Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/4/2022 - Minutes ,•'" `' ROANOKE COUNTY "' 1, PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2022 Commissioners Present: Mr. Rick James Mr. Kelly McMurray Mr. Jim Woltz Commissioners Absent: Mr. Wayne Bower Mr. Troy Henderson Staff Present: Mr. Philip Thompson, Secretary Ms. Rachel Lower, Senior Assistant County Attorney Ms. Rebecca James Ms. Cecile Newcomb Mr. Alex Jones Mr. Isaac Henry Ms. Cecelia Thomas WORK SESSION Mr. McMurray called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. Approval of Agenda Mr. Woltz made a motion to approve the agenda, which passed 3-0. Approval of Minutes Mr. James made a motion to approve the December 6, 2021, minutes as amended, which passed 3-0. Consent Agenda Mr. Thompson noted that there are no land use applications coming before the Commission at the February 1st meeting. However, there are pending applications so he predicts the Commission will see more land use cases in the upcoming months. The consent agenda passed 3-0. Election of Officers Mr. Thompson noted that in the by-laws the Planning Commission's at its annual meeting nominate a Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Mr. James made a motion for Mr. McMurray to be elected Chairman for 2022 which passed 3-0. Mr. James nominated Mr. Henderson to be elected as Vice-Chairman for 2022 which passed 3- 0. ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10,2021 Roanoke County 200 Plan Update Presentation Ms. Newcomb and Mr. Jones introduced an overview of the results from the fall meetings for the Roanoke County 200 Plan. They overviewed the statistics of community engagement and noted their efforts for public outreach. Ms. Newcomb and Mr. Jones overviewed the survey results and how they were obtained. Mr. Jones clarified the survey data being presented was gathered from the online survey for providing additional information, or for those that wished to participate virtually. It was noted that public services was voted the most important for the present and future success of the community. Mr. James asked how Public Services was being defined. Ms. Newcomb noted trash, recycling, fire and rescue, police, and all of the services that the County provides to citizens is considered Public Services. Mr. Jones noted that people were proud of their police force. However in regards to general services, recycling is a huge concern. Another popular comment was that citizens are very pleased with their libraries. Mr. James noted that he was surprised that the three areas the public stated "Needs Improvement" all had to do with water. Mr. Thompson noted that people could still be concerned due to the flash floods that happened a few years ago on 220 and in front of Tanglewood Mall. He noted many people also remember the flood of 1985, and may have that on their minds when ranking what needs improvement. Mr. Thompson stated that Stormwater Drainage was allocated money from the American Rescue Plan Act(ARPA). He mentioned that Development Services created a list of projects that are currently backlogged, that he believes will address many of the concerns the citizens have. Mr. Jones overviewed the statistics about parks,and noted that the comments focused on upkeep for parks rather than needing new parks. He noted that people see additions to Explore Park, and compare it to the weathering and aging equipment in their parks. Mr. Thompson noted that three years ago the Board of Supervisors requested a public facilities study. The report noted projects that are needed, and the need for capital improvements. He noted that he believes the Board of Supervisors may be using funds to make improvements that were recommended in that study. Ms. Newcomb overviewed the major themes that they heard from the community about Natural and Cultural Resources such as tree protection, groundwater protection, and rural area protection. She also reviewed the major themes regarding land use. Mr. Thompson noted that many citizens are happy with the land use in Roanoke. He noted that many citizens liked living in a rural setting but having things they need within a ten minute drive. He discussed the pros and cons of taking away barriers to development. He also mentioned the need for potential zoning ordinance amendments following the assumed acceptance of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. Mr. James noted the inconsistency of people saying they want more controlled growth, higher density housing, and a variety of price points in housing options; then they don't support the projects that will give them that type of development. Mr.Thompson noted that conceptually people are okay with a lot of things. Mr. Thompson noted the pros and cons of by-right use. Mr. McMurray and Mr. James discussed the age range that were present at the meetings and questioned how reflective that is of the County population. Mr. James noted that it's the age range of 25-45 that are leaving the County. He noted the importance of ensuring that we are addressing what it is the County needs to do to make those individuals stay. Ms. Newcomb noted that the County has gotten older. Mr. Jones noted it would be interesting to note the median age and how that is influencing the data. Mr.Woltz noted that it was smart to divide the statistics into their planning areas. He also noted the importance of considering how zoning ordinance amendments will affect the different areas of the County individually. He also questioned if there needs to be changes in the regulations when considering encouraging development in the County. Page 2 of 6 • ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10,2021 Mr. Jones summarized the