Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/5/2022 - Minutes ,,atm;rta ', ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES JULY 5, 2022 Commissioners Present: Mr. Kelly McMurray, Chairman Mr. Troy Henderson, Vice-Chairman Mr. Wayne Bower Mr. Rick James Mr. Wm Woltz Staff Present: Mr. Phillip Thompson, Secretary Ms. Rachel Lower, Senior Assistant County Attorney Ms. Rebecca James Ms. Megan Cronise Mr. Will Crawford Mr. Lionel Cruz-Cruz Ms. Emma Poole Ms. Cecelia Thomas, Recording Secretary Call to Order Mr. McMurray called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Approval of Agenda Mr. James made a motion to approve the agenda, which passed 5-0. Approval of Minutes Mr. Bower made a motion to approve the May 3, 2022 minutes, which passed 4-0-1, with Mr. Woltz abstaining. Mr. James made a motion to approve the May 10, 2022 minutes, which passed 4-0-1, with Mr. Henderson abstaining. Mr. Thompson updated the Planning Commissioners that Megan Cronise has been promoted to Assistant Director of Planning. Alex Jones was promoted to Principal Planner. Paula Benke has had her title changed to Transit Planner. We have a new Planner 1, Lionel Cruz-Cruz who will be helping with code enforcement. Cecile Newcomb resigned her position with the County and accepted a Senior Planning position with the Berkley Group. We currently have two vacant Planner II positions we are trying to fill. Joan Ruscitti-Ball has moved to Comm-IT and Katie Curfiss has been hired as Business Coordinator. Two of the planners have had recent additions to their families. Alyssa Dunbar and her husband welcomed a baby girl named Hazel Grace. Will Crawford and his wife have welcomed a baby son named William Forest. ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 5, 2022 George Condyles passed away on June 12, 2022. Mr. Thompson noted that they had received some information from Mr. Condyles in the middle of May and had a meeting scheduled in June. They were informed by his wife that he had passed. Mr. Condyles was the consultant the County was using for the amendments to the zoning ordinance regarding wireless telecommunication facilities, and he was also the consultant for reviewing land use applications for cell towers. Mr. Thompson noted that the Planning Department has ideas for moving forward over the next few weeks. Mr. McMurray congratulated staff on the promotions and welcomed new staff. Consent Agenda 1. The petition of Insite Real Estate Investment Properties, L.L.C. to rezone approximately 0.93 acre from R-2, Medium Density Residential District, to C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, to construct a drive-in or fast food restaurant (quick-serve coffee shop) located at 7515 and 7517 Friendship Lane, Hollins Magisterial District. Mr. James questioned the interparcel connectivity of the site and what the requirements for interparcel connectivity—and how to encourage that connectivity. Mr. Thompson noted that Roanoke County does not have a requirement regarding interparcel connectivity. He noted that since it is a rezoning you can make the request that they have it. He noted that there will be issues due to the adjacent parcel being R-1, as R-1 requires a buffer. To have interparcel connectivity you would have to create a gap in the buffer. Mr. Thompson noted that the Planning Commission could put the means for the next owner to have an easement between the two properties. Mr. Thompson noted that you have to consider traffic flow, and that since it is on Friendship Lane it will probably have less traffic issues than Plantation Road. Mr. James noted his concern was the parcel next to the one requesting a rezoning. Ms. Cronise noted that the parcel Mr. James is in concerned about is owned by the person who leases to Wells Fargo. She explained that there is a stormwater pond on the front of the property that faces Plantation Road. Mr. James noted that if the parcels were connected they would be able to access Friendship Lane and east traffic on Plantation Road. Mr. Thompson questioned if there was an update on the VDOT triangle shaped parcel across the street. Ms. Cronise noted that she had not heard an update from the parcel owner that was trying to get that piece of land sold with her own land. Ms. Cronise noted that the property is very wet, so it has made it hard to market. Mr. Thompson noted an Arby's originally tried to go in the location proposed for the rezoning. Mr. James questioned why they backed out. Ms. Cronise noted she believed they backed out of the location due to the design guidelines requiring a monument style sign and the sign height. Mr. James made a motion to approve the consent agenda, which passed 5-0. Page 2 of 7 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 5,2022 Transportation Updates Ms. Cronise presented Transportation Updates that have occurred since her last presentation to the Planning Commission in December of 2021. She reviewed projects that have been completed, projects under construction, new funding awards 2022 Smart