Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/18/2003 - MinutesROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES — NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Present: Mr. Al Thomason Mr. Steve Azar Mr. Don Witt Ms. Martha Hooker Mr, Todd Ross Ms. Janet Scheid Mr. David Holladay Mr. Tim Beard Mr. John Murphy Mr. Chris Lowe Ms. Susan Carter, Recording Secretary Guests: Mr. Tom Klatka, Department of Historic Resources Ms. Pam Berberich Mr. Bob Flynn Ms. Elizabeth Abe Ms. Annie Krochalis Mr. Tim Thornton, The Roanoke Times WORK SESSION: Session opened at 4:00 p.m. by Mr. Don Witt. Approval of Agenda Mr. Steve Azar moved to approve the agenda. Motion passed 5 -0. Discussion of Section 15.2 -2232 Review - Back Creek Ms. Janet Scheid reviewed the request and asked if there was any additional information the PC thought was needed in order to analyze this request. She stated the earliest public hearing date would probably be February 2004, Mr. Witt requested information from Gary Robertson, Utility Department, regarding the water system. Ms. Scheid said information from other County departments such as utilities, schools, fire & rescue and from VDOT would be provided and analyzed as part of the staff report and provided to the PC prior to the public hearing. Ms. Hooker asked when the 60 days, allowed by Code, expires. Ms. Scheid stated the county received the letter requesting the review on October 31, 2003 but that the time clock will not start until the County has received all requested information from the petitioner. Mr. Witt asked what would happen if the petition is denied. Ms. Scheid stated if the request is denied the developer can use private wells and septic. Mr. Ross inquired if the developer is able to build 49 homes without PC approval. Ms. Scheid stated the property can still be developed but with less density on private wells if the request is denied. Mr. Witt noted considerations would be density, distribution, and the aesthetics of the water tank. Ms. Scheid also noted another consideration is the possibility the county would need to take over the system if it fails. Mr. Azar asked if the project would be completed in phases. Ms. Scheid stated information regarding phases would be provided as part of the Master Plan. Mr. Thomason asked if projected costs have been prepared regarding the installation of public water. Ms. Scheid stated Mr. Robertson has not submitted any projections at this time but that information would be available by the time of the public 1 hearing. Ms. Elizabeth Abe asked if the private water system would become part of the county system if it is installed. Ms. Scheid stated the county does not automatically become owner of the system because it requires an obligation of funds by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Witt noted although it would be a public water system, it would not be owned by the county. Mr. Witt asked if the request requires a 'yes' or 'no' answer or if conditions can be applied. Ms. Scheid stated she does not believe conditions or proffers can be offered. She stated she would consult with Mr. Paul Mahoney to clarify this issue. Ms. Annie Krochalis asked about the number of homes allowed if a privately owned public water system is used. Ms. Scheid stated it would be one house per 30,000 square feet. Mr. Murphy stated the density would be the same if a privately owned public water system or county water is used. Ms. Scheid stated private wells would limit the density to approximately one house per 43,000 square feet or one house per acre. Ms. Pam Berberich asked if soil type would be a consideration with this request. Ms. Scheid stated soil type would factor into the Health Departments analysis of septic feasibility. She stated Mr. David Vaughn is currently performing perk tests on the property. Ms. Krochalis asked if the petitioner had received a Stop Work Order. Ms. Scheid stated a Notice to Comply was issued. Ms. Krochalis asked if slope is a consideration. Ms. Scheid stated steep slopes are discussed in the Community Plan and issues regarding development on steep slopes and viewsheds will be evaluated as part of this review. Mr. Witt stated although public water increases density he is unsure they will consider slope during this review. Mr. Murphy stated building codes would apply with regards to slope. Mr. Thomason also noted large boulders are on the property. Mr. Azar asked about the time limit the petitioner has to submit the requested information. Ms. Scheid stated the information should be submitted to the county by the end of this week. She stated the staff tentatively plans to hold a Community Meeting in January and the PCPH in February. Mr. Thomason suggested conducting the Community Meeting at a school in that vicinity. Mr. Ross made a motion to request an additional 90 days from the BOS to complete the 2232 Review. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Krochalis inquired about the cemetery on the property. Ms. Scheid stated they have requested information on the cemetery. She introduced Mr. Tom Klatka from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Mr. Klatka stated he has conducted a field inspection of the cemetery. Ms. Scheid stated Mr. Vauglm has expressed a desire to make the cemetery an asset to this development. Ms. Abe distributed plats and copies of research she has conducted of the property. She reviewed the site map and other information. Mr. Klatka gave a brief history of the cemetery, noting it began as a private, family cemetery and then became a general burial ground. He stated some graves are mark while others appear to be unmarked. He noted in the past someone had begun excavating this area. He stated the approximate size of the cemetery is 55 feet (north/south) x 155 feet (east/west). He stated oak and cedar trees are generally found in older cemeteries. He stated there are approximately 27 graves with some markers located at the head and some at the feet of the grave. He stated an archeological dig could be performed. He stated he could conduct a surface inspection creating a design of the location of graves. He stated Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama have State Laws that require archeological inspection of cemeteries that are found. He stated they use probes that allow them to locate about 75% of the graves. He stated Virginia has no regulations requiring inspection, only regulations offering protection of the cemetery. He stated thermal