Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/10/2023 - Planning Commission - Minutes - RegularPlanning Commission Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 10, 2023, 7:00 PM Work Session 6:00PM Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street: WORK SESSION 1. Call to Order A work session of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia, at 6:00 p.m. on May 10, 2023; there being the members of said Commission, to wit: Vicki G. Daulton, Chair; Denise P. King, Vice Chair; Reid Garst, and Jackson Beamer (Neil L. Conner - absent); together with Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator; Maxwell Dillon, Planner; Joshua Pratt, Civil Engineer II; and Jim H. Guynn, Jr., City Attorney; and the following business was transacted: Chair Daulton called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. and reported that this date, place and time had been set for the Commission to hold a work session. 2. New Business A. Discussion of items on the May agenda 1. Old Virginia Brick sign 2. Salem Montessori School A discussion was held regarding the items on the May agenda. B. Introduction of items on the June agenda 1. Rezoning 500 block White Street - Invisions 2. Special Exception Permit 514 West Main St - Personal Services - Barber Items for the June meeting were introduced, and a discussion was held. A discussion was also held regarding the Valleydale combination plat and right-of-way dedication; and regarding a Special Exception Permit to allow a pawn shop at 1617 W. Main Street. 3. Adjournment Chair Daulton inquired if there were any other items for discussion and hearing none, adjourned the work session at 6:53 p.m. REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held after due and proper notice in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia, at 7:00 p.m., on May 10, 2023. Notice of such hearing was published in the April 27 and May 4, 2023, issues of the "Salem Times Register," a newspaper published and having general circulation in the City of Salem. All adjacent property owners were notified via the U. S. Postal Service. The Commission, constituting a legal quorum, presided together with Jim H. Guynn, Jr., City Attorney; H. Robert Light, Assistant City Manager and Executive Secretary, ex officio member of said Commission, to wit; Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator; Joshua Pratt, Civil Engineer, II, and Maxwell Dillon, Planner, and the following business was transacted: A. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Consent Agenda A. Minutes Consider acceptance of the minutes from the April 12, 2023, work session and regular meeting. Jackson Beamer motioned Motion. Denise King seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Daulton, Garst, King Absent: Conner 3. Old Business A. Landmark Sign Hold public hearing to consider the request of OVB Investments LLC, property owner, to designate the Old Virginia Brick sign located at 2500 West Main Street, Tax Map # 175-2-3, as a landmark sign. (Continued from the April 12, 2023, meeting.) Staff noted the following: According to the City of Salem code, “Signs that do not advertise an existing bona fide business, service or product manufactured on a premises, but which may be of significant civic, historic, architectural, or cultural interest may be declared a landmark sign.” The following are requirements for a landmark sign: 1. An application shall be made to the planning commission. 2. Applicants shall provide at the time of application, a written history of the existing sign, noting any and all physical changes or modifications, and/or a written account of the nature of the significance to the community. 3. Applicants shall provide photographs of the sign, preferably at various times throughout its history, and from as many different views as possible, or plans or drawings of the proposed sign from different views, along with a certified plat determining location, and photos of the existing property on which the sign will reside. 4. Applicants shall provide a maintenance plan as to how the sign will be maintained in its current form or a restoration plan to include maintenance to restore the sign to its original form. 5. The commission shall hold a public hearing and review the application before making a determination as to the declaration. 6. Any alterations to any landmark sign must be approved through this process. 7. The commission may remove such landmark designation and require the sign to be removed if it is altered, in disrepair, misused, or any other reason deemed appropriate. OVB Investments LLC, “Old Virginia Brick,” is seeking the landmark designation for the sign located at the front of the property at 2500 West Main Street. Standing in some form or fashion since 1890, the “Old Virginia Brick” sign pays homage to a company which many historians believe to be the oldest manufacturer in the Roanoke Valley during its operation. In addition to its contribution to numerous development projects and homes throughout the City of Salem (such as the Veterans Affair Medical Center) and the greater Roanoke Valley, Old Virginia Bricks also facilitated the construction of numerous iconic sites throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia including the University of Virginia, Colonial Williamsburg, and Virginia Museum of Fine Arts in Richmond. An approval of the landmark designation for a sign does not in any way encroach upon the allowable signage for any future development/business operation which may occur on the site. It is also important to note that