Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/3/2023 - Minutes • ROANOKE COUNTY mac _ F � - PLANNING COMMISSION "4110 cc" MEETING MINUTES APRIL 3, 2023 Commissioners Present: Mr. Troy Henderson, Chairman Mr. Rick James, Vice-Chairman Mr. Wayne Bower Mr. Kelly McMurray Mr. Jim Woltz Staff Present Mr. Phillip Thompson, Secretary Ms. Rachel Lower, Senior Assistant County Attorney Ms. Megan Cronise Ms. Rebecca James Ms. Alyssa Dunbar Mr. Alex Jones Mr. Lionel Cruz-Cruz Mr. Ross Hammes Mr. Jake Harding Ms. Cecelia Thomas, Recording Secretary Call to Order Mr. Henderson called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m. Invocation Mr. James led the invocation and the pledge of allegiance. Approval of Agenda Mr. James made a motion to approve the agenda, which passed 5-0. Approval of Minutes Mr. McMurray made a motion to approve the minutes from February 21, 2023, which passed 4-0-1 with Mr. James abstaining. Mr. Bower made a motion to approve the minutes from March 7, 2023, which passed 3- 0-2 with Mr. Woltz and Mr. McMurray abstaining. Consent Agenda 1. The petition of Terio and Lisa Comerose to remove the existing proffered conditions on approximately 14.713 acres of land zoned AVCS, AgriculturalNillage Center District with Conditions and Special Use Permit, and AR, AgriculturaLl Residential District, located at 9651 Bent Mountain Road, 9744 Tinsley Lane, and 9786 Tinsley Lane, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. Ms. Dunbar presented the current zoning, and Future Land Use designation. Mr. Woltz questioned if there are any renderings. Ms. Dunbar • ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 3, 2023 explained that there are no renderings or concept plan for the Convenience Store at this time. Mr. Thompson explained that the Special Use Permit is still valid, but the conditions of the office building and school are being requested to be removed as part of the rezoning process. Mr. Woltz questioned if the homes will be used for rental. Ms. Dunbar noted that one of the proposed homes would be the applicant's primary residence. 2. The petition of Boing US Holdco, Inc., to obtain a special use permit to operate a car wash on approximately 1.97 acres of land zoned C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, located at 3434 Buck Mountain Road and 5147 Franklin Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, and CVOD, Clearbrook Village Overlay District. Mr. Woltz questioned if they will use Roanoke County water as part of their application. Ms. Dunbar explained that as part of the use and design process of a car wash they have to have certain water recycling processes. Mr. James questioned the concept drawings in the packet meet the guidelines for the Clearbrook Village Overlay District. Mr. James questioned if they have any other facilities in the area, which staff noted that they were not aware of any. Mr. Thompson explained that the architectural guidelines will be in the guidelines and not in the Clearbrook Overlay District standards. 3. The petition of Martie Murphy, to obtain a special use permit to operate a car wash on approximately 5.995 acres of land zoned C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, and C-2C, High Intensity Commercial District with conditions, located at 3939 Valley Gateway Boulevard, Vinton Magisterial District. Ms. Dunbar reviewed the existing zoning and use, and the Future Land Use designation. 4. The petition of Hugo Jimenez to rezone approximately 1.24 acres of land from C-1, Low Intensity Commercial District, to I-1, Low Intensity Industrial District, and to obtain a special use permit to operate a construction yard located at 5681 Starkey Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. Mr. Cruz-Cruz presented the existing use, and discussed the Future Land Use designation. Mr. Woltz questioned if there is a limit to the density of the vehicles allowed on the property, which Mr. Thompson noted there is not. They are only required to attain a special use permit. Mr. Bower questioned if the construction yard if the closest we have to house a landscape business, which Mr. Thompson confirmed. Mr. Bower made a motion to approve the consent agenda, which passed 5-0. Public Hearing (Continued from March 23, 20231 1. Proposed Draft of the Roanoke County 200 Plan. The Roanoke County 200 Plan is an update to the County's Comprehensive Plan. It expresses an overarching community vision as well as unique goals for 11 community planning areas within the County. It also provides guidance for public policies about land development, public services and resource protection. Mr. Jones presented on the history of the project. Ms. Cronise presented on transportation. Mr. Jones noted that they have had 27 comments so far during the winter 2023 feedback process. Mr. Bower questioned removing unneeded proffers to allow more flexibility. Mr. Page 2 of 8 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 3, 2023 Jones clarified that would be part of the process of rewriting the zoning ordinance. Mr. Thompson