Loading...
10/16/2007 - Special October 16, 2007 945 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia October 16, 2007 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia, for the purpose of a joint work session with the Roanoke County Planning Commission. INRE: CALL TO ORDER (COUNTY OF ROANOKE) Chairman McNamara called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph P. McNamara, Vice-Chairman Richard C. Flora, Supervisors Michael W. Altizer, Joseph B. "Butch" Church, and Michael A. Wray STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; Wanda G. Riley, Clerk to the Board OTHERS PRESENT: Gary L. Robertson, P.E., Executive Director of Water Operations, Western Virginia Water Authority INRE: CALL TO ORDER (ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION) Chairman Gary Jarrell called the Planning Commission to order. No roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gary Jarrell, Vice Chairman Rodney McNeil, Commission Members Steve Azar, Martha Hooker, and AI Thomason STAFF PRESENT: Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning; Tarek Moneir, Deputy Director of Development; David Holladay, Planner III; Janet Scheid, County Planner; Megan Cronise, Planner II; 946 October 16, 2007 Rebecca Mahoney, Planner I-Code Enforcement; John Murphy, Zoning Administrator; Tim Beard, Planner II; Teresa Becher, Transportation Engineer; Nicole Gilkeson, Planner II; Chris Patriarca, Planner I; Susan Carter, Recording Secretary for the Planning Commission INRE: ROUTE 220 CORRIDOR STUDY Mr. Holladay explained that following this work session, the Planning Commission is scheduled to consider a resolution that would forward the Route 220 Corridor Study to the Board of Supervisors for their review. He stated that in April 2007, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and Franklin County Board of Supervisors approved resolutions to proceed with a water line study on Route 220 south from Roanoke County into Franklin County. He noted that monthly work sessions have been held with the Planning Commission to discuss the Route 220 Corridor Study. He stated that a community meeting was held at Clearbrook Elementary on September 17, 2007, and the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 2,2007. Mr. Holladay referred to the maps that had been distributed to the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission and reviewed the development opportunities along Route 220. He stated that a 12-inch water line is proposed through the Roanoke County portion of Route 220 and that the Western Virginia Water Authority 0fVVWA} is proposing to build a sewer force main on WVWA property where Back Creek crosses Route 220. October 16, 2007 947 Mr. Holladay referred to the Future Land Use map from the 2005 Community Plan and compared that to the three scenarios proposed for Future Land Use as a result of the proposed extension of the water line down Route 220. He stated that the three alternatives take into consideration the proposed water line, proposed sewer pump station, potential impacts of the future 1-73 interchange, and the desire to encourage business and commercial development along the road frontage rather than residential development. The three scenarios showed transition and core areas along Route 220, and Supervisor Flora asked Mr. Holladay to define transition and core areas. Mr. Holladay read the definitions from the Comprehensive Plan as follows: "Transition is a future land use area that encourages the orderly development of highway frontage parcels. Transition areas generally serve as developed buffers between highways and nearby or adjacent lower intensity development. Intense retail and highway oriented commercial uses are discouraged in transition areas, which are more suitable for office, institutional and small-scale, coordinated retail uses." He defined core area as follows: "Core is a future land use area where high intensity urban development is encouraged. Land uses within core areas may parallel the central business districts of Roanoke, Salem and Vinton. Core areas may also be appropriate for larger-scale highway- oriented retail uses and regionally-based shopping facilities." 948 October 16, 2007 Supervisor Flora asked if the transition designation would be more appropriate for some of the areas rather than the core designation due to the topography and access to Route 220. Mr. Holladay explained that based on the availability of water and sewer services, the C-2 uses would be more attracted to that area. Supervisor Flora expressed concern about the steep slopes in some of the areas along Route 220. Mr. Flora also expressed concerns about requiring developers to spend large sums of money in engineering fees before making application for rezoning and before the rezoning is approved by the Board. He noted there is some good, developable land off Route 220. There was general discussion of the three scenarios proposed for the Route 220 Corridor Future Land Use and the process used to develop the scenarios. Mr. Holladay reviewed the Draft Study Themes/Rezoning Guidelines for the Route 220 Corridor Study. Under the Study Area theme, Mr. Holladay reviewed the following