Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/1/2004 - Special November 1, 2004 905 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 November 1, 2004 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this 1st day of November, 2004, attheRoanoke County Administration Center, this being a special meeting for the purpose of discussing proposed changes to the Roanoke County Community Plan. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Flora called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard C. Flora,Vice-Chairman Michael W. Altizer, Supervisors Joseph B. “Butch” Church, Michael A. Wray MEMBERS ABSENT: Supervisor Joseph P. McNamara STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator; Dan R. O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board; Teresa Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer The following members of the Planning Commission were present at the meeting: Steve Azar, Martha Hooker, Rodney McNeil, and Al Thomason. Community Development staff present included: Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; and Janet Scheid, Chief Planner. November 1, 2004 906 IN RE: WORK SESSION 1. Work session to discuss proposed changes to the Community Plan. Mr. Hodge advised that Dr. Chandler is unable to attend the meeting tonight due to illness. He further advised that the Planning Commission anticipates concluding the community plan review at their meeting tomorrow evening and will forward it to the Board. Mr. Mahoney stated that the Board has 90 days from the time the community plan is sent to the Board from the Planning Commission to act. He reported that the Planning Commission will hold their public hearing tomorrow night. Mr. Hodge advised that the Board is tentatively scheduled to hold their public hearing on the community plan at the second meeting in January 2005. In response to inquiries from the Board, Ms. Scheid and Mr. Azar reported that they have not had any inquiries regarding the community plan public hearing. Mr. Covey stated that at the last meeting, Supervisor Altizer requested information on the number of homes that have been built. Mr. Covey provided a map which showed the number of certificates of occupancy issued during 2003-2004 which totaled approximately 823. Mr. Covey advised that the report reflects that development is more spread out and not concentrated in one area. Supervisor Flora inquired if there is a report available that shows the number of occupancy permits issued. Mr. Covey November 1, 2004 907 responded in the affirmative, and Supervisor Flora requested that this report be added to the reports section of the agenda on a monthly basis. Ms. Scheid presented an elevation map of Roanoke County and outlined the following elevations: 795-1500 feet (dark green); 1500-1750 feet (purple); 1750- 2000 feet (burgundy); 2000-2250 feet (blue); 2250+ feet (tan). She stated that based on this map, staff has calculated the number of square miles of land in each category which is as follows: green = 112; purple = 31; burgundy = 28; blue = 25; tan = 51. Ms. Scheid stated that staff recommends that the Board examine both slope and elevation and cited the example of Bent Mountain which is very flat but is also very high in elevation. In order to proceed with implementation, Ms. Scheid stated that the Board must initially decide what it is they are trying to protect, i.e., important views, high mountains, steep slopes. She stated that once this is determined, then staff must determine how to map it. Supervisor Flora stated that slopes above 30% obviously need to be protected and questioned what the Board’s opinion was with regard to slopes. Supervisor Wray questioned if there are legal decisions that will impact regulation of slopes. Mr. Mahoney stated that the concerns of property owners are based on the premise that government is “taking my land”; therefore, the citizens must be compensated for it. He stated that the Board must establish a goal and link it with the purposes set forth to obtain the goal. Mr. Mahoney advised that some legitimate November 1, 2004 908 issues for government to regulate this type of construction include the following: fire and police coverage, school transportation, trash collection, storm water runoff to houses below, etc. Mr. Hodge requested that the Board provide direction to the Planning Commission and staff regarding what they would like to see done. Supervisor Flora stated that slopes are easy to deal with but voiced concerns about protection of ridge tops. Ms. Scheid noted that many of the issues deal with the design guidelines in order to protect the view shed. Supervisor Flora indicated that slopes will need to be related to the amount of land that is with a lot, and advised that you will need larger lot sizes if you are building on a steep slope. Mr. Covey stated that the Board needs to specify which level of slope should be regulated. Supervisor Flora responded that he feels this is more of an engineering decision, and advised that he would recommend developing an ordinance that regulates development on slopes so that the County no longer has the problems that are currently being experienced. Mr. Covey questioned if the Board wanted the community plan to be more general, and then follow up with more specific guidelines in the ordinances. Supervisor Church questioned if there are any other localities that have similar guidelines to protect slopes. Ms. Scheid advised that Botetourt County has begun taking steps in this direction, but they are not experiencing a lot of success. She further advised that Albemarle County has drafted elevation and slope ordinances that have not yet been adopted. November 1, 2004 909 Mr. Hodge questioned how the home builders have reacted to the proposed revisions to the community plan. Mr. Covey responded that the proponents and opponents are evenly divided. Bob Flynn, representative of the Regional Home Builders Association, stated that there are some components of the plan which are good, and there are other pieces that the home builders do not like. He stated that they are proposing that the County develop a mountain zoning district which would not be an overlay, but an actual zoning district.Mr. Flynn stated that with respect to slope development, the issues will focus on what occurs within a parcel (i.e., how to handle a 100 acre tract where portions of the property have steep slopes). He also questioned what will happen to the development plan in the approval process, and how areas with a ravine that will be filled in with a grading plan will be treated. He noted that there are few single slope tracts in the County. Ms. Scheid advised that this has been one of the problems with the cluster ordinance and revisions are needed. Supervisor Flora stated that the Board must take into account the finished topography of the land. Mr. Flynn noted that it will be difficult to draft language in the ordinance to deal with these types of situations. Mr. Thomason advised that the Planning Commission had visited a development in Asheville, North Carolina, which was successfully built on steep slopes. He stated that the development was beautiful and unique, and he requested that Ms. Scheid have the material available for display at the