Planning Commission

Pear Radford Planning Commission Monday November 21, 2022 Municipal Building Members Present: Mr. Castleberry Mr. Collier, Vice Chairperson Mr. Gillespie Mrs. Huntington Mr. Watson, Chairperson (arrived after the meeting started) Absent: Staff/Visitors: Melissa Skelton, City Staff Mr. Watson called the meeting to order at 5:37 pm in the Radford City Council Chambers at 10 Robertson Street, Radford Virginia. A quorum was present. Approval of Agenda Mr. Gillespie made a motion to approve the agenda, seconded by Mr. Castleberry. Voting Yes: Mr. Castleberry, Mr. Collier, Mr. Gillespie, Mrs. Huntington, Mr. Watson Approval of Minutes for October 17, 2022 Minutes were recommended for approval as submitted by Mr. Collier, seconded by Mr. Gillespie. Voting Yes: Mr. Castleberry, Mr. Collier, Mr. Gillespie, Mrs. Huntington, Mr. Watson Voting No: None Abstain: PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mark, 137 Charmont Dr., stated that he worked for VDOT and \that there was a lot of rock in that area. He also asked if this is going to be another Roger Woody special? He stated that there should be more parking than proposed. He asked if would develop patio homes if this was not approved? He also asked when Lovely Mount is going to be paved. Dr. Rzigalinski, 100 Charmont Dr. asked about the hydrologic map of the region, that this was very close to a Conservation District. She shared that this will set a precedence moving forward if it were to be rezoned to R-4 and just doesn’t jive with the current surroundings. She stated coming down that mountain in the winter will be dangerous, dealing with more traffic. Roger Kirtner, 121 Lovely Mount Rd, shared he likes the solitude of the neighborhood. He didn’t disapprove development, but this proposal will have a lot of people and that anyone else would feel the same if it were happening in their neighborhood. Mr. Bridgeman, 124 Charmont Dr, stated that he works out of his home and this development would bring a 50 % increase in capacity of band width. Can a study with Shentel be done? He stated if creating this many homes with children, will there be a park? He also shared that this would be dangerous on this road adding this many houses. Mr. Tynan, 101 Charmont Dr., stated that everyone needs to go on the other side of Charmont, it needs to be improved. The road is very narrow. He is concerned that the traffic will be tied up at Rock Road. He commented that to put more homes is a disaster and accident waiting to happen and need to shut down the idea totally. His opinion is the project needs to be shut down completely. He asked what would happen if coulding sell them? Would you rent them? And would you have to lower the rent if people weren’t willing to pay asking price. He asked for the Planning Commissioners to take their time in making a decision. Mr. Quesenberry asked why change something that is already in place? He said more people will be wanting the same up the hill if you allow it. He shared he moved there 2 years ago because there wasn’t much there and wishes the developer had found land somewhere else. Mr. Gray stated that when you drive through there it is mainly single family houses, yes there are townhomes at the base of the road and they have plenty of parking. He shared that 2 parking spots per townhome weren’t enough, what happens when there are birthday parties and such. He added that having an additional 70 cars coming out at the bottom is like a ski run. He stated that the water pressure is currently not good and will be worse. He mentioned that putting student type housing in single family neighborhoods do not mix. He also stated that there is no way to stop going down that hill, one entrance onto Rock Road will is not enough for all the traffic. His opinion is a couple single family houses would be better than what they are proposing. Mr. Wiley shared that he currently has issues with Shentel and would appreciate the impact this development would pose. He added that the hill at Charmont Drive is dangerous as it is. He asked what the purpose of having R1, R2 & R3 zoning if it’s going to be changed. OLD BUSINESS SUBJECT: RZ-23-001 – Lovely Mount Townhomes SUMMARY: A request by Jeffrey Stump (Agent: Balzer & Associates) was made to rezone a total of 10.628 acres, Tax Map # 26-(1)-14 & #26-(1)-15. The request is to rezone from R-3, Single-Family Residential (R-3) to Multi-Family (R-4) to allow the property owner to develop townhomes. City Staff provided an overview of the proposal. Shared updated PowerPoint that pointed out the differences in density for R-3 Single Family residential homes and the proposed townhomes. Mr. Watson turned the meeting over to Mr. Collier due to Conflict of Interest with his job. He is employed by Balzer and