Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/27/1990 - Regular February 27, 1990 12 1 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Administration Center 3738 Bramb1eton Avenue, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24018 February 27, 1990 The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday, and the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of February, 1990. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Robers called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard Robers, Vice Chairman Steven A. McGraw, Supervisors Lee B. Eddy, Bob L. Johnson MEMBERS ABSENT: Supervisor Harry C. Nickens (arrived at 3:12 p.m.) 122 February 27, 1990 - t== STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator for Human Services; John R. HUbbard, Assistant County Administrator of Community Services and Development; Don M. Myers, Assistant County Administrator for Management Services; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney, Mary H. Allen, Clerk to the Board; Anne Marie Green, Information Officer IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by the Reverend Laney Mofield, Colonial Avenue Baptist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS Chairman Robers requested that Item D-1 be heard following Items D-2 and D-3. D. NEW BUSINESS ~ Adoption of a Resolution authorizing the execution of a consolidation agreement between the County of Roanoke and the City of Roanoke. R-22790-3 (~-. February 27, 1990 12 :5 - This item was heard following Items D-2 and 3. Supervisor Eddy read a prepared statement regarding the proposed consolidation agreement stating he was not generally opposed to consolidation if the details are favorable to the citizens of the County. He did not feel that the proposed plan was favorable to the County citizens and advised he supported modifications to the plan and felt a time extension to incorporate the changes was necessary for County support. Supervisor Johnson reported that the negotiators have attempted to accommodate Supervisor Eddy's concerns, and some modifications were made to the plan. He described the opportunity for input from the citizens and the efforts at informing the public of details of the plan. Supervisor Robers advised that, according to legal advice from the County Attorney and City Attorney, the plan can still be modified in the future if both Roanoke City and Roanoke County agree to the changes. Supervisor McGraw reported that while he will vote for the resolution, he would not vote for the plan in November unless there are modifications to the proposed plan. He expressed appreciation and gratitude to the negotiators for their work. Supervisor Johnson moved to adopt the prepared resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: Supervisor Eddy RESOLUTION 22790-3 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION ~ 12 4 ~ February 27, 1990 - OF A CONSOLIDATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE AND THE CITY OF ROANOKE DIRECTING THE FILING OF SAID AGREEMENT AND OTHER PAPERS WITH THE CIRCUIT COURTS FOR THE CITY AND THE COUNTY, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWN OF VINTON, AND AUTHORIZING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE THEREWITH - WHEREAS, in February, 1989 pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.1-1132, of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, certain petitions were filed with the County of Roanoke and the City of Roanoke and with the Circuit Courts thereof and certain Orders were entered by said courts directing the governing bodies of the County of Roanoke and the City of Roanoke to initiate consolidation proceedings pursuant to said section, and, WHEREAS, over the past twelve months Consolidation Negotiating Teams have held more than twenty-five negotiating sessions on behalf of the County and City and have developed a consolidation agreement in accordance with said Orders and the provisions of Article 4, Chapter 26, of Title 15.1, of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and, WHEREAS, numerous citizens have participated in a series of workshops to develop and comment upon the proposed consolidation agreement, and, WHEREAS, after legal notice provided as required by Section 15.1-1137, of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, public hearings were held by the City Council for the City of Roanoke and the Board of Supervisors for the County of Roanoke on February 20. 1990, and all citizens desiring to speak on this February 27, 1990 125 agreement and the adoption of this resolution have been provided an opportunity to do so, and; WHEREAS, the County Consolidation Negotiating Team of Bob L. Johnson, Harry C. Nickens, and Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney, have recommended to the Board of Supervisors that such Consolidation Agreement be accepted by the Board, executed on behalf of the County and filed with the Circuit Courts for the City and the County on or before February 28, 1990. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Chairman and the members of the County's Consolidation Negotiating Team are hereby authorized, for and on behalf of the County to execute and the Clerk to the Board to attest, a Consolidation Agreement between the City and the County, dated February 28, 1990, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board. 2. That the Chairman and the Clerk to the Board are hereby authorized to execute a petition on behalf of the Board of Supervisors praying that the Circuit Courts for the City and the County order that a referendum be held with respect to the Consolidation Agreement pursuant to Section 9 of such Agreement. 3. That the Chairman and the Clerk to the Board are hereby authori~ed, for and on behalf of the County, to execute and attest, respectively, an Agreement between the City, the County and the Town of vinton (hereinafter "Town"), such Agreement being attached to the Consolidation Agreement as 126 February 27, 1990 - Exhibit D and incorporated by reference therein and providing for expansion of the boundaries of the Town and the respective powers, rights, and authorities of the Town and the consolidated government (Roanoke Metropolitan Government) vis-a-vis each other. c::::;:: 4. That the Chairman and the Clerk to the Board are hereby authorized, for and on behalf of the County to execute and attest, respectively, such ancillary petitions, pleadings, applications, certificates and other legal papers as shall be necessary to permit the question of consolidation to be placed on the ballot at referendum to be held on November 6, 1990. 