Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/10/2024 - Planning Commission - Minutes - RegularPlanning Commission Meeting MINUTES Wednesday, April 10, 2024, 7:00 PM Work Session 6:00PM, Regular Session 7:00PM Community Room, Salem Civic Center, 1001 Roanoke Boulevard: WORK SESSION 1. Call to Order A work session of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in the Community Room, Salem Civic Center, 1001 Roanoke Boulevard, Salem, Virginia, at 6:00 p.m. on March 13, 2024; there being the members of said Commission, to wit: Vicki G. Daulton, Chair; Reid Garst, Neil L. Conner, and Jackson Beamer, Vice Chair King remotely participated in the meeting; together with Christopher Dorsey, City Manager; H. Robert Light, Assistant City Manager; Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator; William L. Simpson, Jr., Assistant Director of Community Development; Maxwell S. Dillon, Planner; and Jim Guynn, City Attorney; and the following business was transacted: Chair Daulton called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and reported that this, date, place, and time had been set for the Commission to hold a work session. 2. Comprehensive Plan Update An update was given regarding the progress of the Comprehensive Plan update. 3. Old Business A. Discussion of items on the April agenda 1. 860 Mount Vernon Lane rezoning from RSF to PUD 2. 1200 block Thompson Memorial Dr rezoning from RSF to HBD A discussion was held regarding the old business items on the April agenda. 4. New Business A. Discussion of items on the April agenda 1. Home Occupation Permit Amendment - 275 Fort Lewis Blvd 2. Use Not Provided For Permit Amendment - 125 Knotbreak Road A discussion was held regarding the new items on the April agenda. B. Discussion of items on the May agenda 1. 324 Pennsylvania Avenue - two family dwelling A discussion was held regarding the items on the May agenda. 5. Adjournment Chair Daulton inquired if there were any other items for discussion and hearing none, adjourned the work session at 6:37 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 Community Room, Salem Civic Center, 1001 Roanoke Boulevard, Salem, Virginia, at 7:00 p.m., on April 10, 2024. Notice of such hearing was published in the March 28, and April 4, 2024, 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 Christopher Dorsey, City Manager; H. Robert Light, Assistant City Manager; Jim Guynn, City Attorney; Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator; Maxwell S. Dillon, City Planner; and William L. Simpson, Jr., Assistant Director of Community Development, and the following business was transacted: A. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Consent Agenda Reid Garst motioned for Vice Chair King to remotely participate in the meeting. Jackson Beamer seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst Chair Daulton stated that she is still hearing from many citizens that the vote for the HopeTree rezoning needs to wait until the Comprehensive Plan update has been completed. She stated that the Commission has 100 days to make a decision and the 100 days is up today. The City already has a comprehensive plan in place. She explained that a comprehensive plane does not have any laws or ordinances--it is simply a visionary tool, a guide for the future. The comprehensive plan currently being updated is to go through 2045, and the decision simply cannot wait until that time. The City's current comprehensive plan addresses a PUD development. She stated that there is a new poll posted on the Community Development website and asked that everyone participate in the poll. She asked those present at the meeting to refrain from outbursts. A. Minutes Consider acceptance of the minutes from the March 13, 2024, work session and regular meeting. Consider acceptance of the minutes from the March 13, 2024, work session and regular meeting. Reid Garst motioned approve March 13, 2024, work session and regular meeting minutes. Jackson Beamer seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King 3. Old Business A. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Consider the request of Virginia Baptist Children's Home (dba HopeTree Family Services), property owner, for rezoning the properties located at 1000 block Red Ln and a portion of 860 Mount Vernon Lane (Tax Map #'s 41-1-1, 41-1-2, 41-1-3, 41- 1-4, 41-1-5, 41-1-6, and a portion of 44-3-10) from RSF Residential Single Family to PUD Planned Unit District. (Continued from the March 13, 2024, meeting.) Jon Morris, President, and CEO of HopeTree Family Services, appeared before the Commission and stated that since the process began there has been three goals in mind: to honor the history of HopeTree; to position HopeTree for the future; and to do something that the community will be proud of. He thanked the Planning Commission, City Council, City staff, neighbors, and colleagues for their input during this process, especially since February 14, 2024. He thanked Chair Daulton for requesting a joint meeting after the March meeting and stated that the Commission has received a revised application with the most recent changes, some of which resulted from the feedback received from the meeting. The changes include the elimination of over 40 commercial business uses; the reduction of the number of boutique hotel rooms; included accessory dwelling units in the overall housing numbers; and placed maximum square footage on any allowable commercial use. Changes were made to the existing plan to ensure that commercial was in the center of the campus in Zones T5. The traffic study has been confirmed by a third-party firm and nothing in the proposed plan will exceed the outcomes of that study. Red Lane improvements were also added to the application with more detail. All of the changes made have been more restrictive. He stated that HopeTree