Planning Commission’s meeting tomorrow night. Ms. Scheid stated that Asheville’s ridge top and steep slope ordinance November 1, 2004 910 is based on varying types of soils and noted that some soil types are more stable than others. She advised that after speaking with a soil scientist in Roanoke County, she was informed that the County would not be able to base decisions on soil types in Roanoke County. Mr. Azar advised that most of the citizen concerns relate to steep slopes and protection of ridge tops. He stated that they do not want to see another situation such as Slate Hill occur. Supervisor Flora inquired if the County can control clear cutting and land disturbance of commercial sites. Mr. Covey stated that the Forestry Department has indicated that this is within their jurisdiction and the County cannot regulate it. He did advise, however, that if a rezoning request comes forward, the Community Development Department does not allow the petitioner to proceed with grading until the rezoning request has been approved by the Planning Commission and it appears that there will be no opposition to the project. Supervisor Wray stated that he would like language in the ordinance that prohibits grading until the rezoning is approved. Mr. Mahoney advised that there are two issues:(1) chopping down trees; and (2) moving dirt that will cause erosion problems. He stated that trees are an agricultural product and can legally be timbered, and this is different than moving land. He advised that the government assumes that chopping down trees is the first step toward some future development activity, but it is not necessarily that way. He indicated that there are additional ordinances the County can adopt with respect to clear cutting; November 1, 2004 911 however, the General Assembly has removed much of the Board’s authority in that area, and a clear distinction must be drawn between cutting trees and moving or grading land. Supervisor Church questioned whether staff can draft an ordinance that accomplishes what Mr. Mahoney was stating. Mr. Covey indicated that normally this process does not affect residential development but focuses primarily on commercial development. He noted that changes made in February 2004 have given Community Development greater control over individual home sites. With respect to commercial development, Mr. Covey advised that developers need the ability to cut an access road and grade the site in order to market the property. The proposed changes present a problem for developers in this regard. With respect to erosion and sediment control, Mr. Covey advised that this is a good ordinance although there is currently no time limit on filing the plan. If requirements are to be implemented regarding deadlines for filing the plan, questions that will need to be addressed include how to track the information, how to determine the right number of days, etc. Mr. Covey stated that he is not certain that the current standards can be tightened any further. Ms. Scheid noted that the County did require a slope maintenance bond for Slate Hill and Mr. Hodge recommended that this approach continue in circumstances that merit slope protection. Mr. Hodge questioned how the Board wanted to approach situations where development was near a water tower or public structure, and if protection of these facilities should be regulated. Mr. Covey stated that in dealing with November 1, 2004 912 slopes greater than 33%, specific requirements need to be established. Mr. Mahoney noted that the legal system is designed to handle issues of liability. Mr. Mahoney questioned if the Board was comfortable with the language in the draft community plan and Ms. Scheid read the appropriate section in the community plan. There was consensus of the Board that this language was acceptable. There was general discussion regarding requirements for steep slope maintenance bonds. Ms. Scheid advised that the implementation schedule for ordinances has been developed. It will take until the end of 2006 to get all the ordinances for the 15 implementation strategies in place. Mr. Covey stated that consultants will be hired to assist staff in the development of the ordinances. Ms. Scheid advised that it is up to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to determine whether they wish to adopt the revisions one at a time or as a package. She also noted that the ordinances have not been prioritized and requested direction from the Planning Commission and Board. Supervisor Church requested that Ms. Scheid provide the Board with the listing of ordinances that would need to be adopted. In response to an inquiry from Mr. Hodge, Mr. Mahoney stated that there are existing ordinances which may be in conflict with the newly adopted community plan. He stated that this could present problems in future rezoning petitions until the ordinances are revised to be consistent with the new community plan. November 1, 2004 913 Supervisor Wray requested an explanation of “adequate public facilities”. Mr. Hodge advised that this ties back to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the Board sets the standard. With respect to roads, the Board may establish a standard that no road conditions will be below a level of service C. With respect to schools, the Board can designate a ratio level or maximum number of students. Mr. Mahoney stated that “adequate public facilities” has turned into a red herring and that Attorney General Kilgore issued an opinion that local governments do not have the authority to require adequate public facilities. He referenced the State Code which discusses the purposes of zoning ordinances and stated that this is easy to defend. He cited examples where the locality can justify adequate public facilities such as in areas where you cannot access property in order to provide fire or rescue service. He stated that adequate public facilities address public health, safety, and welfare. In response to an inquiry from Supervisor Altizer, Mr. Mahoney advised that part of the opposition to adequate public facilities relates to impact fees and the opposition to them. In response to an inquiry from Supervisor Flora, Ms. Scheid reported that there is nothing in the community plan with respect to impact fees. There was general discussion of what constitutes adequate public facilities. Supervisor Wray inquired about the status of the CIP review committee. Mr. Hodge stated that the committee will meet this week and staff anticipates they will have recommendations for the Board in December. It was noted that the CIP review November 1, 2004 914 committee is recommending that the Board begin banking land for future capital projects. Steve Azar requested clarification regarding prioritization of the draft implementation strategies. Supervisor Flora stated that he would recommend that the Planning Commission evaluate the order and which ordinances should be handled together, and bring back a recommendation to the Board. There was a consensus to proceed in this manner. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Flora adjourned the meeting at 7:03 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: ________________________________________________ Diane S. Childers Richard C. Flora Clerk to the Board Chairman