imaging is now used to find the location of the gravesites. Ms. Abe asked about the expansion and establishment of the water system with regard to the county taking it over. Ms. Scheid explained that the water system does not automatically 2 become a County facility because this act requires the obligation of funds by the Board of Supervisors. That requires a public hearing and legislative action by the Board. Ms. Abe explained the DEQ information she had received. Ms. Krochalis asked if the developer's wells would affect existing wells. Mr. Witt and Ms. Scheid both indicated it is difficult to determine the effect. Ms. Berberich noted many of the aquifers are convoluted in the area and that makes it possible for various wells to be dependent on different aquifers. Ms. Scheid stated she would proceed with a request for a 90 day extension from the BOS. Six -Year Road Plan Worksession with Board of Supervisors The PC attended the BOS Worksession to hear the presentation by Anthony Ford, Roanoke County Traffic Engineer, regarding the Six -Year Road Plan. _Discussion of Community Plan Smart Growth Ms. Scheid reviewed handouts regarding Smart Growth. These included research by the American Planning Association, the National Home Builder's Association and a draft outline for the Smart Growth chapter of the revised Community Plan. Mr. David Holladay provided a historical background of Smart Growth. He stated common themes are transportation, preserving neighborhoods, and broad housing choices. He stated that many components of this concept are in the current 1998 Community Plan but they are not contained in one, concise chapter. He stated they could combine strengths of all chapters to use as a Smart Growth outline. He stated currently the strategies are in rough draft form that will require direction from the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for further revision. Ms. Scheid stated implementation of the strategies regarding density would be the most difficult for the BOS. Ms. Scheid stated urban service limits could be established which would include boundaries for development. She stated development could be encouraged within these limits with growth outside these limits being discouraged. She stated all development within the urban service limits could be required to hook -up to public water and sewer. She stated this would allow greater density within the urban service boundary. She stated construction of sidewalks and connections to greenways could be encouraged as well as encouraging the development of creative, livable and sustainable communities. Mr. Azar asked if retail areas would be encourage within the urban service limits. Mr. Holladay stated mix uses of property could be encouraged. Ms. Scheid stated that the Cluster Ordinance revisions might include an increase of density allowances. She stated more research is being done on impact fees. Mr. Witt asked about cash proffers on rezonings. Ms. Scheid stated cash proffers could apply to rezonings while impact fees could apply to other "by- right" development. Ms. Scheid noted the amount of property in the County that is currently zoned R -1. Mr. Witt expressed an interest in reversing some of the R -1 zoning. Ms. Scheid noted historically the BOS is not in favor of cash proffers. She stated cash proffers are allowed by State Code. She stated they are based on the growth of the adjoining areas. She stated the funds have to be designated for a particular capital improvement plan. Ms. Scheid stated that staff is in the process of looking at R -1 lots that are at slopes greater than 33 %, lots that are in rural land use designations and lots in land use taxation. These lots need to be studied further. In regard to the rural /agricultural areas, Ms. Scheid stated they could require SUP for residential subdivisions above a certain number and require open space. She noted viewsheds could be considered during this process. 3 Mr. Holladay suggested that putting all the Smart Growth information in one chapter of the Community Plan- including goals, objectives and strategies- would provide a clear, strong discussion of the issue. Ms. Krochalis stated it is important to keep neighborhood community sections in the Community Plan in order to gain participation from the various residents. Discussion of Blue Ridge Parkway Screening Mr. Witt stated he is in the process of drafting a letter regarding this issue. Mr. Thomason gave a brief history of the meeting attended by he and Mr. Witt with Mr. Len Boone. He stated Mr. Boone had stated he would proffer buffering for this property, however, to date this has not been done to the level of the proffer. He stated Mr. Boone has since donated the property. Mr. Witt stated when he told Mr. Boone the property looked bad, Mr. Boone told him that he was putting up plantings this fall. He stated as of this date nothing has been planted. Ms. Scheid explained the Last Chance Landscape, managed by herself and Gary Johnson from the National Park Service. She stated they have developed a management strategy for each viewshed along the Parkway in Roanoke County. Several view areas require screening and buffering. She stated the BRP has contracted with Friends of the Blue Ridge Parkway to develop landscaping plans for four areas. The Friends will soon be conducting fund - raising to implement these four plans. The plan to applies to the Boone property is estimated to cost approximately $25,000. Mr. Azar suggested putting the issue on the agenda and inviting Mr. Boone. Ms. Scheid stated he donated the land in question to the Western Virginia Land Trust and that unfortunately the proffer as written in 1995 may not contain enough specificity. Ms. Krochalis suggested requiring a SUP if the property is near the BRP. Ms. Abe stated standards should be inline with the BRP existing landscape. Mr. Witt stated he will draft a letter to present at the December 2, 2003 PC Worksession. Comments Ms. Scheid informed the commissioners the PCWS would begin at 3:30 p.m. on December 2 °a The Board of Supervisors is meeting the same day and will conduct a work session with citizens from the Back Creek area. Mr. John Murphy stated the Cellco Partnership would be floating a balloon to show the height of the tower during their site visit on December 2na Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:24 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, v Approved: Secretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission 4