Scale applications, studies and investigations, and grant opportunities. She noted that the first roundabout in North County will be going in. The Transportation Division is working with RVTV to create a video explaining how to properly use a roundabout. Ms. Cronise explained that the Fallowater Extension is now named Ridge Top Road. Mr. Bower questioned why the name changed. Ms. Cronise explained that it was a Fire and Rescue hazard due to already having a road named Fallowater Lane that did not connect to the now Ridge Top Road. Ms. Cronise discussed the Starkey Road/Buck Mountain Road intersection improvements. Mr. Woltz questioned if the improvements will resurrect the Friendship manor addition the Planning Commission had previously worked on. Mr. Thompson noted that he did not anticipate them doing the project that the Planning Commission had previously approved. He noted they might come back with something new. Mr. James questioned if the County had gotten right of way dedication. Mr. Thompson verified that the County had gotten the right-of-way from Friendship for this project. Mr. Thompson noted that the Board of Supervisors pledged $80,000 in support, but that funding is tied to a building permit being issued. Mr. James questioned if the right of way dedication was tied to that pledge, which Mr. Thompson clarified it is not. Ms. Cronise discussed the Route 460 at Alternate Route 220 intersection improvements. Mr. James asked about the dual right turns and questioned if the right turn lane will continue to Walmart and Lowes. After the two lanes turn, are they going to be forced to merge and fight for one lane? Ms. Cronise noted that she will ask about that once they are into the preliminary engineering stages. Ms. Cronise discussed the McAfee Knob shuttle, and Mr. James questioned what the fare is expected to be. It was noted that the fare is planned to be $5.00 each way. Ms. Cronise discussed the projects that they are submitting as 2022 Smart Scale applications. She noted they have done many things to offset costs and increase the benefit. Mr. James noted that many places have the ability to raise their own Transportation money, and use that as a down payment on the project. He noted that puts places like Roanoke County at a disadvantage. He noted you have to get creative as to how you can come up with the money to get the cost/benefit ratio up. Mr. James complimented Ms. Cronise and her team's work on these projects. Mr. Woltz complemented the knowledge Ms. Cronise brings to the projects and knowing the best way to go through the systems. Ms. Cronise thanked them for their compliments, but noted that it's not just her-her Transportation team makes it all possible. Ms. Cronise discussed the Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study. Mr. James commented that he knows many people who like narrow and winding roads due to the Page 3 of 7 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 5, 2022 fact it dissuades other people from using them. He noted Carson Road is one of those winding roads. Mr. Thompson noted he has gotten a revised proposal and he anticipates a joint meeting between the Planning Commission and the Economic Development Authority(EDA). He noted the Planning Commission would attend the EDA's regularly scheduled meeting in October, and cancel their work session in October. He explained the issue is that they want to incorporate it into the comprehensive plan, and figure out the best timing to make that happen. Ms. Cronise discussed the Roanoke River Greenway between Green Hill Park and Montgomery County. Mr. James questioned what Montgomery County's position is in regards to the greenway. Ms. Cronise answered stating that they are one of the parties that they are reaching out to regarding this project. She noted that it ties into the Valley to Valley project that VDOT is working on. She noted that they have been involved with other projects which makes it seem they would be interested. Mr. James questioned if the Greenway Commission captures any utilization data. Ms. Cronise confirmed that they do. Mr. James noted that COVID encouraged many people to spend more time outdoors, and he did not know if there was a way to track that data. Ms. Cronise noted that there were spikes in activity during COVID. She noted that the activity is still high, and it is her hope that has other pieces are built people will be able to spread out more. Mr. James noted that he was not the biggest supporter of the piece of the greenway in Vinton, but he has been astounded at its utilization. He noted that he would not have anticipated how used it would be. Mr. James noted that he believes it would be a nice amenity in the Bonsack area. He noted that the less than 5% grade is nice. Ms. Cronise noted that is not always easy due to the topography in Roanoke County. Ms. Cronise discussed the McAfee Knob Shuttle Service and provided a history of why there is a need for more parking. Ms. Cronise noted that there is parking available at the Catawba Greenway parking