according to Section 66-13 (7), “The commission may remove such landmark designation and require the sign to be removed if it is altered, in disrepair, misused, or any other reason deemed appropriate.” Patrick Cooper, Vice President of Plant Operations, Adams Construction of Roanoke, Virginia, appeared before the Commission and stated that it is intended to restore the sign to what it looked like in its original form--the brick will be cleaned and the sign returned to its original luster. It is a memorable place, the bricks are located in many historic places around the State of Virginia, and restoring the sign will also improve the aesthetic of the property from the street. Chair Daulton questioned the timeline to restore the sign. Mr. Cooper stated that the improvements should be completed by the end of June. Vice Chair King questioned if there will be landscaping added to the sign, and Mr. Cooper stated that the company would entertain that if it the City wants it landscaped. Vice Chair King also inquired about placing a historic land marker, and Mr. Cooper stated the company would entertain that if the City wants one placed. Vice Chair King questioned who would maintain the sign. Mr. Cooper stated that Adams Construction will maintain the sign. A discussion was held regarding who would maintain the sign if the property was sold, and Mary Ellen Wines explained that the responsibility of maintaining the sign will transfer to the new owner if the property was sold. No other person(s) appeared before the Commission. Denise King motioned Approve the request of OVB Investments LLC, property owner, to designate the Old Virginia Brick sign located at 2500 West Main Street, Tax Map # 175-2-3, as a landmark sign. Reid Garst seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Daulton, Garst, King Absent: Conner 4. New Business A. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Hold public hearing to consider the request of Salem Montessori School, Inc., property owner, for rezoning the property at 112 Corporate Boulevard (Tax Map# 148-1-2.2) from RSF Residential Single-Family District and BCD, Business Commerce District with conditions to RSF Residential Single-Family District. Staff noted the following: The subject property located at 112 Corporate Boulevard consists of a 1.812-acre tract of land which currently possesses both the RSF Residential Single-Family and BCD Business Commerce District zoning designations. A previous amendment to the zoning ordinance resulted in the split zoning of the subject property, in addition to conditions which included the following clause: “The ancient grove of trees shown on the preliminary development plan and located on the eastern portion of the property midway between Texas Street and Lynchburg Turnpike shall be preserved.” The Montessori School is requesting a rezoning of the property from RSF/BCD with conditions to RSF, which will ultimately allow for the development of a new private elementary school should a subsequent special exception permit be approved. The removal of conditions applicable to this property will remove the existing protection of the ancient grove of trees which currently resides on the lot; however, the City Horticulturalist, Jeff Ceasar, provided a recommendation that many of the trees on site hold relatively little value (aside from a few select species), and thus could be removed to accommodate development (see submitted letter for a comprehensive list of recommendations). The developer has provided an initial concept plan for the planned construction, but this is subject to change based on the objective to preserve as many valuable trees as possible. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) identifies this area as institutional, which is consistent with the proposed development of an educational facility. Barney Horrell, Brushy Mountain Engineering, appeared before the Commission on behalf of the property owner and explained that the request is to "clean up" the zoning and remove the condition on the protection of the trees. Mary Ellen Wines stated that it also involves removing the original condition which prevents the removal of the ancient grove of trees. No other person(s) appeared related to the request. Reid Garst motioned Approve the request of Salem Montessori School, Inc., property owner, for rezoning the property at 112 Corporate Boulevard (Tax Map # 148-1-2.2) from RSF Residential Single-Family District and BCD, Business Commerce District with conditions to RSF Residential Single-Family District. Jackson Beamer seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Daulton, Garst, King Absent: Conner B. Special Exception Permit Amendment Hold public hearing to consider the request of Salem Montessori School, Inc., property owner, to revise the Special Exception Permit approved February 28, 2011, to allow the construction of an educational facility, primary/secondary on the property located at 112 Corporate Boulevard, (Tax Map # 148-1-2.2). Staff noted the following: The subject property located at 112 Corporate Boulevard consists of a 1.812-acre tract of land which currently possesses both the RSF Residential Single-Family and BCD Business Commerce District zoning designations. The applicant is requesting a revision to the Special Exception Permit approved on February 28, 2011, for the development of an education facility at 101 Corporate Boulevard to also include 112 Corporate Boulevard (across the street), which is contingent on the approval of the related rezoning request. That rezoning petition would remove the protection