Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/2008 - MinutesROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 17, 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. Tammi Wood Ms. Nicole Gilkeson Ms. Lindsay Blankenship Mr. Tim Beard Mr. Chris Patriarca Mr. Bill Richardson Ms. Rebecca Mahoney Ms. Amanda Micklow Ms. Tara Lambert Ms. Becky Meador, Recording Secretary Guest: Mr. Gary Robertson, Western Virginia Water Authority CALL TO ORDER: Mr. McNeil called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Approval of Agenda Mr. Azar moved to approve the agenda. Motion passed 5 -0. Route 221 Area Plan Mr. Holladay reviewed the draft implementation schedule for the Route 221 Area Plan. There was considerable discussion regarding the Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT) plans for the area. VDOT can receive requests from citizens, the county, the Board of Supervisors, or any party who may wish them to investigate a transportation matter. VDOT will then categorize the requests and do cost analyses. In addition to any project VDOT may be able to address, there may be simple, less expensive things the county can do in the interest of public safety. This might include cutting back of banks, paving, adding turning lanes and/or guard rails, or making elevation adjustments for sight distances. The county could also assist with funding or fundraising for such projects. The area study has determined that transportation is a Page 1 of 5 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 17, 2008 primary issue. Input from the Back Creek Civic League would be very helpful in prioritizing the intersections that require attention. Mr. Thompson discussed the Revenue Sharing Plan and funds that may be available through the plan. He stated that focusing on cost- effective upgrades for the more hazardous intersections would give the most "bang for the buck ". It was noted that at some time in the future, the county may be responsible for all their roads. Mr. Gary Robertson, Executive Director of Water Operations for the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA), gave a brief history of the public water system servicing Carriage Hills and Forest Edge subdivisions. The system was developed in the early 1980's after the county deemed the developer could not drill one well for every three (3) to four (4) houses. Carriage Hills has a twenty thousand (20,000) gallon storage tank with no fire protection. Forest Edge has a one hundred fifty thousand (150,000) gallon tank and includes fire protection. These were originally two (2) systems that the county joined in the early 1990's, at which time one (1) fire hydrant was installed in Carriage Hills. The county purchased land in the area and drilled ten (10) to fifteen (15) more wells to help feed the unreliable system. Out of approximately thirty (30) wells drilled in all, they only averaged about two (2) gallons per minute. The WVWA had to haul water to the storage tanks when they were drained by a fire or a water main break. The system is very fragile and the goal is to connect to the system at Cotton Hill. Two (2) other subdivisions, Vista Forest and Autumn Park, have an individual well for each home and still have issues. Mr. Robertson also discussed the great expense involved in extending water service to Carriage Hills without the developer incurring any of the cost. There are some vacant lots in the area, however, the Health Department will not approve them for development due to the lack of reliable water. Mr. McNeil asked who pays for public water service hook -up in a new development. Mr. Robertson explained that the citizens could petition for service, and then the WVWA does a cost analysis to determine the cost per share. If at least fifty (50) percent of homeowners agree to pay, the county or WVWA can supplement the difference. There are incentives offered to connect early and penalties imposed for late requests. Ms. Gilkeson presented a Potential Traffic Impact Model for the area. Trip Generation software was used to predict additional trips generated for each scenario of the Future Land Use (FLU) map. Vacant lots were removed for the model. Under the Code of Virginia, §15.2 - 222.1, Chapter 527 legislation requires the county to perform a Traffic Impact Analysis if five thousand (5,000) or greater trips are generated. As no definitive guidelines were given, Roanoke County has submitted its methodology to VDOT for its approval. No action can be taken by the Board of Supervisors until VDOT's approval is obtained. If approved, the methodology will be used for all future area plans. Under the FLU model Ms. Gilkeson presented, using the current 2005 map as a basis, proposed Scenario 1 would generate 3,774.66 more trips, Scenario 2 would generate 4,319.99 less trips, and Scenario 3 would generate 26,247.20 more trips. The Page 2 of 5 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING, COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 17, 2008 commission felt this information would be very helpful for comparison of the three (3) scenarios. The next step in the Route 221 Area Plan is the Planning Commission Public Hearing on December 2, 2008. Notices of the hearing are being mailed to the community meeting attendees, as well as the citizen stakeholders who were interviewed. Open Space in Cluster Developments Ms. Wood reviewed the information gathered in the last work session on open space in cluster developments. The main concerns raised were the definition of open space versus conservation area, calculation of density, and intent of open space. She discussed the current definitions and standards. There was discussion whether to combine primary and secondary conservation areas into one, single entity, or keep separate. Ms. Hooker asked which was easier from the staff's point of view. The staff did not have a preference because they are clearly defined. Ms. Cronise brought up the issue of "usable" open