lot, but it does add about 2.9 miles to your trip. Mr. James questioned how many existing parking spaces there are at the Catawba Greenway. Ms. Cronise noted that she believes there are 25 spaces. Mr. James questioned if that would be a better location for the park and ride, and you could reduce the cost of the shuttle service. Ms. Cronise they have talked about it being a potential addition. Mr. Woltz questioned who owns the parking lot, which was noted to be owned by the National Park Service. Mr. Woltz questioned why they did not give flexibility with their boundary line. Ms. Cronise explained the challenges of working with the federal government. She noted the National Park Services have requested upgrades to their parking lot once the pedestrian bridge is completed. Ms. Cronise explained that the biggest challenge is that McAfee Knob is the most photographed location on the Appalachian Trail. She noted that it is a highly publicized location, and that creates an overflow on Roanoke County roads. Mr. McMurray noted that he loves these reports. It really helps him, and allows him to see projects go from the proposal, secured, to complete. He noted that this presentation is much appreciated. Ms. Cronise noted that the County has a fantastic staff to work with to get these projects done. Mr. Thompson noted that he believes that these Page 4 of 7 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 5,2022 projects start with the conceptual ideas that are brought before the Planning Commission. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Ms. James reviewed the Board of Zoning Appeals and the request of the Chairman Mr. Jyke Jones for the Planning Commission to research and examine two possible amendments. She noted the first was for a variance for an accessory structure that was placed in front of the property line on a corner lot. The Board of Zoning Appeals requests that the Planning Commission consider amending the corner lot setback requirements. Mr. Thompson noted that the case in question did not apply for a permit for the accessory structure. Mr. Bower questioned if they came in and requested a permit would it be approved. Ms. James noted they would have been denied. However, the Board of Zoning Appeals approved the variance request. Mr. Thompson questioned the number of feet for the setback the variance that was approved, which was noted to be 15.9 feet. Mr. Woltz questioned the space in the back of the yard, and it was noted that it is 3 feet from the rear property line. Mr. Woltz noted that the setback is 30 feet and questioned if the lot by the design put the setback 50 feet. He noted he does not think it would bother him if he saw an accessory building in front of the front building line in this situation. Mr. Thompson questioned if it was an ugly-looking building would you want it to go there. He noted that it is important to consider that if you amend the zoning ordinance you have to accept that it could be the ugliest building on that street and be put in front of the property line. Mr. James questioned how often the issue of the corner lot comes up, which Ms. James noted is frequently. Mr. James questioned if he came in and requested a permit and was not denied, could he not request a variance before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms. James noted that he could. Mr. James noted he does not feel the Planning Commission needs to address this issue. He believes this is something that the Board of Zoning Appeals is meant to address on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Crawford noted that those variances come with a pretty significant cost. Ms. James noted it is $275 plus the cost of legal ads, which normally totals to $1,000.00. Mr. James noted that he understands the purpose of the Board of Zoning Appeals is to address inconsistencies or non-conformities. Mr. Bower noted that if they are getting a lot of requests for the accessory structures then they should make it an easier process. Mr. James noted that he got a permit for his building and it was arduous. Mr. Bower agreed, and noted that the County asked him to build a building up 8 feet in the air. He had to have an engineer to look at the building lot line, which was noted to be in front of the house. He noted the struggle of getting things approved and noted that he believes it should be looked into. Ms. James discussed the administrative appeal to allow a temporary use storage container to be allowed on the property permanently. There was a question of whether or not the County should allow these structures to be placed on properties on a permanent basis. Mr. Thompson noted that a gentleman came in wanting to build a house out of a shipping container. He was told to bring in a set of plans, and they would look at it—and he never did. Ms. James asked the Planning Commission if they would like to allow these on a permanent basis. Mr. Woltz noted that he does not think they should be allowed permanently. Mr. Henderson noted that you are not even allowed to Page5 