Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/18/2008 - MinutesROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES MARCH 18, 2008 Commissioners Present: Mr. Steve Azar Ms. Martha Hooker Mr. Gary Jarrell Mr. Rodney McNeil Commissioner Absent: Mr. David Radford Staff Present: Mr. Philip Thompson, Secretary Mr. Joe Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney Mr. Tarek Moneir Mr. David Holladay Mr. John Murphy Mr. Tim Beard Ms. Megan Cronise Ms. Nicole Gilkeson Ms. Lindsay Blankenship Mr. Chris Patriarca Ms. Rebecca Mahoney Ms. Becky Meador, Recording Secretary Mr. McNeil opened the work session at 6:00 p.m. Approval of Agenda Ms. Hooker moved to approve the agenda. Motion passed 4 -0. Overview of Hollins Area Plan Ms. Cronise gave a presentation of the new Hollins Area Plan. She discussed streetscape improvement, use of the Williamson Road /Hollins guidelines, two (2) zoning overlays, the views from Hollins University, and improving the appeal of Williamson Road leading to the university's campus. The university has completed a student survey, which was distributed with the study information. She stated she will be doing a presentation for the Williamson Road Business Owners Association at their scheduled meeting. A three dimensional map is being created to give a "bird's eye view" of the area. Mr. Jarrell asked if a survey would go out to the residents. Ms. Cronise stated that a survey will be mailed to residents in the study area in April. A study on the remainder of the Hollins area will probably be done at a later date. The commercial area has the most potential for improvement. The residential areas of Hollins are developed for the most part. Mr. McNeil inquired if the county is working with the Williamson Road Business Owners Association and if their association works with both city and county. Ms. Cronise stated they do work with both localities and the county is consulting with them on the project; however, the association is mostly concerned with the portion of Williamson Road that lies within the city. Page 1 of 5 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 18, 2008 Mr. Jarrell asked if this particular area of Hollins was being started with because of the university or Interstate 81. Ms. Cronise indicated it was chosen for both of those reasons and also because there are some other commercial developments planned for the area. Ms. Hooker asked how quickly streetscapes could be done. Ms. Cronise stated that will be determined by funding, perhaps sharing some of the cost with Hollins University. Route 221 Corridor Stud Mr. Holladay presented an overview of the study, stating surveys are forthcoming and the first of four (4) community meetings will be held April 12, 2008, at Back Creek Elementary School. There will be three (3) additional meetings held at the RCAC, covering various hours. Staff will interview residents that are involved with civic leagues, schools, etc., in the area. As of now, they are planning to bring the study before the Planning Commission in September and the Board of Supervisors in October. Mr. McNeil inquired about a plan to straighten the curves on Route 221. Mr. Holladay said plans had been drawn several years ago. He believed VDOT is still updating the plans. Mr. McNeil asked if that was included in the six (8) year plan. Mr. Thompson stated that Route 221 is on the primary six -year plan for the Salem district and that upgrades to Route 221 are already partially funded. Mr. Holladay described an online survey that may be offered through Survey Monkey to residents via a letter. Ms. Hooker asked about the expense of using Survey Monkey. Mr. Thompson said the cost is minimal as they have a contract with Roanoke County. The cost is approximately $200.00 per year for unlimited usage. The survey will be controlled so only residents who receive the letter can participate. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Mr. Thompson stated the , w ere in p were two (2) issues that were to be discussed based on the March 0' Public Hearing; g; those being densities in the residential purpose statements and the minimum acreage required in a Cluster Development. Ms. Cronise distributed a Cluster Subdivision Summary. Ms. Hooker inquired how many opportunities in an R -1 district there would be with public utilities. Mr. Thompson stated he had spoken with Mr. David Radford (absent at this meeting) regarding that issue. Mr. Radford believed that three (3) acres would be difficult for a cluster, five (5) acres would be possible, and eight (8) to ten (10) acres would be more ideal. Mr. McNeil stated he believed if the county is going to have a cluster ordinance, it should be 10 acres due to the minimum 35% preservation. It was noted that the percentage of open space will depend partly on the developer and conditions of the parcel. Mr. McNeil asked if a parcel that is 25% sloped was developable. Ms. Cronise responded that it would be difficult, but possible. He also inquired if river /wetlands are included in the 35% minimum. Ms. Cronise commented that they would. Space more difficult to develop should be preserved as a way of dealing with "tricky" parcels. Ms. Hooker inquired if the county is giving any type of incentive for companies to develop these more difficult properties. She noted that the cluster ordinance gave the county a better way of managing these types of parcels. Mr. Obenshain stated that it benefits the county economically. Page 2 of 5 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 18, 2008 Mr. Jarrell commented that properties will be "left behind" if we do not increase the acreage and we should develop what portion of a parcel is feasible. If not, it could affect the price of land and affordable housing. Mr. Holladay stated the cluster ordinance was developed for the purpose of conservation. It is limited to availability of public utilities and needs to be revised to be used. There was considerable discussion regarding prior cluster developments in the county, the procedures for creating one and the outcome of the proposed revisions. The possibility of further revision of the ordinance was raised. Mr. Thompson added that all ordinances should be reviewed on a regular basis and should be revised as necessary. Mr. Sean Horne of Balzer and Associates commented that the development community is behind the proposed revisions. From a developer's standpoint, he believed between five (5) and ten (10) acres may be better. The roads are a key issue in cluster development. He stated that the current county ordinance for private roads