items: (1) Boundaries of study area follow existing breaks in the Comprehensive Plan future land use maps, or 1,000 feet from the highway center line, whichever is greater; (2) Petitions for commercial development/redevelopment are encouraged at the sites identified in the study. Residential development is discouraged, unless accessory to a commercial use within a mixed-use development. Mr. Holladay stated that they are stressing business development along this corridor. (3) The limits October 16, 2007 949 of the future land use map commercial designations are intended to function as an Urban Development Area boundary with the understanding that urban/suburban development is strongly discouraged beyond that area limit, until such time that further planning and land use studies are completed for those rural areas. Under the Public Water and Sanitary Sewer Service theme, Mr. Holladay reviewed the following items: (1) New projects must connect to public water service; (2) New projects must connect/extend sanitary sewer service if within "X" feet of existing sewer. Mr. Holladay stated that the County standard is 300 feet. (3) New projects beyond existing sanitary sewer - petitioner must consider extension of sewer services and/or justify not constructing the services. (4) New projects using private septic systems are discouraged, but if proposed, must have septic permit approval from the Virginia Department of Health submitted with rezoning application. Mr. Church stated that he would like to be sure we do not develop just the frontage area along Route 220, but include the property off the road that is within reason. Mr. Holladay noted that a number of properties are back off the highway and he stated that they are not ruling out those areas. Supervisor Flora asked Mr. Robertson if the sewer line from Back Creek to the County line was going to be predominantly a force main. Mr. Robertson stated that the WWJA is not installing sewer in the entire Roanoke County corridor at this time; however, they will install a force main from Clearbrook to Back Creek. He stated that 950 October 16, 2007 when there is future development, a pump station will be installed, and if the County wants sanitary sewer further down Route 220, there will be a small section of gravity sewer and part of it will be pumped. Mr. Robertson also verified that water will be available beyond Back Creek, but sewer will not be available. Under the Slope Development theme, Mr. Holladay reviewed the following items: (1) New projects must provide preliminary grading plan with rezoning application, delineating building pad area, driveway access grading, limits of disturbance and extent of proposed cut and fill; (2) New projects exceeding 25 vertical feet of cut or fill slope must provide geotechnical report with rezoning application. Supervisor Flora stated that the smaller operations don't have the resources for this type of engineering work like the larger retailers. Mr. Holladay stated that they may be able to make a distinction between core and transition designation and as to whether this is required. Supervisor McNamara stated that there are a couple of items to consider. He stated that he would like to see the word "must" changed to "may" in the first item under Slope Development so that it reads, "New projects may provide preliminary grading plan..." He stated this gives the Board and Planning Commission more options and flexibility. Supervisor McNamara stated that under the Study Area theme, it reads, "Residential development is discouraged, unless accessory to a commercial use within a mixed-use development." He stated that he thought there are lots of areas in the October 16, 2007 951 corridor where mixed-use development should be encouraged. Mr. Mahoney stated that he encouraged the staff to include language whereby residential development would be discouraged in order to help payoff the revenue bonds with commercial and industrial development. Supervisor Flora stated that he thought the County should be looking at the highest and best use of the land and how it can be developed without destroying the landscape on Route 220. Mr. Holladay stated that the second item under Study Area could be reworded to encourage business development, but not discourage mixed-use development. Supervisor Altizer stated that he did not think many people would want to develop subdivisions along Route 220 and that the County needed to encourage commercial development along the frontage of Route 220. Mr. Mahoney stated that if the Board were to deny a residential rezoning along Route 220 and then get sued by the petitioner, he could then show the court where in our Comprehensive Plan that residential development is discouraged along Route 220. Supervisor Flora asked if this statement could be reversed so that it would say that commercial is encouraged rather than residential is discouraged. He stated that he would not want to see residential discouraged in the entire study area. 952 October 16, 2007 Supervisor Wray stated that he would like language that states that existing houses or additions to existing houses would not be required to connect to public water and/or sewer. Mr. Covey