Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/6/2009 - MinutesRoanoke 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. Nicole Gilkeson Ms. Lindsay Blankenship Mr. Tim Beard Mr. Chris Patriarca Ms. Rebecca Mahoney Ms. Amanda Micklow Ms. Tara Lambert Ms. Becky Meador, Recording Secretary SITE VISIT: At 3:30 p.m. the commission and staff departed to visit the site of a proposed asphalt plant located at 4127 West Main Street, Salem, as petitioned for by Foxhall Properties, LLC. They also visited an existing, operational asphalt plant in Blue Ridge. WORK SESSION: Mr. McNeil called the meeting to order at 6:19 p.m. Approval o f Agenda Mr. Azar moved to approve the agenda. Motion passed 5-0. Approval of Minutes Ms. Hooker moved to approve the minutes of December 2, 2008, as submitted, and December 15, 2008, with the omission of the last sentence in the second paragraph under Glenvar Community Plan. Motion passed 5-0. Page 1 of 4 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 6, 2009 Election of Officers Mr. Thompson opened the floor for nominations of chairman for the 2009 calendar year. Mr. Azar nominated Ms. Hooker. No other nominations were received and the commission unanimously voted for Ms. Hooker as chairman for 2009. Mr. Thompson opened the floor for nominations of vice-chairman for the 2009 calendar year. Mr. McNeil nominated Mr. Azar. No other nominations were received and the commission unanimously voted for Mr. Azar as vice-chairman for 2009. At this time, Mr. McNeil turned the meeting over to Ms. Hooker. Temporary Signs Mr. Patriarca stated that forty-eight (48) temporary sign permits were issued in 2008. He showed a PowerPoint presentation of various issues, mostly derived from enforcement throughout the past year. He talked about set back determinants, locating temporary signs only on the property they service, attachment to permanent structures only, vehicle signs, limiting the number of directional signs, political signage and clearer definitions for exempt organizations. Mr. Patriarca and Ms. Mahoney had researched like ordinances from other localities and presented some model ordinances to the commission for reference. The advantages and disadvantages of changing the set back to be measured from the pavement line, as opposed to the property line, was discussed. It is sometimes difficult for enforcement officers to determine a property line, especially in the field. It was determined that verbiage would need to be included to prevent signs from being placed in the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) right-of-way. There was also considerable discussion of advertising signs on vehicles. It was suggested that these vehicles should be parked behind the building or building line and not at the street. The usage of these vehicles should be well defined, as some are used for day-to-day operation of a business and some seem to be used simply to advertise a product or service. It was noted that a U-Haul dealership is very different from a single box truck, parked at the street, advertising a special deal, and not being used for daily business. The meaning of "advertising" will need to be clearly defined. Several other issues voiced were clarifying the thirty (30) days per calendar year, possible non-fee permits for exempt organizations, human signs, and step-stake signs. Staff received a great deal of feedback from the commission and will begin composing draft ordinance revisions for its review. Open Space in Cluster Developments Mr. Murphy distributed proposed revisions to the Cluster Subdivision Ordinance. He reviewed possible changes to the Intent, Definition, and Requirement Sections of the ordinance. Definitions were consolidated and primary and secondary areas were combined to make the ordinance easier to work with. Page 2 of 4 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 6, 2009 Mr. Murphy spoke with some landscape architects who would like flexibility in the ordinance so they would be able to use more creative designs. He described how developers would like to use the natural topography and not be tied to a minimum area. Forty-five percent (45%) minimum could be a target amount; however, more would certainly be encouraged. The ordinance could be worded to give the county the ability to evaluate plans before development. Additionally, the ordinance currently indicates that no buildings are allowed in open space areas. This could be revised to include desirable structures, such as gazebos, resting areas on trails, historic buildings, and etc. Mr. Murphy stated that stormwater ponds should not be included as open space. Mr. McNeil mentioned that some current cluster developments did not meet expectations and possibly requests for deviation could be brought before the Planning Commission. Mr. Murphy noted that the Cluster Development is not used very often. Home builders would like to develop clusters; however, they feel the ordinance is too rigid. Some leeway is needed. Mr. Obenshain mentioned that the cluster ordinance is an exemption and every scenario could not be defined because of topography. Mr. Thompson suggested that, instead of using an arbitrary percentage for open space, that staff could perform a mapping process to determine conservation areas. He felt the ordinance is of better quality now due to the recent acreage requirement increase and other changes. He stated that a revised ordinance needs to be utilized to determine if it works. Mr. Radford liked the flexibility of bringing plans to staff for evaluation. He felt the proposed changes better meet the intent of conservation. Mr. Azar asked about the restrictions on sidewalks in the Requirement Section. Mr. Murphy stated that the language was included to prevent pedestrians from being close to any dangerous areas. He noted that a final proposal would be provided and an action by the commission would be requested at a future work session. Other Comments Mr. Brett Bennett attended the meeting representing the Roanoke Valley Home Builders Association. A joint work session with the Roanoke City Planning Commission is scheduled for January 20, 2009. Representatives from the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission (RVARC) and VDOT will attend for a presentation on the Route 419 Multi- Modal Plan. The additional information requested by VDOT on the Edward Rose Properties project has been received. Another community meeting for the project is scheduled for Thursday, February 12, 2009. The petition should go to public hearing before the commission in March. The commissioners were reminded that their financial disclosures are due to the Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors no later than Thursday, January 15, 2009. Page 3 of 4 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 6, 2009 Mr. McNeil voiced his appreciation for the commission and staff during his service as chairman for 2008. Mr. Jarrell commented that he enjoyed the field trip to the asphalt plant. Commissioners felt this trip was educational. Ms. Cronise informed the commission that there will be a meeting with the Village at Stone Creek Homeowners Association regarding the status of the Wolf Creek legal case. The meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 7, 2009, 7:00 p.m., at the Vinton Library. Ms. Blankenship reported that the first community meeting for the Vinton Corridors Plan is scheduled for Thursday, January 29, 2009, at the Vinton War Memorial. In the event of snow, it will be held February 2, 2009. With no further business or comments, Ms. Hooker adjourned the meeting at 7:29 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Becky Meador Recording Secretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission Philip Tp6mpson Secret dry, Roanoke Count Planning Commission Approved: Martha Hooker Chairman, Roanoke County Planning Commission Page 4 of 4