Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/2020 - MinutesROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 836 W4 vow NOVEMBER 16,2020 Commissioners Present: Mr. Wayne Bower Mr. Rick James Mr. Kelly McMurray Mr. Jim Woltz Commissioners Absent: Mr. Troy Henderson qTT"Fim M -T --am Mr. Philip Thompson, Secretary Ms. Rachel Lower, Senior Assistant County Attorney Ms. Rebecca James Ms. Bailey Howard -DuBois Mr. Isaac Henry Mr. Alex Jones Ms. Alyssa Dunbar Ms. Cecile Newcomb Ms. Susan McCoy, Recording Secretary Work Session Mr. James called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. Approval of Agenda Mr. Woltz made a motion to approve the agenda, which passed 4-0. Zoning l Ordinance Amendments Ms. Dunbar provided an overview of previous discussions, including the proposed amendment to Home Beauty/Barber Salon use definition to include other salon type services. She stated a caveat statement would be added which would allow the Zoning Administrator to approve other services not specifically listed in the definition. She discussed updating; language in the use and design standards to amend the number of chairs permitted. She discussed adding use and design standards to make the use consistent to other home occupation standards. She noted the Commission stated they want to be supportive of the citizens in their operation of this use. She stated that few localities have a specific use type for home beauty/barber salon, noting staff reviewed home occupation standards of other localities, Ms. Dunbar and the Commissioners discussed limiting the maximum percentage of finished floor area that could be utilized for this use. They discussed the current maximum percentage which is 10% for Type I home occupation and 25% for Type 11 home occupation. Ms. Dunbar, Ms. James, and the Commissioners discussed calculating space for the home occupation space. Ms. Dunbar and the Commissioners discussed Page 1 of 4 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2020 confining the use to a certain area of the house. They discussed language to use to stipulate size of area allowed to use. They discussed the need for more space if providing other services in the future. They discussed leaving the regulations as they currently are written for both Type I and Type 11. Mr. Thompson and the Commissioners discussed making the guidelines more flexible with similar uses having similar regulations. He stated they could impose a limit of customers to both types. They discussed the definition of single family dwelling. They discussed this use being limited only to single family dwelling or changing it to residential dwelling. The consensus of the Commission was to change it from single family dwelling to a residential dwelling. Ms. Dunbar provided an overview of accessory structures, noting an accessory structure currently can only be used for this use type in conjunction with a Type II home occupation. She stated other localities allow for use of an accessory structure in conjunction with home occupation. The consensus of the Commission was that it is reasonable to allow this use in an accessory structure, noting that the property will likely be better maintained if it is in use. Ms. Dunbar stated the current limit of the number of customers allowed for a Type I home occupation is ten customers per day, noting there is no limit for Type 11 home occupation. She stated other localities do not specifically limit the number of customers but limit the number of vehicle visits per day or week. Ms. Dunbar and the Commissioners discussed limiting vehicle traffic and limiting the number of customers at one time. Mr. Thompson discussed the general standards for Type I and Type II home occupation. Mr. Thompson and the Commissioners discussed having more than one salon in a home if the square footage used does not exceed the maximum allowed. They discussed outdoor storage. Mr. Thompson stated staff will bring this issue back for further discussion at the next work session. Ms. Dunbar discussed developing a definition for short-term rental. She noted that the Commission agreed that the use should be separate from similar uses and have its own use and design standards. She discussed the State definition, noting the consensus of the Commission was to follow the State definition of this use. Ms. Dunbar, Mr. Thompson, and the Commission discussed the districts in which this use should be permitted as a by -right use or with a special use permit. They discussed developing use and design standards for this use, including the number of rooms which may be allowed by -right or with a special use permit. They discussed regulations based on acreage and regulations based on zoning district. They discussed not wanting to become over -regulatory with this use. They discussed registering the short-term rental with the County and potential taxes. Ms. Lower discussed this issue. Ms. James noted short-term rental would be considered a commercial use. She discussed permitting options for this use in residential areas. Mr. Thompson noted the Board of Supervisors has directed the Planning Commission to research this use. He stated the impacts of this use are similar to the bed and breakfast use. The Commissioners and staff discussed requiring a permit in order to acquire contact information in case the owner needs to be notified. The Commission agreed to have Ms. Lower research this use and discuss findings with the Commission at a future work session. Page 2 of 4 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2020 Ms. James stated it was the consensus of the Commission to develop regulations to allow for temporary construction yards in all zoning districts, noting the use would be approved administratively with limited additional regulations. She stated other localities that address temporary construction yards do not require a separate land use action, noting some require a permit. Ms. James and the Commissioners discussed the definition and permitting process. They discussed tying the permit to an active construction project. They discussed permitting the use for a set period of time to prevent it from becoming an eyesore. They discussed ceasing the use when the construction ceases or project is complete. They discussed tying the permit to the erosion and sediment permit or a site plan. They discussed making the use regulations part of the procurement contract. Mr. Thompson noted the temporary construction yard would only be for public infrastructure projects. He reviewed several projects which would have been in this category. Mr. Thompson, Ms. James, and the Commission discussed developing use and design standards for this use. They also discussed the permitting process, including permit renewal and revoking a permit if necessary. Mr. Henry discussed yard encroachments, including expanding the uses and structures which are allowed to encroach into a different yard. He stated many citizens have expressed concern about handicap access ramps having to adhere to primary structure setbacks. He stated many localities allow handicap access ramps to encroach into setbacks, noting many leave it to the discretion of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Henry and the Commissioners discussed adding handicap access ramps to the list of uses and structures allowed to encroach into required yards. They discussed American Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance. The consensus is to allow handicap access ramps to encroach into a different yard. They discussed limiting the encroachment to a reasonable amount at the Zoning Administrator's discretion. Oak Grove Center Plan Mr. Thompson provided a PowerPoint presentation, including future land use plan maps for the area. Mr. Thompson and the Commissioners discussed the development pattern in both the City and the County. They discussed future land use scenarios involving Transition and Core designations in various portions of the study area. The consensus of the Commission was to have more Core areas to make the study area more cohesive. Mr. Thompson and the Commissioners discussed the tentative timeline of the process. 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule Mr. Thompson and the Commissioners discussed the 2021 meeting schedule. The consensus of the Commission was to cancel work sessions for June, July, and August. The Commissioners unanimously approved the 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule as discussed. Citizen Comments There were none. Commissioners' and Staff' Comments Ms. Lower provided an update regarding litigation involving the Board of Zoning Appeals. Page 3 of 4 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2020 Mr. Thompson and the Commissioners discussed upcoming meetings. With no further business or comments, Mr. James adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Susan McCoy Recording Secretary, Roanoke ounty Planning Commission ✓✓ V Philip T ompson Secretgry, Roanoke my Planning Commission A�H)I- v Rick Jamesw Chairman, Roanoke County Planning Commission Page 4 of 4