noted that it would be implemented before the zoning ordinance rewrite. He explained that the removing of proffers comes from the Board of Supervisors strategic plan. Mr. Henderson resumed the public hearing. James Ruhland III, 2165 Laurel Woods Drive, commended the staff for their effort and the diligence that went into putting this plan together. He noted that he is excited to see that it is a reflection of the cultural ideals that the people of this area hold dear. He noted that he has read the draft reports in their entirety, and has attended many of the work sessions. He noted that he is excited about the possibilities he sees here. He noted that careful attention has been paid to the comments made by citizens. He thanked the citizens who participated in the process to use their time to directly participate in helping to craft this vision for the County. There is an omnipresent idea that growth should be balanced with the natural resources of the County and it shows on every page. Some people may argue that these are mutually exclusive ideas, but he believes that careful attention to this plan shows that they can be reached through a balance through this. He charged the Planning Commissions that in times of resistance or overwhelming excitement part of their obligation to the County is to weigh all of these things in careful consideration with one another. He noted that keeping the integral pieces of this plan in mind, he noted they will be guided by a very good milestone. To the members of the citizenry of this county that if we are to abide by and usher in this vision into a fruitful reality there is a charge to directly participate with themselves. He noted that he is in favor of the plan. Christy L. Campbell, 4717 West River Road, noted that she pays 3,000 a year in flood insurance so she can have the river in her backyard. She noted concerns that her peace and serenity is going to be disturbed. She noted concern about the greenway going into her backyard. She noted that these maps do not make sense to her. She noted that she feels that these are political meetings for show, and feels this is a decided matter. She feels that her input is not there because she does not have the knowledge base for these maps. Mr. Thompson noted that this is the overall Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. He noted that she is probably referring to the West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility study, which she confirmed. He explained that is a separate study. Mr. Thompson explained that in the late spring or early summer there will be another community meeting regarding that other study. Mr. Thompson explained that Roanoke County does not use eminent domain for projects. Nathan Grim, 4110 Blue Jay Circle, explained that he is a resident of the Penn Forrest area he noted that he is lucky to benefit from the best of what Roanoke has to offer with schools, the library, and parks close to his home. He stated that he is glad the County is looking to protect these amenities through the 200 plan. Page 3 of 8 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 3, 2023 He noted that as someone who uses a bicycle as one of their main methods of transportation the part of the plan that he wishes to comment on is the County's bicycle accommodations. Since August of last year, he noted that he has been commuting to work on his electric cargo bike, dropping off his 6 year old that sits in the rear child seat at school on the way. It has been a great way to build an active lifestyle into his daily routine and foster a deeper connection with his neighborhood. He explained that he would love to see more people use bike's as transportation more regularly. Unfortunately, for most people, the bike infrastructure in the County is not something that is safe and convenient to use as evidenced by the lack of riders on the 419 and Brambleton Avenue bicycle lanes and elsewhere. He noted that according to Portland State University only about 7% of people overall would feel safe riding in unprotected painted bike lanes such as the ones on those roads. Less than 1% of people feel safe riding with no bike accommodations, which is usually necessary to access the County's bike lanes and get to many other places throughout the area. He concluded that he is lucky to live and work where he can safely get his daughter to school and get to work on low volume and low speed roads but most people in the County do not have that luxury. As a member of the Pedal Safe ROA Cycling Advocacy Group, he knows many other cyclists do not feel safe using the County's current facilities. Bike infrastructure should be designed to be safe enough for your whole family not only for the most confident and experienced riders. An unprotected, striped bike lane on a multi-lane highway with a 35 mile per hour speed limit and 25,000 vehicles per day is not going to feel safe for anyone and it will not attract cycling traffic and the benefits its brings. He wants to encourage the County to create a bikeway plan to look at