Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/15/2008 - MinutesROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 2008 Roanoke County Commissioners Present: Mr. Steve Azar Ms. Martha Hooker Mr. Gary Jarrell Mr. Rodney McNeil Mr. David Radford Roanoke County Staff Present: Mr. Philip Thompson, Secretary Mr. Joe Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney Mr. David Holladay Mr. John Murphy Ms. Megan Cronise Ms. Nicole Gilkeson Ms. Lindsay Blankenship Mr. Tim Beard Mr. Chris Patriarca Ms. Rebecca Mahoney Ms. Amanda Micklow Ms. Tara Lambert Ms. Becky Meador, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER: Mr. McNeil called the meeting to order at 6:09 p.m. Approval of Agenda Mr. Azar moved to approve the agenda. Motion passed 5-0. R oute 221 Area Plan Ms. Gilkeson distributed maps representing Scenario 4 for both Future Land Use (FLU) and Utility Phasing for the Route 221 study area. These were compilations based on the suggestions of the commission at the December 2, 2008, Public Hearing. Mr. Radford noted that the area he suggested be changed was originally a Development designation in the 1998 plan. The negligible change in land use did not trigger a Chapter 527 traffic review. Mr. Holladay said that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) agreed with staff's traffic impact methodology. This method will be used to calculate trip generation for future projects. Mr. Radford made a motion to adopt the resolution provided by Mr. Holladay. The motion was seconded by Mr. Azar and passed unanimously. Page 1 of 5 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 2008 _County Parking Regulations Ms. Micklow presented a PowerPoint slideshow of various existing parking lots and environmentally friendly parking areas she has researched. She stated that the county's current parking calculations are outdated. The county ordinance does not include a definition for "temporary" parking or maximum limits for area, spaces, or access requirements. She talked about creating design guidelines, waivers, types of uses, shared parking, and consolidating parts of the ordinance to make it simpler. There was considerable discussion of reasons for more regulated parking. It was felt that big -box retail developments would be most affected. The major issue raised was not basing our regulations on the highest parking day of the year. Businesses would not be prohibited from having more parking than the maximum required. They would just be required to construct "green" parking for the overage. It was noted that online shopping has changed the retail business. Ms. Micklow explained that permeable parking surfaces are environmentally - friendly, aesthetically pleasing, economical, and provide optimal stormwater management and quality. Mr. Radford described a parking facility he had visited in Williamsburg that was constructed by a "green" design. It was paved with a pervious material and had landscaping on every row. He felt it was an excellent plan and the county should attempt to encourage similar designs. Ms. Micklow will do a cost analysis for the next work session on parking regulations. Portable Temporary Storage Containers Mr. Murphy discussed that the county currently has no regulations or limitations on portable storage containers. Guidelines are needed to manage this use. He researched guidelines from other localities across the country. He distributed a package that included possible aspects of regulation, photos of various sites with containers, and a sample of a flyer from an unidentified business. The units are most commonly used for short -term storage, such as renovations for fire damage, and for moving; however, there have been reports of individuals using them for permanent storage buildings, business uses, and even as housing. The goal is to allow temporary use only, not for home occupations or on empty lots. Mr. Murphy also stated there would be a minimal permit fee and would prefer the use of civil penalties for enforcement. Mr. Azar felt only one unit should be permitted and that it should be placed behind the building line; however, there was concern that the companies would not be able to access that location on all properties. Mr. McNeil noted that if VDOT does not allow the containers on the street, the county should also prohibit that location. Mr. Murphy stated that right -of -ways are not zoned, so the county could not enforce any regulations there. Mr. Obenshain suggested that an instruction sheet could be distributed with the permit application that informed the applicant that VDOT would be contacted about containers placed on the street. There was discussion of whether the renter or the rental company should obtain the permit. Mr. Murphy felt the renter should purchase the permit since the container would be on their property. He stated the companies that rent the units seem to be very Page 2 of 5 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 2008 responsible about informing their customers to notify their local zoning offices. Mr. Jarrell felt that it may be more satisfactory to require the company to obtain the permit. It was suggested that all the known companies that offer the containers could be mailed a notification and the ordinance annually, similar to what is done for the sign companies with the sign ordinance. The permit fee would probably be the same as a normal building permit, which is currently $25.00. Mr. Murphy noted there would be administrative costs involved with enforcement. Mr. Radford recommended the permit application be available online. There was also discussion of the maximum length of time a unit should be permitted. Some felt that thirty (30) days was reasonable and some felt a longer period may be necessary for an extensive fire reconstruction. It was suggested that an application for a container at a new construction