Loading...
8/31/2004 - Special August 31, 2004 677 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 August 31, 2004 st The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this 31 day of August, 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 Vice-Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order at 5:20 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard C. Flora (arrived at 5:30 p.m.), Vice- Chairman Michael W. Altizer, Supervisors Joseph B. “Butch” Church, Joseph McNamara, Michael A. Wray MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; John M. Chambliss, 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:Al Thomason, Martha Hooker, and Rodney McNeil. Community Development staff present included: Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; Janet Scheid, Chief Planner; and David Holladay, Zoning Administrator. IN RE: WORK SESSION 1. Work session with Dr. Mike Chandler, Virginia Tech, to discuss proposed changes to the Community Plan. August 31, 2004 678 Mr. Mahoney outlined the following objectives of the work session: (1) Develop a projection to 2025 of land use designations in Roanoke County, keeping in mind development on slopes, extension of public water and sewer; maintaining a balance of commercial and industrial development vs. residential; (2) Emphasize the link that exists between the community plan and the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Mr. Hodge stated that it is important for the Board, Planning Commission, and staff to move forward with a joint vision of land use in Roanoke County based on input received at community meetings and through planning sessions. Ms. Scheid advised that the process for updating the community plan began over a year ago when a public open house was held in September to allow citizens to view displays and provide input. At that time, the intent was to revise the community plan. She also advised that growth management, utilities, economic development, storm water management and transportation were areas targeted for revision. Based on input and information received from the Board following the November 2003 retreat, specific objectives were established dealing with growth management, ridgelines and steep slopes, and storm water runoff. Ms. Scheid stated that staff began drafting sections and a series of community meetings were held in summer 2004, followed by joint work sessions between the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. In mid-July, a work session was held with Dr. Chandler and members of the Planning Commission. Staff then met with Dr. Chandler in late July and August 31, 2004 679 presented additional analytical information at a subsequent meeting with the Planning Commission and Dr. Chandler. Dr. Chandler stated that the community plan is a general guide to be used with regard to land use by a community; once adopted, it serves as a substantive guide for public policy. He advised that he has asked the Board to share their individual vision for how they would like to see Roanoke County developed in the future through the year 2025. He stated that he will ask each member to share their map and to articulate their vision for the County with respect to land use. Supervisor Wray indicated that in general, he examined what currently exists with respect to land use and made adjustments. The factors he considered in his evaluation included the following: (1) What aspects of County operations will be impacted (i.e., Route 11/460, I-81 widening, I-73, Route 419 corridor potential to be widened, location of regional jail); (2) Regional services that need to be shared; (3) Potential impact on schools (location of new residential developments); (4) Need for commercial and industrial growth to generate tax revenue and balance; (5) Growth in Roanoke City and Salem which may also generate an impact on Roanoke County; (6) Recognition of the fact that some land is not developable. Supervisor Altizer advised that he is most familiar with his district and this exercise made him realize he did not know where expansions should occur in other districts. He stated that if you examine the neighborhood conservation areas and the subdivisions already in place, the County has targeted development to the areas where August 31, 2004 680 it went as a result of the community plan. He stated that his vision is similar to what is on the existing land use map, while keeping in mind the goal of accomplishing a ratio of 25% business and commercial to 75% residential development. Supervisor Altizer stated that he views Route 220 as a corridor linking Roanoke County to North Carolina and Martinsville. He advised that he did not factor in I-73 because he views this as being 20-30 years away. He noted that Route 220 will be a transitional area with respect to business and office development. Supervisor Altizer also stated that if the County does not begin to set the stage for what will be allowed and how it will be developed in rural preserves and rural villages, then residential growth will continue to occur. He indicated that he sees the need for some expansion of rural village areas into other areas; otherwise, neighborhood conservation will continue to be densely populated. He advised that there are some problems in the Windsor Hills/Southwest County area which is beginning to be overbuilt. With respect to the extension of water and sewer lines, Supervisor Altizer advised that the Board needs to establish how much development will be allowed with any extension of water and sewer. He indicated that it is not feasible to say that development will be controlled by how quickly schools and roads are going to be built. There may be some situations where development comes before the roads; but in other cases, it may be necessary to limit growth until the road improvements are made. August 31, 2004 681 Supervisor McNamara stated that the 75/25 ratio is more valid from a valley wide perspective as