Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/20/2008 - MinutesROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES MAY 20, 2008 Roanoke County Commissioners Present: Mr. Steve Azar Ms. Martha Hooker Mr. Gary Jarrell Mr. David Radford Roanoke County Commissioner Absent: Mr. Rodney McNeil Roanoke County Staff Present: Mr. Philip Thompson, Secretary Mr. Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Mr. David Holladay Mr. John Murphy Mr. Tim Beard Ms. Megan Cronise Ms. Lindsay Blankenship Mr. Chris Patriarca Ms. Rebecca Mahoney Ms. Becky Meador, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER: Ms. Hooker called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Approval of Agenda Mr. Jarrell moved to approve the agenda. Motion passed 4 -0. Zoning Ordinance Amendments On April 22, 2008, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution initiating an amendment to the parking ordinance pertaining to recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers on corner lots. This also applies to small utility trailers. Mr. Murphy distributed diagrams and photographs of prior code violations of this nature. The current ordinance was adopted in 1992 and was reviewed approximately six (6) to eight (8) years ago; however, no changes were made at that time. There was discussion of fairness to corner lot owners, possible screening scenarios, distance from street restrictions, houseline versus setback, a flexible ordinance, and dangers of parking these type vehicles on the street. Mr. Radford felt realtors probably do not know about this ordinance. Amendments can be made that pertain to all lots (not corner lots only) if necessary. Mr. Murphy felt there should be a civil penalty imposed for these violations, as opposed to a criminal penalty. This would keep most of these cases out of the court and make them easier to enforce. Mr. Murphy will research zoning ordinances from other localities for reference. Mr. Murphy proposed various zoning ordinances for discussion of amendments. He asked the Planning Commission to consider, brainstorm, and prioritize the suggestions. Suggested for amendment was Section 30 -92, referring to landscaping, buffer yards, berms, and screening. Screening requirements need to be enhanced for commercial properties adjacent to residential areas. Additionally, Section 30 -93 regarding temporary signage also needs to be reviewed. Banner signs have become an enforcement issue since portable signs were prohibited. Page 1 of 3 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 20, 2008 Other possible changes discussed were off - street parking, stacking, and loading. Staff suggested a maximum number of parking spaces be imposed to prevent acres of unnecessary asphalt. There was discussion of including in the ordinance review minimum size open spaces in cluster developments and the growing popularity of PODS. The current ordinance defines a "POD"; however, there are no regulations for usage in a residential setting. Mr. Murphy suggested a yearly review of the ordinances so concerns can be addressed in a timely manner and would not be overwhelming. Ms. Hooker inquired if the issues with Gander Mountain are resolved. Mr. Murphy said there would be significant planting of evergreens and they would go beyond the original plan. Gander Mountain has been very cooperative. They wish to be good neighbors. Mr. Jarrell reminded the commission that the project is not yet finished and he feels they have done a good job so far. Mr. Azar asked if private road standards could be added to the list of ordinance revisions. Mr. Thompson stated it was not addressed because it is not an actual zoning ordinance; however, it will be added to the work projects. Mr. Murphy asked the commissioners to prioritize the ordinance revisions discussed. The consensus of projects for future work sessions was: 1. Minimum amounts for open spaces in cluster developments 2. Off - street parking 3. Screening, landscaping, buffering 4. PODS 5. Temporary signage Mr. Ray Craighead of 3035 Purple Finch Road, Roanoke, an independent architect, gave the commissioners and staff a brief, informal presentation on front yard setbacks in residential districts. He has worked with other design professionals in the area and said they would provide a formal presentation upon request. He provided a plat of his own property and sketch of a second floor additionlrenovation he would like to add to his home. The idea is to relax front yard setbacks for older homes so they may be renovated, improving the neighborhood. He stated there were a large number of ranch -style homes built in the area in the 1970's, which are beginning to need renovation. Revising the setbacks for these properties would allow rejuvenation of the neighborhoods. He explained how many of the residents grew up in the area and wish to stay, but may have outgrown their present homes. All of the commissioners agreed that it was an interesting idea. It would prevent decay and rotting of older properties, be more flexible with difficult lots, and be more affordable. It was noted that there is a limited amount of land to develop. The county must be proactive to rejuvenate the area and encourages improvement of existing roads and utilities. With the economic status, citizens may prefer to renovate, rather than build or purchase new homes. More people are also moving their aging parents in with them. The renovation of older homes would decrease enforcement of maintenance codes. Discussion revealed no negative aspects. Route 221 Corridor Stud Mr. Holladay gave a briefing on the Route 221 Corridor Study. A package of charts and graphs was distributed conveying the preliminary results of the survey. Over 30% were returned. The majority of respondents was age fifty (50) and older and has lived in the area over ten (10) years. Mr. Beard shared information from the stakeholder interviews he and Tammi Wood are Page 2 of 3 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 20, 2008 conducting. There has been very good information received from both the surveys and interviews. Other Comments Mr. Mahoney discussed current happenings in the Virginia General Assembly. There is an initiative to convey power to local governments concerning illegal immigration and over- crowding of residential structures. There is also discussion of statewide impact fees. Previously local governments were in favor and state legislators were not. These opinions seem to have reversed now. He also stated the General Assembly is looking at how to better implement planning and coordination with VDOT in localities, attempting to put more responsibility on local government to take over local roads without additional funding. With no further business or comments, Ms. Hooker adjourned the meeting at 7:33 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Becky Meado Recording Se retary, Roanoke County Planning Commission P ilip ThoApson Secreta , Roanoke Count Planning Commission Approve Rodney eil Chairman, Roanoke County Planning Commission Page 3 of 3