Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/19/2003 - MinutesROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES — AUGUST 19, 2003 Present: Mr. Al Thomason Mr. Steve Azar Ms. Martha Hooker Mr. Don Witt Mr. Arnold Covey Ms. Janet Scheid Mr. Chris Lowe Mr. Anthony Ford Mr. Tim Beard Mr. John Murphy Ms. Tammi Wood Ms. Susan Carter, Recording Secretary Guests: Mr. Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Mr, John G. "Chip" Dicks, Attorney Mr. Garland Kitts, Lamar Outdoor Mr. Bill Lodinski, Lamar Outdoor Ms. Melody Williams, Roanoke Regional Homebuilders Association Absent: Mr. Todd Ross Mr. David Holladay WORK SESSION: Session opened at 4:09 p.m. by Mr. Don Witt. Approval of Agenda Ms. Hooker moved to approve the agenda. Motion passed 4 -0. Review and Discussion of the Sign Ordinance Changes Mr. Witt expressed concern regarding backlit signage in R -1 areas. He stated it destroys the residential character of the neighborhood because the signs appear commercial in nature. Mr. Witt stated he has discussed his concerns with David Holladay and that David did not share his concerns and had concerns about changing the ordinance. Mr. Hooker agreed with Mr. Witt's comments. She asked for an explanation regarding Mr. Holladay's concern. Mr. Covey stated the concern was that many churches and schools will become non - conforming if backlit signs are prohibited in R -1 areas. Ms. Scheid asked if Mr. Holladay was concerned about existing signs or new signs. Mr. Covey stated Mr. Holladay is concerned about both new and existing signs. Mr. Witt noted churches would still be permitted to have frontlet signs. Mr. Murphy noted that most of the message signs are the backlit monument style. Mr. Witt stated this restriction would be in neighborhood conservation areas only. Mr. Thomason suggested adding this issue to the PCPH Worksession on September 2, 2003, in order to allow the PC to discuss backlit signage with Mr. Holladay. He also noted he would support Mr. Witt's recommendation regarding backlit signs. Regarding off premise signage, Mr. Azar asked for a definition of 'good repair.' Mr. Witt noted other commissioners have requested a definition for this term. He stated he is in agreement with the revisions except for the 60% at the end of the first sentence. He stated it should be changed to 50 %. Mr. Dicks stated in section E it specifically states 50 %. He stated damage does not apply in section C. He stated they had no intent to slide from 50% to 60 %. He stated for the purpose of destruction section E applies. He stated they will add 50% to section C for clarification purposes. Mr. Mahoney stated they attempted to address issues expressed by the PC during the July PC Worksession. He stated a better definition is not an issue since VDOT guidelines would be used if necessary to pursue a violation. He suggested that the PC send the revisions forward to the BOS at the September 2" PC Public Hearing. He recommended advertising for BOS Public Hearing only. Review and Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Transportation Section Mr. Anthony Ford presented the tentative Transportation Section for the Comp Plan Revision. He stated it is the framework for the revision. He reviewed each section of the proposed guidelines. Regarding Strategy: Traffic Calming, Mr. Witt stated that "context sensitive design" should be included in this area. Mr. Ford stated the format is currently a layout, which will be enhanced, and more detailed added further into the revision process. Regarding Strategy: Access Management, Mr. Ford stated better control of the location of driveways will be enforced. Mr. Witt stated the County is already following this guideline. Ms. Scheid asked if management would be restricted to residential, commercial or industrial. Mr. Ford stated all areas will be included in Access Management. Mr. Ford stated I -81 expansion will create issues regarding Strategy: Noise Abatement Measures. Mr. Azar asked about funding for these measures. Mr. Covey stated a formula is used to calculate funding for these structures. He stated if the allowable cost is exceeded, the County would be responsible for the remaining cost. Mr. Ford stated regarding Strategy: Air Quality /Attainment Status, an early action plan is being developed regarding air pollution regulations for 2007. He noted it is important to keep abreast of the current issues. Mr. Witt stated he attended a pilot program in Botetourt County regarding VDOT land use issues. He stated the goal of the meetings is to improve communications between VDOT and Botetourt County. Mr. Ford noted all forms of transportation need to be addressed in the Comp Plan revision. Ms. Scheid suggested that coordination with other nearby localities should be included in the revision. Mr. Ford gave a history and update of the TEA -3 and TEA -21 programs. Mr. Witt noted grant funding for Greenways