honors and respects everyone who has given input throughout the entire process. He feels that the revised plan before the Commission is a compromise from all parties involved and still allows HopeTree to achieve all three of its goals. He asked the Commission to approve the rezoning request. Chair Daulton asked if homes would be sold prior to the development or if spec houses would be built. Todd Robertson, Stateson Homes, appeared before the Commission and stated that the business model is that they sell the home and build on the lots; they don't sell the lots. He stated that the homes are typically custom built, but there are some spec-built units (i.e. townhomes). Chair Daulton asked if the majority of the units will be single-family homes. Mr. Robertson stated that single family means individually owned, but some could be attached. He stated that they have a patio home that is popular that is attached, but each of the homes are individually owned. He noted that there will be multiple types of patio homes in the development. Chair Daulton clarified and questioned if the majority will be single-family detached homes. Mr. Robertson stated that he could not answer the question at this time, but that single family detached will be a part of the project. He stated that if the project had 340 "doors" he thinks the majority of the homes would be attached instead of detached. A discussion was held regarding residential housing on the project--rental versus owner occupied and who would own the rental properties; apartment-type housing, etc. Use and refurbishing of the existing buildings, commercial spaces, etc. A motion to approve as written was given and seconded. Chair Daulton thanked the HopeTree team for the time spent going over the proposal and she appreciates the time given. She stated that she still feels that some things need to be tweaked; therefore, she will not be voting in favor of the rezoning request. She stated that at some point in time, she would like to get together again and go over the things she feels need to be modified. Member Conner stated that he feels that HopeTree did a great job responding to the neighborhood, and he thanked the neighbors for their feedback. He states that he feels that he has a good understanding of what is being proposed on the property, and having listened to it all, his first "knee-jerk" reaction was that this is not a good plan for the property. After listening to everything, he feels that the uses being asked for in the application are incongruent with the area. After using the same "lens" he has used for other questions, he cannot "square it" in his head and feels that the current zoning of residential, not necessarily just residential single-family, is the proper zoning for the property. He is in favor of denser housing, but 340 units on 37 acres gives him pause and he would like to flush that out more. He further stated that if the project gets built, he hopes he is wrong. He loves Salem and is in favor of development but is not in favor is this development. Vice Chair King stated that she is currently on vacation in Norway, and it is 1:23 a.m. She stated that is how seriously she takes her responsibilities on the Planning Commission. She further stated that the Commission has respectfully listened to citizen comments for approximately four hours at a public hearing, in addition the Commission has also met with many individual citizens. She has spent considerable time reviewing the original documents and all amendments line by line. She understands that people can become emotional when thinking and speaking of their homes, and she also understands that this can lead to a worst-case scenario in people's minds. In her opinion, the HopeTree project is not a commercial project, it is a residential project with a potential of limited commercial uses if and when there is a substantial need for it. Neither HopeTree nor its developers are in the business of owning spec commercial spaces. In speaking to the many citizens, she has had the opportunity to meet, she found that those citizens under the approximate age of 55 have been in favor of the project; and those older than 55 have been generally against the project, but not all. She feels that as a city, we cannot survive living in the past. We must live in the present and rebuild for our future. Salem must continue to move forward because maintaining the current does not ensure our future. Member Garst stated that traffic has been the biggest complaint by far regarding this project. Traffic is going to increase regardless of whether there is a PUD or RSF on the property. He feels that the traffic will be a little greater with a PUD than RSF. To determine the benefits to justify the additional traffic, he looked at the character of the project and compared it to what it would look like with residential single family. He lives in north Salem and believes that North Broad Street is a historic area, and one of the reasons it has such character is because of its variety and versatility-- small houses, big houses, apartment complexes, and duplexes all in the same street and they fit in, and everyone seems to get along well. With residential single family, you're looking at another neighborhood with largely "cookie cutter" houses with no shared greenspace-- something similar to Simms Farm. He stated that he held his nose when he voted yes for Simms Farm and believes it was the correct thing, but believes this proposal is much better. He feels that if another development is placed with just residential single family, it is going to another development with single family 100 years from now and feels that if a PUD is placed on the property, it will be historic like North Broad Street and believes it is in more in line with the character of North Broad Street than a development of just single family. He