opposed to within Roanoke County.He noted that Roanoke County residents place a high value on view sheds. He advised that he evaluated the transition or core uses in the major thoroughfares in the County, which pushes the community plan in those areas (i.e., Route 220). He stated that if it is a major intersection, it is considered core; if not, it is considered transition. He indicated that Route 220 is core at the intersection of Route 419 until you reach the City of Salem line. Route 221 from Route 419 to the Roanoke City line and Colonial Avenue from Route 419 to the Roanoke City line is transition. Supervisor McNamara also stated that village centers are another significant factor. He indicated that he was not sure that an appropriate location for these is along Route 221 so he placed one adjacent to the existing police and fire and rescue station locations. He advised that you do not necessarily need public water and sewer to these areas, depending on the size of the centers. With respect to neighborhood conservation, he stated that these are areas that have access to public water and sewer. Anything that is touching or near neighborhood conservation, the County should try to push to the rural village designation and allow developers to determine which land is best suited for development. He stated that if the County wants to stimulate commercial development, then water and sewer should be extended along Route 220 and also potentially in the Mt. Pleasant area. Supervisor Church stated that Roanoke County has development where it has been directed to locate.He noted that the current ratio of 86% residential to 14% August 31, 2004 682 commercial/industrial land use is paying the bills; however in the future, it will not. He stated that this ratio cannot accommodate future growth and expansion and must be changed. He noted that growth is occurring in Southwest County and Vinton because this is where development is being viewed as the most profitable. He advised that the widening of Route 220 and I-81 is not likely to occur in the next 20 years, and the Board would be remiss if they vary greatly from the established community plan. With respect to Route 311, he stated that it would be very expensive to extend water and sewer to this area. He voiced support for managed growth, as expressed by the Board at their November retreat. Supervisor Flora advised that his primary interest was not in the already developed areas of the County. He noted that in the Hollins district, it is essentially built out, with some exceptions in the Bonsack area, where there may be opportunity for residential development. He stated that his focus was on areas which are not already developed, and he focused on identifying where the potential for rural village existed. He advised that he had examined Bent Mountain and the area on Route 221 near Poage Valley Road which might present an opportunity for development. He also stated that Mt. Pleasant has some development potential, and the Mason’s Cove area has a lot of opportunity. He noted that beyond the Catawba district, there is not a lot of opportunity due to the fact that there are no interchanges or intersections. Most of the land is either national forest or rural conservation development along the major corridors. Supervisor Flora stated that the problem with rural village is the difficulty in August 31, 2004 683 developing without water and sewer, especially when the County does not want to encourage community wells. He advised that he does not foresee the extension of public water and sewer in the Catawba area anytime soon. He indicated that most of the balance of the land will be rural conservation and developed in less dense concentrations. With respect to transitional areas, he views these as neighborhood areas in transition as opposed to entire land areas. He advised that he does not see the extension of water and sewer into the far regions of the County. He stated that the Catawba area has significant developable areas which would experience rapid growth if public water and sewer were ever extended. He advised that there is potential for industrial development in some areas along I-81. Supervisor Flora indicated that he does not see significant change occurring because he does not envision water, sewer, and roads changing dramatically in the next 20 years, and these are the factors that drive growth. IN RE: RECESS Chairman Flora recessed the meeting from 6:59 p.m. until 7:24 p.m. IN RE: CONTINUATION OF WORK SESSION Dr. Chandler opened the floor for comments. Supervisor Church requested that an aerial, topographic map be provided for the Board and Planning Commission to review. It was noted that a relief map showing water and sewer lines in an overlay fashion would be helpful in collectively designating new land uses. August 31, 2004 684 In response to an inquiry from Supervisor Wray, Ms. Scheid advised that planning staff met one on one with residents of the Bent Mountain community. Mr. Hodge expressed concern about focusing too much attention in the revisions to the community plan on growth management at the expense of the other components. Mr. Mahoney advised that he will provide the Board with a memorandum regarding vested rights as they pertain to the community plan revisions. Mr. Thomason stated that he appreciated the time that the Board members had expended in preparing the maps, and noted that he was pleased that almost everyone had arrived at the same conclusion. He commended the Board on a job well done. Ms. Hooker voiced support for Supervisor Church’s request for a large aerial map, and also requested that the maps have layering available so that areas which are not feasible for development can be designated as such. Ms. Scheid noted that this information is currently available on different maps, but staff has experienced difficulties in their attempts to print it all on one large map using mylar transparencies which will allow for the