Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/7/2013 - MinutesCommissioners Present: Ms. Martha Hooker Mr. Gary Jarrell Mr. Gene Marrana Mr. Jason Peters Mr. David Radford Staff Present: Mr. Philip Thompson, Secretary Mr. Paul Mahoney, County Attorney (work, session only) Ms. Ruth Ellen Kuhnel, Assistant County Attorney (public hearing only) Mr. John Murph work session only) Ms. Megan Cronise (work session, only) s. Tura Pattisall M:s. Tammi Wood (work session only) MS. Susan McCoy, Recording Secretary Guests Ms. Undsay Blankenship, Greenwray Planner Work Session: Mr, Radford called thework session to order at 4 , 01 pi,im. MM o;f Agenda Mr. Peters made a motion to approve the agenda, which passed 5-0, Ag2roval of Minutes Mr. Jarfell rnade a motion to approve the minutes of November 5, 2012 and December 3, 2012, which passed 5-0. Consent Agenda There were no applications submitted for the February 6, 2 3 Planning Commission Public Hearing, Mr. Thompson stated Old Heritage, LL C, has submitted a revised application which is scheduled to be presented at the March 5, 2013 Planning Commission Public Hearing, He stated a Community Meeting has been tentatively scheduled for February 13, 20113, at the South County Library. Election of Officers Mr. Thompson opened the floor for nominatiors of Chairman for the 2013 calendar year. Ms. Hooker nominated Mr. Peters, No other nominations were recelved and the Commission unanimously voted for Mr. Peters, as Chairman for 21 13, ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7, 2013 Mr. Peters opened the floor for nominations of Vice - Chairman for the 2013 calendar year. Mr. Peters nominated Ms. Hooker. No other nominations were received and the Commission unanimously voted for Ms. Hooker as Vice - Chairman for 2013. 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule Ms. Hooker made a motion to approve the 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule, which passed 5 -0. County Engineer Mr. Thompson introduced Mr. David Henderson, County Engineer to the Commission. He stated Mr. Henderson may attend meetings, especially those involving stormwater issues. Transportation Alternatives Program Applications Mr. Thompson provided a brief history and explanation of the Map 21 grant application process. Ms. Cronise provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding the Plantation Road Transportation Alternatives Program Application. She reviewed the goals of the project including pedestrian and bicycle accommodations, recreational facilities, streetscape improvements, enhancement of gateways, and mass transit opportunities. She provided a progress update including the completed Hollins University segment of the Tinker Creek Greenway to Carvins Cove, privately sponsored landscaping at the Williamson Road intersection, the Plantation Road Corridor Study, signal analysis at Lila Drive, and Plantation Road surveying. She and the Commissioners discussed funding for Lila Drive improvements, noting private funding will be needed to complete the project. Ms. Cronise stated they are in the process of hiring a consultant to assist with project design, engineering, and community outreach. She stated they are also continuing to work on acquiring a pedestrian signal and crosswalk at the Gander Way- Friendship Lane intersection and the Williamson Road intersection with Plantation Road. Ms. Cronise provided updates regarding the Hollins University segment of the Tinker Creek Greenway, including the completion of 2.5 section of greenway which connects many other trails and a parking lot designed and built by County staff. She discussed the Williamson Road /Plantation Landscaping Project, including the unveiling of signage and landscaping, as well as Friendship Retirement Community funding landscaping and maintenance for five years. She stated the Williamson Road Area Business Association (WRABA) has also contracted landscaping and maintenance activities. Ms. Cronise reviewed the Plantation Road Corridor Study revealing crash data and traffic signal warrants. She stated a traffic signal and pedestrian facilities on Lila Drive have been warranted and the location has been approved by VDOT. She stated this signal will serve nearby area businesses. She discussed the entrance realignments and access management changes which are needed. She reviewed pedestrian accommodations. She reviewed the Plantation Road Bicycle, Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvement Project funding status and opportunities Page 2 of 11 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7, 2013 Ms. Cronise provided outreach information including a website link and an E- newsletter which are available to the public. She stated outreach includes meeting with the Plantation Road businesses and area organizations. Mr. Marrano discussed the need for shared paths for the Tinker Creek Greenway near Hollins. Ms. Cronise stated they hope to be able to complete a loop of trails in the area. Mr. Radford