does not feel this is a heavily commercial project, but looks more like Crystal Springs where you have residential with commercial built into to it where you can walk down to eat breakfast, coffee, dinner, etc. He stated that he presented this project to his students and 77 percent of them voted in favor of the project. Member Beamer stated that he has listened to everyone and has read emails about emails, he has met with some residents individually. He stated that he has chosen to live at his current residence for 46 years. He has three different developments-- either new or repurposed developments around his residents and it was all four sides, and he has had three neighbors. He has made a lot of changes to his house and it's scary, but it has all worked out. He feels that voting for the PUD is the best option for this property. He stated that he has spoken to people adamantly against the project and people adamantly for the project. He stated that he had spent hours and hours thinking about the project, he has prayed about it, his wife has prayed about it for him. He loves this town; he gets emotional about it. He hears the concerns--the Baptist Home is near and dear to him--a lot of his friends he went to school with went there, he has refereed basketball games there, he's played basketball, he's refereed softball there, he has played softball there, and he has coached a lot of kids that went to school there later on. He stated that he sees it all, he gets it all, but he feels it is best to vote yes and hopes that the residents understand and he knows some will be upset with him for voting yes--some are his good friends and he is sorry but he is doing what he thinks is right for the City; and deep down in his soul, he feels this is what is right for everyone. Reid Garst motioned the request of Virginia Baptist Children's Home (dba HopeTree Family Services), property owner, for rezoning the properties located at 1000 block Red Lane and a portion of 860 Mount Vernon Lane (Tax Map #'s 41-1-1, 41-1-2, 41-1-3, 41- 1-4, 41-1-5, 41-1-6, and a portion of 44-3-10) from RSF Residential Single Family to PUD Planned Unit District. Jackson Beamer seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Garst, King Nays: Conner, Daulton B. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Consider the request of Pinkesh R. Patel and Sonal P. Patel, property owners, for rezoning the property located at 1200 block Thompson Memorial Drive (Tax Map # 20 - 2 - 4) from RSF Residential Single-Family District to HBD Highway Business District. (Continued from the March 13, 2024, meeting) Petitioners request that the item be continued until the May 15, 2024, meeting. Neil Conner motioned the request of Pinkesh R. Patel and Sonal P. Patel, property owners, for rezoning the property located at 1200 block Thompson Memorial Drive (Tax Map # 20 - 2 - 4) from RSF Residential Single-Family District to HBD Highway Business District. Reid Garst seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King 4. New Business A. Home Occupation Permit Hold public hearing to consider the request of Philip M. and Rachel C. Knouff, property owners, for the amendment of a Home Occupation Permit to allow retail sales at the cut flower farm (garden) on the property located at 275 Ft Lewis Blvd (Tax Map # 130-2-22). Staff noted the following: The subject property (275 Fort Lewis Boulevard) consists of a 1.779-acre tract of land which currently sits within the RSF Residential Single Family zoning designation. The applicant is requesting the addition of a retail license for the Home Occupation permit related to the sale of flowers. In 2022, the applicant requested the allowance of a wholesale flower business sustained by the garden located on the subject property. Because a wholesale flower business is a unique use in regard to a Home Occupation permit, staff referred the application to Planning Commission for approval. The Planning Commission correspondingly approved that item, and since that time, the applicant has experienced a demand for small-scale purchases which are more profitable than bulk orders. As a result, the current request entails the addition of a retail license to the home occupation permit which would facilitate the purchase of flowers by individuals. If approved, all sales will be delivered to customers off-site. Rachel Knouff, property owner, appeared before the Commission and stated that she came before the Commission two years ago to start her business for a wholesale license, which was granted, and she is requesting a retail license as well. She stated that this will not change the day-to-day activities of her business. She would still be growing flowers as usual and transporting flowers from her property to be sold, it would just expand who she can sell to. She has had a number of friends and family ask to buy flowers from her and she has had to turn them down because she didn't have the license to do that. She has enjoyed gifting, but there is only so much you can give before it becomes unhelpful to your business; therefore, she is asking for permission to make those sales. Member Garst questioned if there would be people coming to the residence to purchase the flowers. Mrs. Knouff stated that people will not be coming to the residence to purchase flowers. Member Beamer asked the petitioner to further explain how her business operates. Mrs. Knouff stated that with her wholesale business, she emails a list to her florist clients at the beginning of the week of what she has available, and they get back to her typically the next day. She then makes the deliveries to the shops. She stated that the retail sales would function basically the same, except it would be people making a request to her for an arrangement for a holiday or special occasion. In that case, she would make an arrangement and deliver