advised that this is already addressed in other ordinances and would not be addressed in the corridor study. Supervisor McNamara suggested that the wording read that commercial is strongly encouraged adjacent to Route 220, but mixed use development is not discouraged. Supervisor Flora stated that he would not like to see the appearance down Route 220 destroyed just to get commercial development and that he would not discourage mixed-use development. Mr. Holladay stated that they would change the word "must" to "may" under Slope Development. Mr. Jarrell asked if new projects must connect or extend sanitary sewer service if within 300 feet of an existing sewer and it was the consensus that this figure would be used. Mr. Mahoney stated that he is holding up the three-party agreement between Roanoke County, Franklin County, and the WVWA because until the corridor study is completed, the water line is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated he was hoping one of the alternatives would be chosen and the comprehensive plan amended to include the corridor study so he could then conclude discussions and bring the agreement to the Board in December for approval. October 16, 2007 953 Supervisor Flora suggested that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution at their meeting tonight, and the Board of Supervisors hold a work session between the afternoon and evening session on November 13, and followed by a public hearing on the evening of November 13. Mr. Holladay thanked the Planning Staff for their time and effort in preparing the corridor study. IN RE: DISCUSSION OF PROFFERS, PRO, AND PRIVATE ROADS Mr. Thompson stated that the Board recently took a tour of Wolf Creek ,and he wanted to briefly discuss Planned Residential Districts (PRO). He stated that he has heard from Board members that proffers in general are good. He advised that property to be developed as a Planned Residential District has to be rezoned and allows more flexibility and more options. He explained that the process requires the submittal of an application to rezone, and the written and graphic materials that are submitted become a master plan. He stated that this information becomes the proffers. He stated that for Wolf Creek the master plan is a large notebook, and under our current ordinance it becomes a proffer. Mr. Thompson explained that PROs allow private roads to be part of the development. He stated that the issue with private roads is that the County needs to develop a countywide set of standards for private roads in PROs and cluster developments and tighten up the language of the PRO. 954 October 16, 2007 Mr. Thompson stated that PROs have served in some capacity as our cluster ordinance. He stated that cluster is the arrangement of a development on a piece of property. He explained that cluster protects open space. He stated that the current cluster ordinance has only been used three or four times. He stated that cluster is a by-right development, and he stated that the staff would suggest that we keep the cluster ordinance, but slightly amend it. He stated that both PRO and cluster have private road standards, and they would like to finalize those road standards and bring them to the Board for approval. He stated that in regards to Wolf Creek, some of the proffers did not have enough detail in the package. He advised that one of the details that came out of Wolf Creek was that the proffers need to state when they will be implemented. He also stated that a regular inspection program will be implemented to be sure proffers, such as sidewalks, are being installed. He stated that currently private roads are not inspected; however, there may need to be some type of certification from an engineer to be sure the roads are built to a certain standard. He advised that there may be State Code that will allow the County to bond private roads. Mr. Thompson suggested that the Zoning Ordinance be revised for PROs and brought back to the Board for approval. He stated they have learned from the Wolf Creek situation what has and has not worked, and he suggested making changes to the ordinance and developing the proper guidelines. October 16, 2007 955 Mr. Thompson stated that in some cases trails that are proffered with PRDs not fully constructed. He stated that a condition that will be required in the future is that if trails are going to be built, they must be built upfront and on homeowners' association property. Mr. Covey stated that trails need to be constructed before the homes are built because residents are sometimes not aware that trails will be constructed around their property even though the trails are designated on the master plan. Supervisor Altizer stated that Wolf Creek is over ten years old and the residents have landscaped their properties. He explained that sidewalks have not been installed and if the developer now installs the sidewalks, the landscaping will have to be torn out. He stated that proffers need to have a time period designated as to when it will be accomplished before the proffers are accepted. Mr. Thompson stated that this should be made a part of the master plan. Supervisor Flora stated that we