inquired about the use of the Hollins tunnel. Ms. Cronise discussed this issue. Ms. Cronise requested a letter of support for the project. Mr. Marrano made a motion for a letter of support for the Plantation Road Transportation Alternatives Program Application, which passed 5 -0. Ms. Blankenship provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding the Roanoke River Greenway Project - Eastern Section from Roanoke City to the Blue Ridge Parkway. She provided a status update of the Roanoke River Greenway. She discussed funding for the remaining unfinished area. She stated they are seeking funding for the Town of Vinton section. She provided a project overview including funding needs for the section from the Waste Water Treatment Plant to the Blue Ridge Parkway, which is approximately 2.7 miles on the south side of the Roanoke River. She reviewed Phase 1, which includes the preliminary design, engineering, permitting, and right -of -way. She also discussed Phase 2, which includes completion of various portions of the trail. Ms. Blankenship provided a breakdown of project costs for each phase, including project funding received and funding needed for completion of the project. She provided a progress update which included an access agreement for County fieldwork, the contract signed for engineering services, and the ribbon cutting for Roanoke and Tinker Creek Greenway Connector. She stated they are also in negotiations with the Blue Ridge Parkway. She reviewed proposals submitted to the National Park Service /Blue Ridge Parkway and VDOT - Highland Road Tunnel. She stated they have also conducted meetings with adjacent property owners, surveying and acquiring geotechnical analysis, and wetlands delineation of the areas. Ms. Blankenship reviewed the project scope, including preliminary design and engineering for the greenway terminus, public meetings, environmental permitting, right - of -way acquisition, and construction. Mr. Marrano inquired about the timeline. Ms. Blankenship discussed this issue. Ms. Blankenship requested a letter of support for the project. Mr. Radford made a motion for a letter of support for the Roanoke River Greenway Project — Eastern Section from Roanoke City to the Blue Ridge Parkway, which passed 5 -0. Commissioners' and Staff Comments Mr. Thompson discussed the most recent revised concept plan regarding Friendship Health and Rehab, Inc. Staff and Commissioners discussed the revisions regarding setbacks, buffering requirements and options. They also discussed citizen concerns, including stormwater management, property access, and buffering. Mr. Thompson discussed buffering options which include construction of a berm, fencing, and Page 3 of 11 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7, 2013 vegetation along the property lines. Ms. Pattisall discussed regulations of the zoning ordinance which state the buffer needs to be 40 feet wide with vegetation or 30 feet wide with a fence. Mr. Thompson stated although typically a fence is used, a berm is a buffering option. He noted a berm which is 6 feet in height will be 36 feet at the base. He also stated evergreens could be requested instead of deciduous vegetation. Mr. Marrano inquired about drainage being placed underground and stormwater runoff. Ms. Pattisall stated the petitioner has not completed all drainage calculations and engineering. With no further comments, Mr. Peters adjourned the work session at 5:12 p.m. EVENING SESSION Mr. Peters called the Public Hearing to order at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Hooker gave the invocation and led the pledge of allegiance. The petition of Philip M. Argabright to rezone approximately 12.9 acres from R- 1, Low Density Residential, District to AG -3, Agricultural /Rural Preserve, District, located at 5032 Stanley Farm Road in the Glenvar area, Catawba Magisterial District. Ms. Pattisall presented the staff report, including a brief history and description of the property. She discussed the surrounding future land use and zoning designation of the property. Mr. Marrano inquired about enforcement of animal waste removal. Ms. Pattisall noted regulations regarding this issue are in the zoning ordinance. She stated the petitioner desires to have a small amount of animals on his property. Mr. Peters opened the public hearing for public comment. With no citizens requesting to speak, Mr. Peters closed the public hearing. Ms. Hooker stated the property had been rezoned from agricultural to residential in 1992 in anticipation of increasing density in this area due to the construction of the County waterline. Ms. Hooker made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning. Mr. Thompson called the roll and the motion passed (5 -0) with the following vote: AYES: Jarrell, Hooker, Marrano, Peters, Radford NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None 2. The petition of Friendship Health and Rehab Center South, Inc. and Friendship Health and Rehab Center, Inc. to rezone