is in accordance with VDOT standards, noting that steeper grades are now more acceptable. Mr. Thompson noted the possibility of using a Planned Residential Development instead, if a parcel did not meet the minimum acreage. Mr. McNeil moved to approve the revision of the Cluster Development ordinance with a ten (10) acre minimum. Motion passed 4 -0. In reference to the Residential District densities, Mr. Azar stated he would prefer the purpose statement have a reference to the section of the ordinance determining the number of allowable units per acre. Staff felt this would cause further confusion and it was agreed that the purpose statement would not be revised, but left as is. Mr. McNeil made a motion to favorably pass the ordinance revisions on to the Board of Supervisors, excluding the purpose statement in Residential District revision, with notation that private road standards and minimum percentage of open space in a cluster development are to be further reviewed. Mr. Jarrell seconded the motion, which passed 4 -0. Mount Pleasant Community Plan Mr. Holladay presented the completed Mount Pleasant Community Plan to include a map added to Chapter 5, representing a phased implementation for public utilities. The map was based on consultation with the Western Virginia Water Authority. Mr. Holladay read the resolution for the plan. Mr. Azar moved to pass it on to the Board of Supervisors with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Jarrell seconded the motion, which was passed 4 -0. Work Plan Mr. Thompson presented a draft of the Planning Commission Work Plan. The department plan is more extensive, with areas that do not affect the Planning Commission as of yet. This would include a five (5) year plan for the twelve (12) community studies. He noted that the Statistical Abstract is updated every five (5) years. Separate plans could also be done for transportation, waterlsewer, and public facilities. Mr. McNeil suggested that private road standards be a priority. Mr. Thompson stated that private roads could certainly be added to the Planning Commission's Work Plan. Explore Park was discussed and it was noted that if plans go as expected, there may be a Route 24 corridor study done to "stay ahead of the game ". Page 3 of 5 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 18, 2008 Comments Ms. Hooker inquired about the intermodal facility and what the county's standing would be? The position of the county or Board of Supervisors has not been conveyed. The development of an intermodal facility would greatly impact decisions of the Planning Commission. Mr. Thompson said that doing a study in the Glenvar area is important because that vicinity had been mentioned for an intermodal facility, though possibly not in Roanoke County. Planning staff did provide some information to the Board of Supervisors on this topic. There is a package put together for a proposal. Mr. Azar asked if there is an ordinance regarding parking in a strip mall. There was discussion of flaw the Winter Properties /Domino's site on Route 24 in Vinton obtained a tent permit to sell furniture, which took up their parking requirements. Mr. Murphy stated that parking requirements are based on square footage of a building. The sign permit was likely issued because, other than Domino's, the rest of the development is currently vacant. Signs used to advertise a "tent sale" were also discussed. This is being handled by Code Enforcement. Mr. McNeil asked if a permit could be withdrawn for "habitual offenders ". Mr. Murphy stated that civil penalties can be imposed or their signs could be removed by the county. Mr. McNeil asked the status of the Clearbrook area Wal -Mart. Staff responded that traffic analysis has been finalized and they would like to start grading this spring. Color pictures of the area for the proposed Roanoke County Fleet Services Tower were distributed to the commissioners as requested. The commissioners were given compact discs containing the April 1, 2008, Consent Agenda petitions, to be heard at the May Public Hearing. This was done to give more time for review. Hard copies of the petitions will be provided at the Public Hearing. As previously requested, Ms. Gilkeson reviewed the recording of the original Lexington Falls, LLC hearing in December, 2006. In the hearing, the Planning Commission directed them to return to the county before any additional plans. No commitments were made regarding Burlington Drive access. Ms. Gilkeson held a community meeting on March 17, 2008, at which 100% of the resident attendees were Opposed to the petition. Their concerns included accidents at the intersection, no sidewalks, and increased and cut - through traffic. Some citizens indicated they would have opposed the fast food restaurant from the beginning if they had thought Burlington Drive would ever be opened for access. Crash data has been requested from the Police Department. Mr. Holladay said there is possibly a stipulation from the 1990's stating if the end of Burlington Drive was ever developed, a cul -de -sac would have to be installed. Mr. Jarrell viewed the site over the weekend and is concerned that lunch -time traffic would be through Burlington Drive, particularly employees of businesses along Airport Road. Information will be provided to the Planning Commission. Mr. Holladay is working with Roanoke City on a joint work session. Details will fallow. Tammi had a community meeting on the Roanoke County Fleet Services Tower petition. Ten (10) citizens and five (5) Roanoke County staff were present. A balloon test is scheduled for April 1, 2008, from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mr. Thompson suggested having themed, educational work sessions every two (2) to three (3) months for a more comprehensive look at a particular planning area (i.e. transportation). The idea was agreeable with all present. Page 4 of 5 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 18, 2008 Ms. Hooker asked about the next date to invite a Supervisor to dinner. She feels it is good to keep that communication open. May is the next scheduled, quarterly date. Mr. Beard advised that AEP will be holding an open forum meeting on March 25, 2008, at Green Valley Elementary School, beginning at 5:00 p.m. Roanoke County staff will be attending. There are various items on the agenda. With no further business or comments, Mr. McNeil adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: k st-k , l Be'Cky Mead " or — J fling Commission ission Approve' Rodney "M d N e i I Chairman, Roanoke County Planning Commission Page 5 of 5