Associates. Mr. Collier asked Steve Semones, Balzer & Associates wanted to respond to any of the comments that were provided this evening. Mr. Semones shared that by right they are able to put up to 7 homes per acre, that would be 7 on the smaller lot and 21 on the larger lot with all separate driveways coming onto Lovely Mount. When looking at VDOT traffic counts, single family housing produces more traffic than townhomes, in this case with 28 single family houses it would generate 264 trips vs the 30 townhomes would produce 216 trips. He shared that guest parking is provided and feels confident in the parking ratio. He shared that the current road is 24’ which meets VDOT standards. Court Rosen shared that he appreciates the concerns and stated that he could have gone significantly denser, but were mindful of the density when looking at the development. Mrs. Huntington commented that terrain is rocky and their proposal kept the townhomes out of the hill as much as possible. She shared that there is an old rock wall and understand wanting to stay away from that topography as much as possible. She asked what their overall timeframe was? Mr. Semones responded that they needed to finish surveying and it would take about a year to get the drawing and site ready for development. Mr. Collier asked if the graded area is for recreational play areas. Mr. Gillespie ask what the plan was if wasn’t approved. Mr. Rosen responded that he believes this is the best plan for the area. Mr. Quesenberry asked if there were additional phases being planned. Mr. Semones responded that no additional phases are being planned. Mr. Rosen added that all members of the HOA would have to agree to additional phases. Mr. Williams asked what the square footage of the townhomes. Mr. Rosen responded 1,700-1,850 sq ft. Mr. Williams stated that this does not seem like they are targeting retired people. He asked if they would proffer change in the storm water system. Mrs. Huntington shared that she did not realize the issues with the internet and should be looked into. She understands the concerns about parking within the development. She stated that there is not much difference in density between the by right and if rezoning went through for the townhomes. And any new proposals would have to go through the Planning Commission. Mr. Gillespie thanked everyone for joining them, this is the most people we have had at this meeting. He also shared that the City is in need of housing and this housing represents what we want and do not want to hinder the projected because of the road. He would be more concerned with multiple individual driveways backing out onto Lovely Mount versus one. It is a big project and will do our due diligence. He does believe there needs to be additional parking. He stated he didn’t want to rush this through and hope to take time in making a decision. Mr. Watson commented that he lived closed and they are being mindful of the density and preserving the area on top and it is not much of an impact. Mr. Castleberry shared that he was skeptical at the beginning, but after seeing how they planned the layout, he has changed his mind and thinks it’s a good development. He has some concern about the parking, but also agrees that if made to put in all the parking it’s a lot of asphalt. Mrs. Huntington agreed with Mr. Castleberry, and was it possible to find a middle ground for some additional parking. She asked if it was possible to have a crosswalk between the 2 developments? Mr. Gillespie added that if this rezoning request was approved that it wouldn’t set a precedence going up the road. Mr. Watson shared that this is a unique development for Radford and provides a lot of open space and find it appealing. Mrs. Huntington added that they did look at the potential danger of additional cars, the first thing they did was to get the traffic information at this intersection. Mr. Collier shared that they will review parking and try to get information on internet. He asked the commissioners how they wanted to proceed. ACTION: A motion was made by Mrs. Huntington, seconded by Mr. Gillespie, to table the action until their next meeting. Voting: Mr. Castleberry: YES Mr. Collier: YES Mr. Gillespie: YES Mrs. Huntington: YES Mr. Watson: ABSTAINED – His company is the Engineering Firm NEW BUSINESS – NO NEW BUSINESS COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS Mr. Castleberry- No Comment Mr. Collier – No Comment Mr. Gillespie – No Comment Mrs. Huntington – No Comment Mr. Watson – No Comment A motion was made by Mr. Gillespie to adjourn the meeting at 7:00 pm, seconded by Mr. Collier. Voting Yes: Mr. Castleberry, Mr. Collier, Mr. Gillespie, Mrs. Huntington, and Mr. Watson Voting No: None Abstain: None Submitted by: Melissa Skelton, Staff Date: November 21, 2022