approximately 10.27 acres from R -1, Low Density Residential, District to C -2, General Commercial, District and to obtain a special use permit for a nursing home and life care facility on property located at 5647 Starkey Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. Ms. Pattisall presented the staff report, including future land use, current zoning, and the concept plan. She noted access onto Crescent Street has been removed from the revised site plan. Page 4 of 11 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7, 2013 Mr. Richard Sayers, Esquire, discussed the concept plan, noting the facility will be residential in nature and not a true nursing home. He stated it will be a short -term rehabilitation facility for issues such as knee replacements, neurological issues, pneumonia, and respiratory issues. He stated they are in the process of receiving a Certificate of Public Need (COPN) from the State for this facility. He stated approximately 60 employees, working shifts from 7:00 am — 3:00 pm, 3:00 pm — 11:00 pm, and 11:00 pm - 7:00 am including weekends. He discussed access to the facility, noting the entrance will be off of Starkey Road only with no access to Crescent Boulevard. He stated a traffic impact analysis (TIA) will be conducted during the site plan process to determine if turning lanes are warranted. He discussed that traffic counts from the site will be less than if the property would be developed as single family residential development. Mr. Sayers stated they currently do not have enough information to determine stormwater management of the property. He noted the County has strict guidelines regarding this issue. He stated the facility is subject to real estate and personal property taxes, as well as creating new jobs for the area. He stated the location is convenient to area hospitals, doctors, and families of the patients. He stated 120 beds will be moved from the Hershberger Road facility which is being downsized. Mr. Peters inquired about parking for employees and visitors. Mr. Sayers discussed this issue. Mr. Peters asked if parking would spill into the front lot. Mr. Sayers noted that the cottage homes shown on the concept plan are planned for the future and will not be constructed at this time. He stated if needed, parking would be available on the lot at the back of the facility. Mr. Marrano asked if enough parking was available for the facility use. Ms. Pattisall stated this issue will be addressed during site plan review. She stated a general recommendation is one space per two beds and staff parking needs. She stated there is no chart available stipulating parking requirements for nursing homes. Mr. Marrano inquired about traffic stacking and if the petitioner would be proactive by installing the turning lane now. Mr. Sayers stated the petitioner would prefer to wait for the report, since the shifts are different from regular work schedules which generate traffic. Mr. Marrano inquired about buffering. Ms. Pattisall reviewed the concept plan and buffering regulations and options. Mr. Marrano inquired about the type of fence required. Ms. Pattisall stated fence or wall requirements are 6 feet in height. She stated the fence would not be required for C -1 adjoining properties. Mr. Thompson stated the frontage on Starkey Road and Crescent Boulevard would not require a fence. Ms. Pattisall discussed proffers and suggested conditions. Mr. Marrano inquired about noise impacts. Mr. Thompson stated noise issues are regulated by the Roanoke County Noise Ordinance. Mr. Radford inquired about the 30 foot setback from the road. Mr. Sayers stated they will amend the concept plan as required by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Radford inquired about parking where cottage homes are planned. Ms. Pattisall stated the staff requested they place future plans for the property. Mr. Radford inquired about underground water retention. Mr. Sayers stated they will comply with the County's stormwater regulations. Page 5 of 11 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7, 2013 Mr. Jarrell inquired about average length of stay for patients. Mr. Tony Kelly, Friendship Health Inc., stated short -term care is considered less than 100 days. Mr. Jarrell inquired about emergency vehicles. Mr. Sayers stated emergency vehicles would be used for purposes of transporting residents from another facility. Mr. Jarrell inquired about delivery times for supplies. Mr. Kelly stated food delivery usually arrives after 7:00 am and medical supplies arrive around midday. He stated the emergency vehicles are cognizant of the time of day and may use lights but not sirens. Ms. Hooker inquired about the flag lot portion of the property that extends to Arthur Street. Mr. Sayers stated this portion of property is not of much use to them. He stated they have spoken to a neighbor about granting him an easement on that portion. He stated it is not part of the planned project. Ms. Hooker stated a condition may be needed regarding