site could be tied to the building permit. The consensus of the commission was to allow one (1) container only with no size limit. It should be allowed for a maximum of thirty (30) days and can be in front of the building line, but not on the street. Setback rules will not have to be followed. Staff will develop some design standards. Glenvar Community Plan Mr. Holladay distributed a working draft outline of the Glenvar Community Plan. He stated it would be similar to the other area plans and described the study area. He discussed possibilities such as an Economic Development Opportunity area (similar to Explore Park's in the Mt. Pleasant Plan), redevelopment and mixed -use areas, and the possibility of a marketing plan. He explained how the area between Wildwood Road and Dixie Caverns is viewed as a "no man's land "; however, it is a good location for development. There are no restaurants for the employees of local businesses in that area. There was further conversation about the lack of access to Interstate 81 from the Fort Lewis Fire Station. Mr. Holladay described the community interviews that would be conducted with various individuals, civic groups and organizations, community meetings, work sessions, and survey(s). Completion of the study is planned for the summer of 2009. The study will not be delayed by the intermodal or Routes 111460 projects. Ms. Hooker requested the study be relayed to the community in a positive way. 2009 Work Plan Mr. Thompson reviewed the 2009 Work Plan. The plan includes some items carried over from 2008. He emphasized the importance of reviewing the plan annually and asked for item suggestions from the commission. Items on the plan are staff recommendations, which the commission prioritized. Mr. Thompson also discussed a Design Manual with graphics that staff will be developing. He explained that the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan texts can refer to the manual, making these documents more understandable. Staff will coordinate with various other agencies to determine proffer standards and standards for Page 3 of 5 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 2008 trails, private roads, and etc. The manual will include different chapters, which can be adopted one at a time. Mr. McNeil asked if the commission could make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding structures on corner lots. Mr. Thompson will add this to the 2009 Zoning Ordinance review. Mr. Thompson talked about applying civil penalties to the entire ordinance at the Board of Supervisors' suggestion. Mr. Obenshain noted that civil penalties need to be applied to the grass and weeds ordinance because the current criminal proceedings may exceed what is allowable by the state. Mr. Radford inquired about the Comprehensive Plan organization and Vision Statements. Mr. Thompson explained that the current plan is comprised of seven (7) chapters. It looks at three (3) main components: land use, community facilities, and regional preservation. Joined with the individual area, regional greenway and transportation plans, the Comprehensive Plan is made up of multiple documents. Ultimately, the Comprehensive Plan will be a summary document stating that it is the sum of all the individual documents. Mr. Thompson also pointed out that the Capital Improvement Program is a six (6) year document, so the county needs to have an anticipated need of community facilities. Ms. Hooker asked if updating the Vision Statements would be a time- consuming process. Mr. Thompson explained that the Statistical Abstract Ms. Gilkeson is currently working on would be part of this process. Sound data for a baseline is necessary. Ms. Hooker noted that it will be very important to ensure it is the citizens' vision, not one of the commission or staff. Ms. Hooker inquired about a "pocket- sized" land use map and county summary that had been planned some time ago. Mr. Thompson noted that this information would now probably be offered via the website for environmental reasons. He noted there is no set way of doing things and the staff is open to all ideas. Ms. Hooker moved to adopt the 2009 Work Plan as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. Other Comments The commissioners felt 2008 was a productive year and a lot had been accomplished. They look forward to another good year. They voiced their appreciation to staff. A joint work session with the Roanoke City Planning Commission is scheduled for January 20, 2009. Edward Rose Properties submitted the requested additional information to VDOT. After VDOT approves the traffic plans, another community meeting will be held. The public hearing will most likely occur in March 2009. Page 4 of 5 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 2008 The laptops for the Planning Commissioners have been ordered. They should arrive in January 2009. Mr. Thompson informed the commission of a new application received from Foxhall Properties, LLC for an asphalt plant in Salem. A community meeting will be held. Plans were made for site visits to both the existing location and a similar production plant in Blue Ridge at the January 6, 2009, work session. Ms. Hooker met with the applicant and has visited the Blue Ridge facility. She felt the trip to the other facility was very educational. She requested the other commissioners' input after they visit the site. Mr. Holladay gave a special "thank you" to Tim Beard for his work on the stakeholder interviews he and Tammi Wood conducted for the Route 221 Area Plan. With no further business or comments, Mr. McNeil adjourned the meeting at 8:01 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: V &i6 Meador Recording Secr tary, Roanoke County Planning Commission Philip Tho pson Secreta , Roanoke Count Planning Commission Appro� y l Ap AL� o R dney McNeil Chairman, Roanoke County Planning Commission Page 5of5