where people live and where they- want heywant to go, identifies a network of routes that is designed to traverse to and from those places, and then make appropriate safety improvements to those areas. Preferably using the guidelines of designing for all ages and abilities handbook from the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). These routes do need have to be along main roads as many safe and useful routes can be found on neighborhood streets, which would require little additional improvements and relative low costs. For example, instead of putting bike lanes all the way down 419 from Brambleton to Keagy a bikeway could be designated through the Castle Rock neighborhood that could connect those residents to Oak Grove Plaza, Keagy Village, Oak Grove Elementary, Hidden Valley High School and more. With safety, improvements made to the higher volume neighborhood roads on the route in accordance with the NACTO guidelines. He stated he appreciates what the County is doing in trying to make more bike lanes on main roads, but does not believe that extending the bike lanes on 419 in their current configuration or adding similar bike lanes to other busy roads is a good use of space or tax payer money as they will continue to go unused for their lack of connectivity and the perception of unsafe and stressful conditions for cyclists. He strongly feels that future projects should take a look at what bike Page 4 of 8 • ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 3, 2023 accommodations the average person who is interested in biking will feel safe using in order to increase the number of people who bike regularly. As investments in biking have shown to lead to significant economic growth, job creation, health benefits, and increased road safety for all users which he knows are all high priorities for the County. He stated that he loves biking and hopes he will get to see others share that love with him in the future. William Skaff, 4815 Farmington Place Court, noted that his statement is entitled Roanoke County 200 Plan: Underlying Assumptions. The current Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan, the plan about to be replaced, states "there exists a very intrinsic relationship between the natural beauty that exists here and people's perception of quality here in the County". The 12 community planning areas development policies created from community input indicate the natural beauty is of fundamental importance to everyone who lives here. From a recent planning department slide presentation the planning department appears to be in the process of replacing this principle in Roanoke County 200 with "protect and preserve rural and agricultural areas with zoning and future land use designations. Develop and redevelop areas that have infrastructure and development now, suburban and urban growth areas." It is not credible that such difference in part of suburbanized areas would be so frequently articulated in community meetings should rise to such prominence. Few suburban residents would be in favor of wining their neighborhoods with excessive development in order to spare rural residents. This opposition between rural and suburban appears to have been fabricated and then encouraged by the Planning department. The online survey indicates that suburban and rural residents both want to protect and preserve their nature in their respective areas. Our fear is that Roanoke County 200 will not do that, especially in the execution phase after it is adopted. Kathy Chandler, 10890 Green Hollow Drive, not she appreciated all that has been done to come to their neighborhoods and stated that it has been very helpful. She noted that there are two things that her neighbors having planning thoughts, and is sure they will submit something extra. She explained that she would like the Planning Commission to consider seriously in the area of Bent Mountain is protection of something other than the steepest of slopes at 33%. The fact that Bent Mountain resides on a plateau means that much of what there is to conserve is in flatter areas. Even in the path of the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP), which she noted is going right through her property—and she noted that she has experienced imminent domain. Even in the criteria for steep slopes with the MVP in surrounding counties like Montgomery County and Giles County the approach is 22%. She would pose to the Planning Commission that the most severe of 33% is not preserving most of what people live on. In that vein, something that is desperately needed is—she noted that when staff came to Bent Mountain on Map 5 there is a box checked for floodways and waterways. She explained that has not been viewed on the Bent Mountain plateau. The 100 year flood and the waterways mapping in Roanoke County stops at Back Creek. She Page5 of 8 • ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 3,2023 noted that she just double-checked it on the GIS maps. It has not been mapped on Bent Mountain, and she thinks that the rural corridor that