this issue to allow neighbors to be more comfortable. Ms. Pattisall discussed that the petitioner would need to go through the process again to use it. Ms. Hooker stated she was concerned with C -2 zoning without a designated use. Mr. Sayers stated he would be willing to sell it to adjoining property owner. Ms. Pattisall explained it would then be a split zoning property which could be used for residential purposes. She stated the portion is fully wooded. Mr. Marrano inquired about the allowable density of by -right residential use on this parcel. Ms. Pattisall explained the density of the development of 10.27 acres would be dependent on the use of public or private water. She discussed the potential density regarding this parcel. Mr. Marrano asked if the special use permit disallows outpatient use. Ms. Pattisall and Mr. Thompson explained it could be included as a condition. Ms. Pattisall stated nursing home care is considered inpatient care. Mr. Sayers stated some patients may need to return for outpatient care but not the majority of patients. Mr. Marrano inquired about regulation of this issue. Mr. Kelly stated outpatient care would require a separate State license. He stated the facility being for inpatient use only is our intent with this nursing facility. He stated the exclusion of all outpatient care would be unfavorable with changing therapy regulations. Mr. Peters opened the public hearing for public comment. Mr. Greg Pedelecki, 4706 Ivy Green Court, expressed concern regarding stormwater management. He stated most developments place the retention ponds in front of the developments with surrounding fencing and gating, noting underground retention ponds would be more aesthetic. He stated construction of turning lanes would be proactive. He also stated that the Buck Mountain Road and Starkey Road intersection would be a favorable location for a traffic circle. Mr. Thomas Brockenbraugh, 4065 Overlook Trail, stated he lives approximately one mile away from the project. He stated although he understands the concerns of the citizens, it would be a good use in the neighborhood so patients Page 6 of 11 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7, 2013 could be closer to family and friends. He stated it is a better use for the property than residential. Mr. Warren Coburn, 5669 Starkey Road, stated he owns 353 feet frontage on Starkey Road. He stated Attachment #1 filed with the original application in November 2012, shows the rear and side property lines will be buffered to provide extensive privacy as well as security. He stated that extensive means wide, large, not the minimum. He stated 120 employees and visitors vehicle trips per day will equal approximately 275 each day, 2,000 trips per week, 7,700 per month, and 100,000 per year. He stated he is concerned about safety, such as some vehicles getting out of control and coming onto his property. He stated the petitioner stated they do not have enough room for a 40 -foot buffer on 10.27 acres. He stated they have 447,361 square feet, the building is 66,400 square feet, parking is 50,000 to 60,000 square feet, leaving 300,000 square feet. He stated he does not understand the reason they would not have enough room for a 40 -foot buffer, noting an engineer should be able to provide a 40 -foot buffer on the property. He stated he would like a buffer with a berm that is 6 feet high, which would keep lights out of his windows when vehicles are entering and exiting the property. He expressed concern regarding tension issues between families on the property. He stated the petitioner should provide extensive buffering since it is in writing and they have already agreed to it. He stated he could recommend some good engineers for the petitioner. Mr. Steve Strauss, 3649 Peakwood Drive, stated the senior housing market is increasing within the southwest county area due to the aging trend. He stated limited choices are currently available for family and friends to be close to the patient which may improve recovery time of the patient. He stated he is advocating for this change, noting the facility will enhance area and protect property values in the area. He stated his company was previously interested in developing the property, planning to put 40 single family homes on this property, which would have generated 400 vehicle trips per day. He stated at that time 56 single family homes could have been built in the area by- right. He stated the stormwater management regulations which were put into place approximately five years ago will prevent issues which are present in older developments. He recommends support of development. Mr. Roi Mitchell, 5680 Starkey Road, stated that setbacks are necessary for individual property owners. He stated the petitioner acts like that is what they want but he does not see effort to expand that regulation on their own. He stated a 40 -foot buffer would be better than a 30 -foot buffer. He expressed concern regarding problems with lighting. He