is currently in jeopardy. Regarding Strategy: Interstate 81 and Proposed Interstate 73, Ms. Scheid suggested including Route 460 West and Route 419 under this section. Mr. Mahoney gave a brief history of prior year road issues. Mr. Thomason noted the primary problem is acquiring funding for road improvements and repair. Mr. Ford stated regarding Strategy: Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), toll collection, weight limit stations and variable message signs will all be considered. Regarding Strategy: Annual Public Hearings, Mr. Ford stated this would allow the citizens to acquire more complete and accurate information. Mr. Witt noted it is difficult to get the public to attend public meetings unless the issue directly applies to them. He suggested adding an input page on the County website. Mr. Ford stated he hopes the County can become more proactive instead of reactive to road issues. Mr. Witt noted the PC needs to consider the roads in relation to land use designations. He stated historically areas would be developed and then VDOT would improve the roads in the area. Ms. Scheid noted this is no longer the case due to budget constraints. Mr. Mahoney suggested acquiring a compilation of information regarding road capacity as it relates to the number of homes, vehicles, and citizens. He stated if documentation is available, a petition could be denied based on the inability of the road to handle the traffic increase, which would be created. Ms. Scheid stated level of service could be added to the Camp Plan for area roads. Mr. Ford stated the information in the Comp Plan should be more general in nature, noting that using functional classification for guidelines would be more beneficial. Mr. Mahoney suggested performing an analysis of the roads instead of referring to specifics in the Comp Plan. Mr. Murphy suggested enhancing the current street standards. Mr. Lowe stated 2 VDOT does not include radius information in their road research, Ms. Scheid stated VDOT could provide the level of service for the roads. Mr. Covey noted these designations would only be provided on the particular roads we identify to VDOT. Mr. Ford noted if the County independently gathered information on all roads, the project would be enormous since so many considerations are required. Mr. Azar inquired about the difference between VDOT and the County's information. Mr. Ford explained the differences in the compilation of information of both organizations. He then provided an explanation of the Roanoke Area Study for 2025, which included projected improvements for various roads. He then reviewed an area map, which illustrated how County roads relate to the roads of surrounding localities. Mr. Witt suggested placing the maps on the web for public viewing. Mr. Ford briefly discussed the addition of bike lanes along some County roadways. Ms. Scheid noted information regarding projected bike lanes should be added to the Comp Plan comments. Ms. Scheid stated it is important to involve the public regarding long -range plans. Mr. Witt concurred with Ms. Scheid The Planning Commission and staff commended Mr. Ford for his presentation. Sent Mountain 2232 Review Mr. Mahoney stated Mr. David Vaughn has asked if the Planning Commission would be receptive to having him come and explain his proposed idea regarding the development of a privately owned water system in lieu of the 2232 Review. He explained a previous development's water resource was designed in this way, which later had to be assumed by the County because the supporting wells ran dry. He noted that particular instance proved to be costly for the County. Mr. Witt stated it is important that citizens be allowed to voice their opinions regarding the development of this area. Ms. Scheid stated it is important for the developer to confirm whether or not he wants the County to continue the 2232 Review. Mr. Covey stated Mr. Vaughn would need to make a decision and forward documentation regarding this issue. Mr. Thomason stated the developer needs to make a deeper commitment. Mr. Azar expressed concern regarding the County's liability if the privately owned water system fails. Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Covey both cited instances in which the private wells started going dry and could not support the needs of the surrounding homes. Mr. Mahoney noted water restrictions had to be applied in these areas since water had to be brought in by trucks. Mr. Mahoney noted Mr. Vaughn informed him a productive 'test well' has been drilled proposed development area. Comments Mr. Murphy suggested Mr. Ford be added to the Review Comments list for the PC petitions. Ms. Scheid approved the addition of the Traffic Engineer to the Review Comments list. Adjournment Mr. Witt adjourned the meeting at 5:54 p.m.. Respectfully Submitted, Approved: Secretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission 3