it to that person's home. It was clarified that the request is not for a change in her business, but a change to be in compliance with tax laws. Member Garst applauded Mrs. Knouff for her success and for her honesty. Vice Chair King asked if any calls or comments were received from anyone in the neighborhood. The Planning and Zoning Administrator stated that no comments have been received regarding the request. No other person(s) appeared regarding the request. Jackson Beamer motioned the request of Philip M. and Rachel C. Knouff, property owners, for the amendment of a Home Occupation Permit to allow retail sales at the cut flower farm (garden) on the property located at 275 Ft Lewis Blvd (Tax Map # 130-2- 22). Neil Conner seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King B. Use Not Provided For Hold public hearing to consider the request of PHC of Virginia, LLC/Acadia Healthcare, Mt Regis Center, property owner, for the amendment of the Use Not Provided For permit to allow additions to the outpatient mental health and substance abuse treatment center on the property located at 125 Knotbreak Road, (Tax Map # 148-1-5). Staff noted the following: The subject property (125 Knotbreak Road) consists of a 5.012-acre tract of land which currently sits within the BCD Business Commerce District. The applicant is requesting an update to the previously issued Use Not Provided For Permit to allow the addition of 24 beds (~5,400 square foot addition). In 2015, the applicant requested the issuance of a Use Not Provided For Permit to accommodate the construction of an Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility primarily serving the needs of those suffering from substance abuse and addiction. While that request was approved, it limited the size of the facility to 48 beds. Since that time, Mount Regis has experienced an increase in demand for beds within their facility, a trend that is expected to continue in the future due to their partnerships with other medical providers. Should this request be approved, Mount Regis intends to add a two-wing addition to this location which would accommodate 8 bedrooms and 24 beds. Through preliminary concept plan discussions, staff can confirm that Mount Regis is able (and will be required) to meet City Code requirements (setbacks, landscaping, parking, stormwater, etc.). Those details will be addressed through the site plan review process with relevant city departments. Jon Puvak, attorney working with Acadia Healthcare, 10 Franklin Road, Roanoke, Virginia, appeared before the Commission and stated that Bubba Ingram, civil engineer; Tim Morgan, architect; Bridget Funk, Director at Mount Regis; and Sharmain Garland, operations at Mount Regis, are also present at the meeting. Bridget Funk, Clinical Director at Mount Regis Center, appeared before the Commission and stated that Mount Regis serves adults 18 and older who are suffering from a substance use disorder. They also treat those who have co-occurring mental health disorders. Mount Regis Center partners with medical and behavioral healthcare providers in the region to enhance their comprehensive and holistic care. They receive referrals from multiple entities both within and from outside the State of Virginia. While in a program, patients receive treatment from a multi-disciplinary team of clinical and medical professionals. They engage in daily structures programs that include evidence- based therapeutic techniques. At the time of discharge, patients leave with an after-care plan to aid them with the next steps of their recovery journey. Mount Regis Center provides opportunities for educational and professional growth. They offer clinical internships to students at local, regional colleges and universities. They also provide residencies to those pursuing clinical state licensure. Mr. Puvak stated that the reason for the request is that there is a demand. When the project was built, it was built for 48 beds based on the need at the time with the goal that it could be expanded in the future, which is where they are today. He stated that the zoning is not going to change, they are asking for 24 additional beds, which will be located in eight bedrooms on either wing of the existing building. They can meet all of the design requirements as far as stormwater management, parking, and hope that construction can commence by the end of this year and be completed within 18 months. It is only approximately a 5,700 s.f. expansion of the existing building. He stated that there is a demand for the services as Mount Regis Center currently has a 15-person waiting list for every bed currently in the facility. It is a local facility that serves local citizens with a planned arrival, not walk-ins. He showed some photos of the existing facility and showed where the additional wings would be built. He noted that parking would be added to accommodate the additional staff. A discussion was held regarding the current number of beds, number of beds requesting to be added, how people are referred to the facility--it can be self, family, or doctor referral. Member Conner questioned if it is all private insurance-based payment. Mr. Puvak stated that they accept all private insurance and Medicaid. No other person(s) appeared related to the request. Neil Conner motioned the request of PHC of Virginia, LLC/Acadia Healthcare, Mt Regis Center, property owner, for the amendment of the Use Not Provided For permit to allow additions to the outpatient mental health and substance abuse treatment center on the property located at 125 Knotbreak Road, (Tax Map # 148-1-5). Reid Garst seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King 5. Adjournment Vice Chair King motioned to adjourn at 7:54 p.m. Jackson Beamer seconded. City Council meeting, April 22, 2024, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street