suggested using evergreens or fence within the setback. He noted nothing is stated about the type of fence, noting the type of fence should be stipulated that it would be a solid fence. He expressed concern regarding adequate access on the east side of the property for fire and rescue vehicles. With no other citizens requesting to speak, Mr. Peters closed the public hearing. Page 7 of 11 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7, 2013 Mr. Marrano inquired if there is any way to push the building location back in order for a berm to be constructed. Ms. Pattisall stated staff has worked with the information the petitioner has provided. She stated a berm is not a required buffer according to the Zoning Ordinance. She stated the Type C buffer shows requirements and that a berm is not required. She stated in order to construct a 6 foot berm, 36 feet in width would be required. Mr. Coburn stated he wants something to keep vehicles out of his yard. He stated his concern is safety. Mr. Marrano stated he understands vehicles being at a higher altitude than Mr. Coburn's property would be disconcerting. Mr. Marrano suggested accommodating Mr. Coburn's request by making a berm with vegetation. He inquired if a fence can also be used with a berm or if the berm is in lieu of the fence. Mr. Thompson stated a berm could be used for screening. He stated a berm would be 6 feet in height and 36 feet in width. He inquired if the Commission wants to mix types of buffering. He stated a fence could be placed in front of a berm. He discussed Type C, Option 2, which includes deciduous trees, noting evergreen trees can be planted for better coverage. He stated the existing house on the property will be demolished and the knob will be graded out, noting the grade of the property will be coming down. He stated the dirt would be pushed towards the front of the property. He stated the fence should shield the residents. He stated regarding the issue of runaway cars, a ditch could be constructed. He stated the Zoning Ordinance Type C buffering is designed to provide screening that would have the same affect. He stated that according to the zoning ordinance, the section along the C -1 properties does not require buffering but that it would be more consistent if they choose to bring the buffering all the way around the property. Mr. Jarrell stated it needs to be uniform for all property owners. Ms. Hooker concurred. She discussed the importance of consistency and continuity by using the same buffering along the property lines including the adjoining commercial property. Mr. Marrano inquired if a solid fence could be specified. Ms. Pattisall discussed this issue, noting the Commission could include color and style in the conditions. Mr. Marrano inquired about planting additional vegetation. Ms. Pattisall noted the Commission could be specific regarding this issue in their conditions. Mr. Radford stated evergreens and a 6 foot stockade fence would be agreeable. Mr. Marrano stated he would like the petitioner to be more proactive regarding the construction of turning lanes. He stated if turning lanes are marginally recommended, the petitioner should add them. He discussed the amount of traffic in the area at certain times of the day. Mr. Radford stated that he, as a developer, previously did rough -in plan to build approximately 60 patio homes on this site. Ms. Hooker suggested using Type C buffering with evergreens and a fence. Mr. Jarrell stated fencing should be installed all the way around the property where necessary. Ms. Pattisall discussed the concept map and buffering desires of the Commission. Mr. Jarrell discussed the importance of uniformity of the buffering. Mr. Peters stated planting evergreens could block the sight distance view. Mr. Radford noted the importance of considering sight distance. Mr. Peters expressed concern regarding impeding visibility. Mr. Sayers discussed existing Page 8 of 11 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7, 2013 vegetation on the property. Mr. Marrano discussed maintaining existing vegetation when possible. Ms. Pattisall discussed the zoning ordinance provisions, noting the Zoning Administrator would determine if buffering is adequate. Mr. Marrano stated the petitioner could supplement vegetation when needed. Ms. Hooker noted these issues will be addressed during the site plan review process. Mr. Marrano stated the property might need natural buffering on the perimeter. Mr. Sayers stated the petitioner is cognizant of the surrounding residences and the rehab residents and will keep lighting to a minimum. Mr. Marrano discussed the Type C 30 -foot buffering. Mr. Thompson discussed using Type C buffer except on Starkey Road and Crescent Boulevard with fencing being a wooden stockade fence. Ms. Hooker discussed using Type C without designating an Option in case 40 -foot buffer is available. Ms. Pattisall stated Type C buffering would be required. Mr. Sayers inquired about the fence being on parts of property