need to write into the regulations that building permits or occupany permits will not be issued until certain proffers are complete. Supervisor Altizer asked if a development is sold to another developer, do the proffers pass with the land and does the County have any obligation to the new developer. Mr. Mahoney verified that the proffers pass with the land. 956 October 16, 2007 Mr. Covey explained that if a developer sells to another developer, they will want their bonds and obligations released. He stated that before the County releases the bonds, the new developer must post bonds for the improvements. He explained that the new developer will know what his obligations are at the time surety is posted. Supervisor Altizer stated that he wants to be sure everyone understands what constitutes a substantial change, who has the authority to make those changes, and which changes must come back to the Board for consideration. Mr. Mahoney stated that the provisions of the current ordinances set out what constitutes major decisions. He asked the Board how much authority the Board wanted to vest in the Zoning Administrator, or do they want every change brought back to the Board. Supervisor Altizer stated that he wanted accountability and he thought changes in sidewalks was a major change. Supervisor Flora stated that the Zoning Administrator has the statutory authority to make interpretations regarding the master plan. He stated that when the Board approves proffers they need to be clear and easily definable; and if they are bonded, there should not be any problems. Mr. Mahoney advised that in some areas of Wolf Creek they were to have brick sidewalks and he believes that is a condition under the current PRD. He stated October 16, 2007 957 that in the future, if that is going to be a condition, it will be specifically stated upfront with a time frame as to when that condition will be installed and some type of financial guarantee will be required to force that condition if it is not installed. He asked if the master plan is not a proffered condition, then how much flexibility is allowed to alter that plan? Mr. Mahoney stated that one of the problems is that the master plan is a proffered condition, and the current ordinance gives a certain degree of flexibility to alter the master plan to someone that is not a part of the governing body that approved the proffered condition. Supervisor Flora stated that all the proffers need to be lifted from the master plan and that the entire plan not be adopted. Supervisor Wray asked about the process for following up on proffered conditions. Mr. Thompson stated that proffers are put on plans and the inspectors in the field are checking those plans. He stated that the staff does periodic checks every two to three years. Mr. Murphy stated that during the grading process, inspectors are sent out on a regular basis. Mr. Hodge stated that inspectors need to be cross-trained so they can monitor PRDs. He stated that proffers can be noted on the inspection sheet. Mr. Hodge stated that he understood the Board would like to keep the PRD process and amend the code section. 958 October 16, 2007 Mr. Thompson stated that the staff will develop private road standards. Supervisor Wray stated that he wanted to be sure school buses and fire trucks can use those private roads. Mr. Hodge also said that we need to look at this from the standpoint of the garbage trucks being able to use the roads also. Supervisor Altizer asked if the County is allowed to set a time as to how long the developer has to warrant a private road to the homeowners. Mr. Mahoney stated that the Board could adopt an ordinance; however, the ordinance needs to be consistent with the State standards. Mr. Mahoney stated that currently the County does not have a warranty period if a developer installs a private road. Supervisor Altizer says he is not looking at number of years of warranty as much as having a certain percentage of the project built out. He stated he did not want to see the road turned over prematurely. Mr. Mahoney suggested that we could do something similar to VDOT acceptance of roads. Mr. Covey explained that VDOT will accept a segment of road as long as there are three occupied homes on a street. He stated that the developer must provide a performance bond for one year to VDOT and a maintenance fee. Supervisor Altizer asked if the County could do something similar to this. Mr. Mahoney stated that Roanoke County is not in the road building business. Mr. Covey stated that occasionally homeowners associations will contact his office to say that a developer is getting ready to turn the road over to them and wanting to know if October 16, 2007 959 there are any outstanding issues before they accept the road. More discussion followed regarding private roads in developments with homeowners associations and that there are some associations who have done a nice job of constructing their roads. INRE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman McNamara adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: ~~ ~W~ Wanda G. Riley Clerk to the Board o eph P. McNamara hairman 960 October 16, 2007 (This page left intentionally blank)