layering of information. Mr. Holladay stated that the layering can be printed on the maps, but the coloring is not opaque and you can see through the layers. Dr. Chandler requested that staff develop a large map with the requested layering and to also reduce the areas to be evaluated to the points of commonality. August 31, 2004 685 Mr. McNeil thanked Dr. Chandler for his assistance. He also stated that it would be helpful to the Planning Commission if each supervisor could specify where they would like to see growth occur in their district. He also stated that a viable CIP is needed which projects accurately what will occur in five years (i.e., where will water and sewer be extended). He also discussed the need for a map to be developed in conjunction with the CIP and for the County to begin funding the CIP. Supervisor McNamara noted that the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) has $2 million allocated for capital infrastructure in Roanoke County. He questioned how the WVWA will decide where this money will be spent. Supervisor Altizer stated that the County gave up the right to make these decisions when the water authority was created. As Chairman of the WVWA, he stated that it is the WVWA Board’s policy to reduce inflow and infiltration, as well as to maintain the water and sewer pipes already in the system; therefore, this is where the majority of the capital will be used. Mr. Hodge noted that any water and sewer extensions made by the WVWA must be consistent with the localities community plan. Dr. Chandler noted that the discussions have identified two players who will need to interface with the community plan: Explore Park and the WVWA. Mr. McNeil requested clarification from the Board regarding private water systems and whether there is a ban on allowing these. Dr. Chandler asked if there was a record of the goals established at the retreat and whether this been shared with staff and the Planning Commission. It was August 31, 2004 686 noted that the minutes of the meeting should reflect what was discussed at the retreat. Dr. Chandler then inquired if this philosophy is still where the Board wants to go. He inquired if smart growth is still on the agenda. During a discussion of private water systems, Mr. Hodge advised that in order for these to be permitted, they must have a Section 15.2-2232 review by the Planning Commission on a case by case basis. Mr. McNeil requested direction from the Board regarding the protection of ridgelines. He also advised that it is the consensus of the Planning Commission that the community plan must be tied to the CIP and all infrastructure improvements should be funded through the CIP. Supervisor Flora reported that a joint CIP is being developed for both the schools and the County at this time, and money will be designated off the top as well as year-end money. He stated that a meeting is scheduled for the chairs and staff at the end of this week and the goal is to finalize the CIP by the end of October. The joint CIP will identify all County and school projects, not including utilities, for the next five years. Mr. McNeil voiced support for including infrastructure improvements in the CIP. Mr. Thomason stressed the need for definitive responsibilities and guidelines with respect to enforcement of ridge top protection. He also voiced the need for a reserve fund to support increased demands on schools due to residential growth. He advised that the revisions to the community plan will be completed by the end of 2004. August 31, 2004 687 Dr. Chandler noted that the schools and the Board of Supervisors will be coming together with respect to CIP development. He also advised that adjoining localities may be additional players to be considered (i.e., impact of individuals moving from the city to the county). Dr. Chandler stated that the Board needs to identify points of commonality for future meetings, as well as points that need further discussion. Supervisor Flora stated that he did not sense any significant philosophical differences and suggested identifying focus areas that can be examined more fully in terms of schools, transportation, utilities. He recommended looking at the Route 460 West Corridor from the city limits to the Montgomery County line. He noted that the area south of that is not necessarily industrial commercial but potentially residential. He also indicated that the area from the foot of Bent Mountain back to Poage Valley Road should be examined, as well as the 220 South Corridor, Mount Pleasant, Route 460 East, and the I-81 corridor. Dr. Chandler presented a future land use map of proposed changes recommended by County staff and the Planning Commission. He noted that the changes are modest and focus primarily on rural village, rural preserve, and village center designations. Supervisor Flora recommended reviewing roads that need to be improved based on areas where growth is being encouraged. He indicated that this could potentially lead to changes in the six-year road plan. August 31, 2004 688 There was a consensus to develop a common map with overlays to more clearly define the land use designations. Mr. Hodge suggested that more clarification of the expanded areas is needed, and he recommended that a series of meetings be scheduled with the current participants. It was determined that Chris Lowe, Associate Planner, will consolidate the four maps prepared by the supervisors. Supervisor Flora requested that clarification be provided to the Board regarding the extent of their authority to regulate ridge tops. The Clerk was directed to schedule the next meeting in approximately two weeks. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Flora adjourned the meeting at 8:44 p.m. to Tuesday, September 14, 2004, at 1:00 p.m. for a tour of Ivyland Road and the Green Valley community. Submitted by: Approved by: ________________________________________________ Diane S. Childers Richard C. Flora Clerk to the Board Chairman