the County wants to improve and rezone on the main highway is going to become a most vulnerable spot. Having seen MVP go through properties, which are relatively flat, you are underestimating the geology and the aquifers of the area. You stand to damage the water at the risk of trying to do something good in Roanoke County. She noted they have already experienced that because of MVP. She noted that in the MVP Advisory Committee, it was brought up years ago. The mapping has not been done on Bent Mountain. The floodways need to be explored before any development happens. She explained that she believes that a study would show a lot of water in very shallow spaces. It is potentially quite hazardous, and could become something that seems like a good idea could become an extra insult to a very pretty area. Shawn Jadrnick , 617 Allison Avenue SW, explained that he is the Agriculture and Natural Resource agent for Virginia Cooperative Extension Service for Roanoke and Botetourt County. He noted that he was made aware by working with farmers in this area that there is not a lot of prime agricultural land. People are farming on some horrible sites. He explained that they are really struggling because of that. The NRCS classifies soil on a suitability for agriculture. It is a scale of 1 to 7 with one being the best, prime agricultural land. He noted that a seven is only suitable for trees. Recently, a map came out with a GIS layer that identifies all of the prime agricultural land in Virginia, and there is just not a lot of prime land in Roanoke County. He noted that he wanted to bring that to the Planning Commission's attention in hopes that the prime agricultural land be preserved for agriculture. That soil is going to be deep, fertile, well drained and a critical ingredient in the profitability of a farm. It is super rare in this area. He reiterated the GIS layer that identifies those soils, and presented examples to the Planning Commission. Mr. Woltz questioned what area was being shown on the maps given to them. Mr. Jadnrnick noted that it is a map of Roanoke, with one pulled back further. The problem is that the best soils do not always line up with the zoning areas that are reserved for agriculture. He continued that if we want to preserve agriculture as a viable option for our community we really need to target soils that are going to be the most productive. He explained that it would be easy to take this layer and look at those sites. He noted that some of them have already been built over, but there are many that have not been that could be preserved. He explained this would help preserve the food system of our region. Mr. Bower noted that looking back over the past quarter century, he questioned where Mr. Jadnrick sees agriculture in Roanoke County in the next 25 years. Mr. Jadnrick noted that it is hard to afford farmland now and make it work. He sees farms getting smaller. He sees more urban agriculture where people are learning to generate more income off a smaller piece of land. He sees people trying to farm in areas that are not zoned agricultural, so they want to grow food but are unable to sell it. Page 6 of 8 • ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 3,2023 With no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Henderson closed the public hearing. Mr. Thompson explained that the comment period is open through April 16, so the Planning Commission is not being asked to take any action on this item. He noted there will be subsequent work sessions to discuss the comments that they received before voting. Citizen's Comments There were no comments. Comments of Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff Mr. James commented that the recommendations noted that conservation has doubled. Clearly, there is a desire for conservation his worries are for core, commercial, and industrial, and noted that without those bringing in revenue to help decrease the tax burden of the citizens. He also noted how out of the ordinary it is for a Planning department to spend so much time going to each Community Planning Area, and commended staff for their work. Mr. Woltz noted the diversity of Roanoke County that each of the planning areas is different and noted that the Planning Commission needs to be careful with how they handle things. Mr. Thompson noted the Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity study that the Planning Commission approved at its March 7 meeting was approved by the Board of Supervisors approved at its March 28 meeting. Mr. Thompson informed the Planning Commission that its next meeting is on April 18, 2023. He noted that the Board of Supervisors expressed interest in the cluster ordinance, and looking at Industry Type I and Type II use definitions. Adjournment Mr. Henderson adjourned the meeting at 6:34 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: 0// .P.L� e, Gt.BYKan� celia Thomas Recording Secretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission .i, Philip Tho pson Secreta , Roanoke County Planning Commission Page 7 of 8