overview of facilities and infrastructure and transportation. He reiterated the comments from the public about the need for better recycling in the County. He also discussed the requests from citizens for more pre-pandemic programming and services to be offered again. Mr. Jones also noted overwhelmingly positive comments about Fire and Rescue, but noted the need for more volunteers. He also repeated a citizen remark about the lack of education and advertising for volunteers. Mr. Henry spoke to the comments he heard at the fall Comprehensive Plan meetings. He noted that there were divisive opinions about bicyclists and bicycle lanes and safety. Mr. Jones overviewed the current plans for the spring 2022 community meetings. He noted locations and dates have not yet been determined. However, there will be some community planning areas combined due to the attendance numbers in certain areas of the County. Mr. Thompson noted that since the Comprehensive Plan had not been updated in a while, they wanted to ensure that each planning area had an opportunity to be involved for the first round of meetings. Due to the extensive outreach of the first round of meetings, they felt it was appropriate to condense the number of meetings for the second round of meetings in the spring. Mr. James questioned what they could do to solicit input from the 25-45 age range at the upcoming spring meetings. Mr. Jones noted they have attempted different marketing and strategy methods for that purpose. Ms. Newcomb and Mr. Jones noted that they will have the consolidated information on display at the next round of meetings to show that staff is taking the citizen's input into consideration with the proposed plans. Mr. James commended staff for their efforts into consolidating everything into an easily accessible way for the public. Ms. Newcomb noted that we may need to consider that we might be doing things right, and that we should look at that too. Discussion of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Ms. Lower read the resolution of the Board of Supervisors to the Planning Commission. Mr. Thompson noted the County's Broadcasting Tower amendment was last amended in 1998. He commented that the state law has changed. He noted that mini microcell requires that the County can only review them administratively, they are allowed with a permit up to 50 feet in height. He noted that with the grant for Rural Broadband they have discovered that if they raise the height of mini microcells they could put fewer in and provide internet and coverage to more people in the County. Ms. Lower added that Ms. Hooker voiced concern that there may need to be varied height requirements in different areas of the County due to topography and need for broadband. Mr. James noted in previous conversations with George Condyles, he had noted that with the changes from 4G to 5G tower height can be reduced, but the towers must be closer together. Mr. James noted that he wanted to get more information on the intricacies of cell towers to know if height is truly the issue. Ms. James reviewed the current regulations for broadcasting towers in Roanoke County. She noted problems with the current County definition of a broadcasting tower. She noted that new towers are permitted with a special use permit except in residential districts up to 199 feet. She also reviewed the state code for broadcasting towers. Mr. James questioned who operates small cell and microcell facilities which was answered as any cell carrier. Mr. Thompson noted that the microcell height is the pressing part of the resolution. However, there is also the issue of timing with the Board of Supervisors and the grants. It may need to be a two part plan so that Rural Broadband can be resolved and later update the zoning ordinance so that it is in compliance with state code. Mr. Woltz noted that there should be someone who is an authority in the industry who can come in and explain the basics of the industry in an hour. Ms. Lower Page 3 of 6 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10,2021 noted that it might be wise to have Mr. Bill Hunter come in and speak alongside another vendor to address the concerns and questions of the Planning Commission. Mr. James noted that it may be wise to address Rural Broadband as one project and have a deep dive into broadcasting towers as a separate issue. Mr. James noted that Nelson County has the highest per capita of people working from home. He noted that he has noticed the microcell towers when driving through town, but he did not fully understand them. However, Nelson County must be doing something right with Broadband to have that many people working from home. Ms. James noted that some of it is the process, it changes things if an 80 foot tower is allowed as a by-right use. Mr. Thompson noted there was a time when he worked for Stafford County that towers were allowed by-right in commercial and industrial districts. He noted that you would only build to the height that you needed rather than requiring a certain height, but you could allow more height later if it was needed. Ms. Lower noted that she knew it was a priority for the Board of Supervisors to limit the need of a special use permit. Mr. James stated that he was in favor not forcing requests to come before the Planning Commission needlessly. Mr. Thompson noted that if we want a cell tower to go somewhere how do we encourage them to go there. He noted that there may be certain design standards that could be put in place so that one could be allowed by-right in compliance with those standards. This would make it easier to allow towers where we need them, without them having to come before the Planning Commission. Mr. James