space. She felt that is a greater concern. Some of the issues discussed were determining a percentage of usable (or not usable) land, determination of an exact percentage required to be contiguous, and the flexibility needed to meet the spirit of the ordinance. There are always situations for exceptions that arise. Ms. Hooker agreed that there should be flexibility regarding this issue and Site Plan Review could address each case individually, as they are generally site specific. Determining areas to preserve, then developing around them was also discussed (i.e. a large, old tree or other unique feature). Mr. Thompson explained the need for flexibility, which would be easier to accomplish with separate (primary and secondary) conservation areas. He suggested using "intent" and "preferences" in the ordinance. He described mapping out the primary areas first, then the secondary, then work up from there if the minimum 35% is not met. Mr. McNeil felt that every piece of open space should have a minimum requirement and developers should "make it work ", even if they have to sacrifice some potential building space. He asked if it could be viewed like a Special Use Permit and brought before the board for approval. Mr. Holladay noted that this should not be as big an issue since the minimum for a cluster development was increased from three (3) to ten (10) acres. He suggested staff could do some representational drawings for visualization. Recommendations will be submitted for the commission's consideration. This will include a definition of open space with examples of what is and is not "usable ". 2009 Work Plan Mr. Thompson presented a tentative 2009 Planning Commission meeting schedule. The Board of Supervisors' meeting schedule has been adopted. Mr. Azar asked if there is a hardship on the staff during November and December due to the lack of time between Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors meetings. Mr. Thompson stated it would only be a hardship if staff had to be at both meetings on the same night. That is the reason meeting dates are modified for those months. Page 3 of 5 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 17, 2008 Ms. Hooker moved to adopt the meeting schedule as proposed. The motion passed, 5 -0. Mr. Thompson distributed a draft of the 2009 Work Plan. He briefly described several of the projects. Plans for a new Department of Motor Vehicles, the Multi - Generational Center, the airport, and Valley Point II will make the Peters Creek Road study challenging, as a lot of additional traffic will be generated by the new developments. He discussed how the Statistical Abstract will be the foundation for planning. If staff cannot forecast the future, they cannot plan appropriately. There was discussion of the county's Vision Statements. Mr. Thompson feels they need to project out to 2020 or 2030. Citizens will be involved in this process. Ms. Hooker would like to know if the benchmarks are met for 2010 and if the current vision statement is still the will of the people. Mr. Thompson. stated it is hard to measure a vision statement. Measurement is generally done through objectives and goals. Mr. Thompson discussed a Community Facilities Plan. The plan is like a twenty (20) year Capital Improvement Program (CIP), but broader. The Statistical Abstract will be very important to this process as well. Zoning Ordinance amendment reviews are planned for open space in cluster developments, parking regulations, screening and buffering, Portable On Demand Storage (PODS), and temporary signage. These will be further addressed at the December meeting. Mr. Azar asked if the Planning Commission's goals are affected when the Board of Supervisors requests staff to work on a project. Mr. Thompson explained that it is somewhat. Along with a Work Plan for the new year, the Board of Supervisors is provided an annual report for the year ending. Other Comments Mr. McNeil requested that the ordinance be reviewed for placement of carports on corner lots. Mr. Thompson stated that staff will compile a list of suggestions for the Planning Commission to prioritize. He will include Mr. McNeil's request. Mr. McNeil asked if the joint work session with Roanoke City is still planned. Mr. Holladay stated that the county will be hosting the next joint meeting on January 20, 2009. Possible topics might be the Peters Creek Road Study and /or the Pattern Book that Roanoke City is developing. Mr. McNeil asked for an update on Explore Park. Mr. Holladay stated the only known work as of now is by Virginia Living History, who approached American Electric Power (AEP) about what can be done along the shoreline of the river. A possible marina was mentioned. AEP has control over the waterway and shoreline. It is not yet known how the water /sewer implementation plan for Mount Pleasant would be affected should the park development not take place. Page 4 of 5 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 17, 2008 There was discussion of the proposed Wal -Mart on Route 220. Mr. Thompson informed the commission that the petition of Edward Rose Properties, which was scheduled for public hearing on December 2, 2008, has been postponed indefinitely. The community meeting scheduled for Wednesday, November 19, 2008, will still take place. VDOT reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis submitted by Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, and found it insufficient. The county is postponing its public hearing until all information is received and sufficient. The Route 221 Area Plan will still be heard at the December meeting. With no further business or comments, Mr. McNeil adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: d'u /4z M"2'& Becky Mead Recording cretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission Philip ompson Secre ary , Roanoke County Planning Commission Approved: r Rodney McNeil Chairman, Roanoke County Planning Commission Page 5 of 5