of 7 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 5,2022 place those on a site in the City of Salem for construction purposes. Mr. James questioned how you define "temporary portable". Ms. James noted that the definition was in the packet they were given. Ms. James noted that the case in discussion, the person did not think they needed a permit. Ms. Lower noted that it also stemmed from neighbor complaints. Ms. James noted that the Board of Zoning Appeals upheld her interpretation and requested the Planning Commission consider whether or not an amendment was needed. Mr. Thompson asked if the Planning Commission would like staff to investigate allowing temporary portable structures on a permanent basis. They all answered in the negative. Mr. Thompson reminded staff that the Planning Department has two vacancies for Planner Ils. He noted that in the fall there will be the 419 Design Guidelines being finalized, amending 419 Town Center Plan with those guidelines. He noted the 460 study will be wrapping up this fall and finalizing the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Thompson noted that the Planning Commission will have a joint session with the EDA this fall. He continued that there will probably be a joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors to talk about the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that getting the tower ordinance, food truck amendment, and zoning ordinance update done will all be started this fall. He noted that does not include Smart Scale being done, Transportation updates to the Comprehensive Plan, the 460 Study, or Land Use cases. Mr. Bower noted that the Board of Zoning Appeals approved the variance, so this is not an immediate issue. The Planning Commission agreed to look at the placement of accessory structure setbacks when the zoning ordinance is updated. Comments of Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff Mr. Thompson informed the Planning Commissioners about Jill Loope's retirement. He notified the Planning Commissioners of the joint meeting the Roanoke County Career and Technical Education (CTE) Citizen Advisory Committee was having with the Board of Supervisor and the School Board on July 12th to discuss the proposed square footage of a new facility. He noted that they should expect the ABoone Real Estate case to come before them in September. He explained the changes they should expect to see. He noted that there is a cell tower coming in off of Peters Creek Road. He let them know that he would inform them if there was another community meeting for ABoone Real Estate, and let them know if would be a community-style meeting to avoid previous issues. Mr. James mentioned having the new Executive Director, Mike Stewart, at the airport be a guest speaker at a Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Thompson stated he would reach out, and try to get that planned. Mr. Thompson questioned if there are any other guest speakers the Planning Commission would like to hear from. Mr. James noted it would be nice to hear from Pete Eschelmann with a partnership and talk about outdoor amenities and what that does for the region. He noted he would be interested in hearing from members of the Home Owner's Association or realtors. Mr. Thompson noted that the Planning Commission might also want to hear from John Hall. He noted he is happy to bring in different developers if the Commission wants to hear from them. Mr. James noted that there seems to be a trend towards Multi-family but they seem to always be met with resistance. He noted he would feel more comfortable approving those if he heard from others that is what the community is in need of. Mr. James noted Page 6 of 7 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 5,2022 that many of the Multi-family housing that comes before the Commission tends to come from out of town. Mr. Thompson noted that the problem is not the zoning of a place but the inhabitants. He noted many of the comments people have problems with is the behavior of the people that would use that place. Mr. Thompson noted that the Blue Ridge Parkway Ridge is meant to open July 11th. Ms. Cronise noted that National Park Services is working to repair the slope failure by this fall. Mr. Thompson informed the Planning Commission that Ms. Cronise and Paula Benke are looking into a shuttle for voters at the request of a Board member due to the change of the precincts. They are looking into utilizing CORTRAN to provide rides during early voting. He informed the Planning Commission that the Board of Supervisors held a staff retreat and there are planning related tasks that will be a part of that. Final Orders With no further business or comments, Mr. McMurray adjourned the meeting at 8:13 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: IiaLLf / dhamaLt> Thomas Recording Secretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission Philip Th pson Secreta , Roanoke County Planning Commission Isla K-trurr. Chai -n, Roa . - K. my Planning Commission Page 7 of 7