noted that if people are going to capitalize and make revenue off of the towers, why shouldn't the County benefit from it. He noted that everyone wants better service unless the tower is being put in near them. Ms. James overviewed Loudoun County's tiered wireless telecommunications facility application processes. She noted that they only require permits for most towers, but they also have special exceptions. Mr. James noted that it looked like they have a good system, and that may be something the Planning Commission should look into. Mr. James referenced Stone Bridge and how there are some County resources that could be used, but people are against having them there even if there is a need. Mr. James noted that it is about finding balance to give people what they want without them being offended. Mr. Woltz noted that if they have someone come in, they can figure out if height is the issue. Mr. James questioned propagation maps as that seemed like a practical approach. Mr. Thompson noted that they can offer it, but he did not know if the County was allowed to require it. He noted that one of their requirements was that you have to look at alternate structures as possibilities, although that might not be allowed by state code any longer. Mr. Thompson noted that propagation maps are based on a variety of factors, but having someone like Mr. Condyles with technical knowledge is better able to understand if there is truly a need. Mr. Thompson noted that if someone who is a technical expert signs off on the application then the application should get approved. Comments of Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff Mr. James commended staff on the 200 Comprehensive Plan, he noted the effort it takes to get public input. He noted that staff compiled all of the information in a concise, legible, and meaningful way. Mr. Woltz noted he will not be in attendance for the March 1st meeting due to being out of town and the meeting on March 15th he will be having surgery. Mr. McMurray noted that he shared the sentiment with his fellow commissioners that they enjoyed a certain level of humor and charm of being the reluctant bureaucrat. He noted that it has been an honor to serve the people of Roanoke County the past two years, and as he has gotten to know the staff and Commissioners that he can say that it is honor to serve with this Commission as the chairman. Mr. Woltz noted that he used to attend Planning Commission meetings for various reasons, but the Commissions over the time he has served, have been incredible people to work with. He noted that whenever there is a void someone comes in who is easy to work with, understanding, Page 4 of 6 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 1Q 2021 we don't all have the same views, we don't all have the same politics, but we work hard to get along and figure it out. He stated that it was an honor to serve on the Planning Commission. Mr. Thompson noted it would be his recommendation to cancel the January 18th meeting. Mr. Woltz made a motion to cancel the January 18th meeting which passed 3-0. Mr. Thompson anticipates 4-5 applications before the Planning Commission between March and May. He suggested asking Mr. Hunter to be present for the February 1st meeting. Mr. Thompson also noted the Route 460 meeting on Thursday, January 13th. He also noted that Ms. Howard-Dubois had her son on December 8th, 2021. He was born six weeks early, but everyone is doing well. Mr. Thompson also provided a review of the Lawson Companies that went before the Board of Supervisors. He noted that Roanoke City is going to require a Traffic Impact Analysis, and the application has been postponed until the January 25th Board of Supervisors meeting. Mr. Thompson noted that the Commission occasionally has guest speakers. He asked the Commission if they had any suggestions Mr. James noted he would recommend John Hall, Roanoke Regional Partnership, Roanoke Valley Home Builders, or Realtor Association. He noted that they would be good opportunities to hear about what is going on in the Roanoke Valley. Mr. Thompson noted that it could also be good to hear from developers. Mr. James noted that Mr. Woltz provides his expertise and how beneficial that is. He noted that hearing from others may also be beneficial. Mr. Jones provided an update on the CTE Citizen's Advisory Committee. He noted that the Board of Supervisors would be meeting with the chairman and the vice-chairman to discuss the progress of the committee. He noted that the meeting would be closed session, but he would be happy to provide updates at a later time. Mr. Jones noted that the Committee is going to be looking at programs that need larger space, and what programs are missing from the school. He noted that the focus will be looking at other CTE schools and evaluating what would be best for Burton. Mr. Jones also asked that the Planning Commission continue to help keep people informed about the upcoming spring meetings for the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Lower noted that Mr. Lubeck's case for the Southwest Virginia Wildlife Center, the Supreme Court of Virginia agreed to hear the appeal as to whether they have standing to petition the court to reconsider the Board of Supervisors approval of a special use permit. With no further business or comments, Mr. McMurray adjourned the meeting at 8:24 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: C Iia Thomas Recordin. ecretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission Philip Tho, pson Secreta , Roanoke County Planning Commission Page 5 of 6 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10,2021 Kell urra Yce.� Chairman, Roano ounty Planning Commission Page 6 of 6