of the ancient grove of trees on the parcel, paving the way for the construction of a new school which would service students that age of out the existing facilities. The applicant has submitted a preliminary concept plan for the proposed educational facility which is subject to adjustments made to preserve as many valuable trees from the existing forest as possible. Jeff Ceaser, the City Horticulturalist, submitted a recommendation to save “4-5 very large and very old white oaks on site [by] designing the newly planned development around their canopy and vast root system” (amongst a few other species) if the site is developed (see letter for comprehensive list of recommendations). Additionally, City staff has agreed to be flexible in regard to parking requirements due to the plentiful proximal parking across Corporate Boulevard and in an effort to preserve as many valuable trees as possible. The applicant has noted that the building style of the proposed facility, along with the business hours, will be similar to the existing Montessori School operations across Corporate Boulevard. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) identifies this area as institutional, which is consistent with the proposed development of an educational facility. Barney Horrell, Brushy Mountain Engineering, appeared before the Commission on behalf of the property owner and explained the history of the Montessori School development, including the "upper campus" and the GE campus, and the new building constructed in 2015. He stated that the school serves kids from 6 weeks of age until 8th grade. The number of children attending drops off as public school becomes an option. Business has continued to be good, and a lot of parents would like for their children to continue in the school. The facility across from GE is essentially an old house that has been worked over and remodeled numerous times, and the time has come to either invest a lot of money into the existing building or build a new building. He further stated that as a parent who has had multiple children attend the school, it is a challenge sometimes to pick them all up at the correct time if they are not in close proximity to each other. He stated that it makes sense to set up a "campus" feel where all of the building are in close proximity to each other. The proposal is to construct one additional building, for a total of three buildings. He further stated that the Montessori School has been a good neighbor as evidenced by the lack of opposition present at the meeting. He also noted that the new building would operate the same as the existing buildings. He further stated that he has met with the City Horticulturist, Jeff Ceaser, and Mary Ellen Wines, Zoning and Planning Administrator, on-site to view the trees and stated that it is the intent to keep the trees. A very preliminary concept plan was submitted prior to the trees being located, and the building will be constructed in similar design as the other two buildings. He discussed the easement for a future greenway, which will be considered in the layout of the building, and the parking flexibility. He explained that before the site plan can be developed, two proffers need to be removed: Item A, which says that Tract 2 will not be developed; and Item F in the purchase agreement where the trees have to be preserved. He again stated that the trees have been located and will be preserved if possible. Chair Daulton questioned if the schools would all operate at the same times, and Mr. Horrell stated that all three buildings would operate at the same times. He also noted that the school operates year-round as it offers summer programs. Vice Chair questioned if the plan is to relocate all students from the Boulevard location, and Mr. Horrell stated that it is the intent to relocate the students. A discussion was held regarding the trees. Member Beamer questioned the number of students at each school. Mr. Horrell stated that there are currently 53 kids at the GE Campus, and the proposed new building can handle 90 kids. Valerie Vanderhoeven, property owner, 101 Corporate Boulevard, appeared before the Commission and stated that there are currently 220 students currently--53 at the elementary, approximately 100 at the middle school, and 80-something in the infant building. A discussion was held regarding the number of staff members, parking, storm water, etc. Mrs. Vanderhoeven stated that there are six staff members dedicated to the middle/elementary school students, but that does not include a financial manager or a facilities manager. A discussion was held regarding pedestrian traffic. It was noted that conditions can be placed on the request regarding the trees. No other person(s) appeared related to the request. Denise King motioned Approve request of Salem Montessori School, Inc., property owner, to revise the Special Exception Permit approved February 28, 2011, to allow the construction of an educational facility, primary/secondary on the property located at 112 Corporate Boulevard, (Tax Map # 148-1-2.2) with the conditions that the oak trees will remain, and other trees can be eliminated only with the approval of the City Horticulturalist. Jackson Beamer seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Daulton, Garst, King Absent: Conner 5. Adjournment Having no other items before the Commission, on motion by Vice Chair King, seconded by Member Beamer and duly carried, meeting was adjourned at 7:41 p.m. Absent: Conner City Council meeting, May 22, 2023, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street