which are not being developed. Ms. Pattisall inquired if buffering around perimeter would be constructed now or during Phase 1 or Phase 2. Mr. Peters stated the buffering is to be added now. The Commission concurred. Mr. Peters discussed the 30 -foot buffer with a fence or 40 feet if available. Mr. Thompson stated Type C buffer along all property lines including Crescent Boulevard except Starkey Road frontage and if constructed will be a wooden stockade fence. He stated if Type 2 was used they would plant evergreens instead of deciduous trees and shrubs to screen neighbors for maximum coverage for neighbors. Mr. Peters asked if all were agreeable with the 40 foot buffer if available. Mr. Marrano inquired about Type C buffer with stockade fencing. Ms. Pattisall explained buffering options. Mr. Jarrell suggested continuing the petition since more revisions are needed. Mr. Peters stated Type C could be used. Mr. Sayers stated the petitioner is working on a time constraint and would prefer not to continue the public hearing. Mr. Thompson inquired about conditions regarding deliveries and trash removal for the facility. Mr. Marrano stated deliveries and trash pickup shall not be between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am. Mr. Sayers stated if 40 -foot buffer would work it would be helpful if they had Type C buffering. Mr. Peters suggested allowing Type C buffering. Mr. Radford stated it is important to specify the fence if the petitioner uses a 30 -foot buffer. Mr. Marrano asked Mr. Coburn if he would be more comfortable with a fence. Mr. Coburn stated a berm would be great and preferred since his house sits about 30 -40 feet from property line. Mr. Coburn stated a 30 -foot buffer with fence or 40 -foot buffer with evergreens is okay. Mr. Marrano stated a wooden stockade fence and all other conditions as set forth. Mr. Thompson reviewed the proffer and conditions with the Commission. Mr. Marrano stated this will include areas along all property lines including the commercial area. Mr. Thompson inquired about the buffer along Crescent Boulevard. Mr. Marrano stated Type C buffering. Mr. Sayers requested a composite or vinyl fence be permitted. Mr. Peters stated buffering should be on all property lines. Mr. Thompson stated buffering will be on all property lines Page 9 of 11 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7, 2013 except Starkey Road. Mr. Jarrell inquired if buffering would be on Crescent Boulevard. Mr. Peters stated it would also be on Crescent Boulevard. Mr. Radford reiterated that the existing vegetation should remain. Mr. Marrano made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning and special use permit with the following: Proffered conditions The site will be developed in substantial conformity with the concept plan dated December 4, 2012 titled "Friendship Health & Rehabilitation Center South," prepared by Freeman White, Inc. subject to those changes which may be required by Roanoke County during comprehensive site plan review. Conditions 1. The site shall be developed in general conformance to the architectural renderings titled "Friendship Health & Rehabilitation Center South" prepared by Freeman White, Inc. dated September 2012. 2. Freestanding light poles on site shall be shielded "cut -off' types no more than eighteen (18) feet high and arranged so glare is not cast onto adjoining properties. 3. A Type C buffer shall be installed along all property lines except for the frontage along Starkey Road. If option 2 is utilized, a wood or vinyl stockade fence and large evergreen trees (instead of large deciduous trees) shall be installed. 4. No trash service or deliveries to the site shall take place between 11:00 pm and 7:00 am. Mr. Thompson called the roll and the motion passed (5 -0) with the following vote: AYES: Jarrell, Hooker, Marrano, Peters, Radford NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None Final Orders 1. The petition of Jesus the Redeemer Church to obtain a Special Use Permit in a R -1, Low Density Residential, District for the operation of a religious assembly on approximately 5.671 acres, located near the 6900 block of Wood Haven Road, Catawba Magisterial District, was approved by the Board of Supervisors at a Public Hearing on November 13, 2012. Citizen Comments With no citizens requesting to speak, Mr. Peters closed the citizen comment period. Commissioners' and Staff Comments Ms. Hooker stated Mr. Radford has been an asset to the Planning Commission during his service as a Commissioner and as 2012 Chairman. The Commissioners concurred. Page 10 of 11 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7, 2013 With no further business or comments, Mr. Peters adjourned the meeting at 8:46 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Susan McCoy Recording Secretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission Philip Th pson Secreta , Roanoke County Planning Commission Jason eters Chairman, Roanoke County Planning Commission Page 11 of 11