Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/21/2001 - MinutesROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES — AUGUST 21, 2001 Present: Mr. Al Thomason Mr. Kyle Robinson Ms. Martha Hooker Mr. Don Witt Mr. Todd Ross Ms. Janet Scheid Mr. David Holladay Mr. Chris Lowe Mr. Tim Beard Ms. Tammi Wood, Recording Secretary Absent: None WORK SESSION: Session opened at 4:05pm by Mr. Al Thomason. Approval of Agenda Mr. Witt moved to approve the agenda. Motion passed 5-0. Rough Draft of the Mountain Protection Ordinance Ms. Janet Scheid made a presentation of the draft ordinance. The purpose needs fine- tuning, it is much longer than wanted to see but it is covering a lot of ground. Mr. Robinson stated that the objectives are all positive, and beneficial to everyone. This ordinance will be similar to the Clearbrook overlay district therefore the underlying standards will still be in effect. The elevation standard is now 1500' and above. Ms. Scheid referred to the maps showing all the public lands in the County. The amount of property affected needs to be determined and itemized in categories such as AG -1, AG - 3, R-1, commercial and industrial. In addition staff will determine the number of land owners, who they are, etc. The 1500' was just an arbitrary number that was originally used and mapped in the Open Space Study. That elevation was included for that multi - jurisdictional study so that Roanoke and Mill Mountains would be included. Mr. Witt asked if a sliding scale of allowable grading based on slope had been considered. (Ex. Asheville, Clark County ordinances) Ms. Scheid stated that the Asheville ordinance was based on soil statistics, which was not a good basis for Roanoke County. Mr. Witt felt that the ordinance with the scale does not look as threatening. The fear was that the graph would be viewed as a burden and the citizens would have to make calculations themselves which may complicate things. Mr. Thomason asked if there was any feedback from the developers yet. Ms. Scheid stated that the draft hasn't gone out to anyone yet. The bottom line purpose is to protect the ridgelines, peaks and steep slopes. Mr. Robinson questioned a minimum lot size. Incentives and tax abatement to encourage builders to stay off the steepest slopes was discussed. There was a discussion of private roads including the availability of trash collection and school bus services. The Commission revisited the issue of existing versus new lots — i.e., individual home builder versus subdivision and reiterated their concern for the individual home site. Mr. Witt and Ms. Hooker both stated that they liked the draft so far. Mr. Ross was concerned about finding an easy way to trace "Mr. Homebuilder", and that there was no easy way to track their development. Ms. Scheid stated that the CSR's at the front counter would be able to make this determination if the Overlay District was noted on the tax maps. Mr. Ross stated that it may require extensive research. Ms. Hooker stated that we should ensure that there is a good mindset on pursuing everyone including small landowners, not just the "big guy." Ms. Scheid stated that the small owners may be identified at the counter by the staff and that there should be as much information available at the counter for the citizens as possible. Ms. Scheid stated that there will be more analysis done. She also stated that there would be a refined draft available for the October work session and that she hoped to have some additional information out for the September 4 work session. Suggested Revisions for Draft: Add to Purpose: Include preservation of wildlife, sports and outdoor activity, Add wording that includes enhancing the beauty of the whole area, not just Roanoke County Flood Protection, Fire Protection information Add to Section 4: Overlay maps Determine prohibited uses What are the exclusions? Avoid major road construction Add Section 6: Drainfields Cutting down all trees? Update on BZA Case In response to a question from Mr. Thomason, Tim Beard gave an update on the BZA Johnson boat case. Mr. Johnson is suing the County but the Planning Commission has immunity. Mr. Thomason stated that he had visited the petitioner 8 times. Mr. Beard also stated that the BZA had spent lots of time preparing for the case. Review of 2"d Revision of the Draft Screening & Landscape Ordinance Mr. Chris Lowe presented the 2ndrevision draft information. Mr. Lowe compiled all the comments, and made modifications on the second page. He also clarified the parking issues by revising the wording to 15 continuous spaces. It was suggested that the County Landscape Architect begin to review site plans and provide comments on the landscaping plans. Some input has been obtained from outside professionals already such as Charlie Blankenship, Paul Revell, and Dan Henry, Roanoke City. Ms. Hooker asked for a change of wording on page one, Administration, Section B. The word "opportune" should be expounded upon to include seasonal exceptions. Proposed Timeline: — 2 Forward the ordinance to developers, landscape firms, and arborists for review. A joint worksession will be scheduled with the BOS. Request that firms submit a letter of review/revision with comments (to present to the BOS). A Public Hearing will be held in October or November. Adiournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:25pm. Respectfully Submitted, '9UL Z. W0-04 Approved: Secretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission 3