; they are proposing a 120’ monopole at this location, the old vault property, which is zoned Heavy Manufacturing; with regards to the Comprehensive Plan, the future land use for this property is Commercial; he further noted that they have met all the requirements of the City’s Telecommunications Ordinance except for one, and they have now met it; Item D in Section 106.314.5. requires that towers be 500 feet away from any residentially-zoned district; there are no homes with 500’ of the proposed location, but a portion of the Sherwood Memorial Burial Park is zoned residential; to address this issue and to satisfy the requirements, they appeared before the Board of Zoning Appeals and were granted a variance; so they now meet by variance all the requirements of the ordinance; he further discussed the proposed request and noted that the request is consistent with the existing pattern of commercial development in the area; also, the request will further the public interest by allowing for better and continuous, uninterrupted wireless coverage for personal, business, and emergency services, and the monopole will allow for three co-locations; he noted that City staff had requested they take a photo simulation from the cemetery, and he presented a photograph showing the simulated monopole to the Commission; and he further discussed the photograph with the Commission; and 12 WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson asked if it is possible to dress up the base of the monopole, and Mr. Pace noted that they are required by the ordinance to do some things, such as a chain-link fence, etc., and they can do other things to try to make it look nice; however, traveling down Simms Road, there is not much to see; Mr. Pace further noted that they can limit the height, and this height is the minimum they can have to provide the coverage and to paint it galvanized gray, which is the best color that works in all conditions; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson asked Mr. Pace if the reason they were requesting the minimum, is that they would be missing some people if they went with a much higher structure; Mr. Pace noted they could go with a higher structure and probably have better coverage, but they did not see any need to do this and they know that the City wants them to be as low as possible and to have as few of them as possible; and WHEREAS, there was further discussion regarding the type of fencing for the structure; and WHEREAS, Jay Taliaferro, Assistant City Manager and Executive Secretary, noted that the ordinance requires landscaping around any support buildings necessary for the installation; Mr. Pace noted that they will be glad to do this, and they will work with the City to determine what will work best in this situation; and WHEREAS, Dale G. Finocchi with Cingular Wireless, 2620 West Main Street, Richmond, appeared before the Commission noting with the existing buildings and the industrial use currently in place, this could create a problem for them because the proposed location is directly in the middle of the lot; however, if there is room for landscaping, then they have no problem providing the landscaping; and 13 WHEREAS, Commission Member Daulton noted that the plans submitted with the request show landscaping for the site; and Mr. Pace noted that they will landscape the location; 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 the request of Richard-Wilbert, Inc., property owner, and Cingular Wireless, lessee, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a telecommunications tower facility on the property located at 169 Simms Drive (P/O Tax Map #111-1-3) be approved as presented – the roll call vote: all present - aye. In re: Request of Rain Corporation, property owner, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a used automobile dealership on the property located at 1622 East Main Street (Tax Map #80-1-1) The Executive Secretary reported that this date and time had been set to hold a public hearing to consider the request of Rain Corporation, property owner, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a used automobile dealership on the property located at 1622 East Main Street (Tax Map #80-1-1); and WHEREAS, the Executive Secretary further reported that notice of such hearing had been published in the November 30, and December 7, 2006, issues of the Salem Times-Register, and adjoining property owners were notified by letter mailed December 1, 2006; and WHEREAS, staff noted the following: the subject property consists of one parcel located at the intersection of East Main Street and Electric Road (Rt. 419); it is bordered on the southeast side by Conehurst Boulevard; the property is the site of a former Exxon Gasoline Fueling Station; the lot is approximately 0.716 acres; and the applicant states that he will modify the existing structure but not replace it entirely; and 14 WHEREAS, Amrit Sethi of 10616 Hunting Shire Lane, Fairfax Station, VA, property owner and President of Rain Corporation, appeared before the Commission explaining the proposed request to allow the property to be used for a used automobile dealership; he noted that the property is currently zoned HBD Highway Business District and has been used as a gasoline station for the past 17 years; the gasoline station was built by Exxon in 1989 and since then the property has changed hands several times; the property has not been successful as a gasoline station, and the reason for the change to a used automobile dealership is for economic reasons; the property has been for sale for the past year, and he noted that he feels if the City will give them permission to use it for this purpose, then they can do it well; he further noted that in the present market there has been a lot of competition in the gasoline business, and if Exxon could not make it, then naturally a small company cannot make it a success; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson noted that there are a lot of used car lots in the City as well, and Mr. Sethi noted that this is correct, but his corporation owns a few properties in the area and every time you purchase a business property, you take a chance; he further noted that he has thought about this but that he likes competition; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson asked Mr. Sethi if he was currently involved in the automobile business in other locations, and Mr. Sethi noted that his corporation develops properties; they recently sold a two-acre parcel in Dumfries, Virginia, where they developed a Chevron gas station and a used car business; at the present time, they own a gas station on Peters Creek Road and a automobile repair shop also on Peters Creek Road; Commission Member Robertson asked Mr. Sethi if he planned to lease the property, and Mr. Sethi noted that he would have a person to manage the business and they will be selling nice, late model cars; and 15 WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson asked Mr. Sethi how many cars he would expect to have on the lot on a daily basis, and Mr. Sethi noted that the property is large enough to accommodate as many as 80 cars, but they plan to have approximately 40 cars; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that he understood the gasoline tanks will not have to be removed from the property; Mr. Sethi stated that they had Phase I & Phase II environmental studies conducted on the property, and they received clearance from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality; he also noted that he contacted the Building Inspections Department and spoke with Charles Aldridge, Building Official, to make sure that they would not have to remove the tanks, and Mr. Aldridge had told him that they would not have to remove the tanks; and WHEREAS, Chuck Aldridge, Acting Building Official and Zoning Administrator, noted that he had spoken with Mr. Sethi, and they have clearance to leave the tanks; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith asked Mr. Sethi if he had any plans with regards to the building, and Mr. Sethi noted that they plan to leave the building and the canopy, but they plan to make some improvements and to update by painting, etc.; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Daulton asked if the improvements would include landscaping the property, and Mr. Sethi noted that they will landscape the property along Electric Road and East Main Street; he further noted that they would not be tall plants but would be approximately 2-3’ in height; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that the property has an access issue and is not easily accessible for southbound and westbound traffic; and WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to said request; 16 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 Rain Corporation, property owner, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a used automobile dealership on the property located at 1622 East Main Street (Tax Map #80-1-1) be approved as presented – the roll call vote: all present - aye. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the same on motion adjourned at 7:53 p.m.