5. That all agreements, contracts, and other legal documents authorized by this ordinance shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. 6. That the County Attorney shall be authorized to file, for and on behalf of the County, any petitions, pleadings, applications, certificates and other legal papers with Federal and state courts and administrative agencies as are deemed necessary and proper by him to permit the question of consolidation to be considered at referendum on November 6, 1990. 7. That the Clerk to the Board is directed to forward an attested copy of this ordinance to the Clerk of the Council of the City of Roanoke, the Clerk of the Vinton Town Council, the Clerk of the City of Salem Council, and the Judges of the Circuit Courts for the City and the County. On motion of Supervisor Johnson, and carried by the February 27, 1990 12 7 - fu11uw.im::J recorded vot:e: AYES: NAYS: Supervisors McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers Supervisor Eddy ~ Approval of Public Private Partnership Policy R-22790-1 Economic Development Director Tim Gubala presented the report. He advised that this policy will allow Roanoke County to encourage economic development by funding all or part of certain pUblic improvement costs such as roads and off-site facility fees for water and sewer for qualifying industries such as manufacturing, processing or assembling with a minimum of 10 full time employees or major employers initially employing 250 full time employees. The County Attorney, County Administrator and utility Director worked together to establish the procedures. In response to a question from Supervisor McGraw, Mr. Gubala advised that funding in the economic development fund is $100,000 with $38,000 left this fiscal year. Supervisor McGraw asked for a comparison of economic development funds between Roanoke City and Roanoke County during the budget process. Mr. Guba1a replied to a question from Supervisor Eddy that the staff and Mr. Hodge would be authorized to approve a partnership with a payback of less than three years. A partnership agreement over three years must be approved by the Board. Mr. Hodge advised that he felt more comfortable receiving authorization to the Board. ~'2.ß February 27, 1990 superv~sor Johnson advised that he did not wish funds from the utility Fund to be used for this policy, and asked that --- --- only economic development funds be used. Supervisor Robers moved to adopt the prepared resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None RESOLUTION 22790-1 ADOPTING A PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP POLICY FOR ENCOURAGING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN ROANOKE COUNTY WHEREAS, the expenditure of public funds for the general purpose of promoting Roanoke County's commercial, industrial, and business development is a lawful, valid, public purpose; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 81286-169 authorizes the payment of a portion of the total water connection fee by resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, for certain commercial or industrial projects which are determined to be in the best interests of the County's economic development and which generate significant employment; and WHEREAS, the adoption of a policy to specify certain guidelines for the application of this provision will prove beneficial in determining the scope of local incentives in negotiations for economic development projects. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: February 27, 1990 12 9 - 1. Tnat the Board hereby adopts and establishes the following "Roanoke County Public-Private Partnership Policy" in order to provide policy guidance in applying the provisions of the Roanoke County Code in negotiations concerning local incentives for economic development projects. ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP POLICY Purpose: Roanoke County may fund all or part of public site development costs, roads, and off site facility fees for water and sewer for: a) qualifying industry that is manufacturing, processing or assembling a product with a minimum employment of ten full time employees; or b) a major employer initially employing 250 full time jobs. Determination: A company may apply for County assistance by addressing a letter to the Director of Economic Development that indicates: a. manufacturing, processing, or assembly to be conducted on the site b. total capital investment in real estate (land, building) machinery and tools and anticipated personal property c. total employment and annual payroll d. specific water and sewer needs (i.e., size line and/or capacity) e. date of construction and/or start-up (if in an existing building). f. if applicable, the terms of any lease to insure that the company will occupy the building during the period calculated for payback. The Director of Economic Development, upon consultation with the County Administrator and other County staff, will review the request for participation to determine the extent of Roanoke County's funding. The County may either partially or fully fund participation in the project. If after calculation of anticipated taxes (real estate, machinery and tools and personal property), payback will occur within three years, the County may fully fund off-site facility fees for the project. A payback formula which compares new company taxes and public costs will be 13 0 -~ February 27, 1990 - used. '-- --- If payback is between three and five years, the County's participation shall be limited to 50%. A recommendation for participation shall be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration of approval. Areas of Assistance: If approved, Roanoke County may fund all, or part of, a. off-site facility fees for water and sewer b. pUblic access roads Off-site fees of jointly developed parks shall not be held as a portion of the total cost of the project and thus not a portion of the payback equation. Such assistance shall be funded after the approval of the required site plan and at the time a building permit is issued for the project. Limitations: Roanoke County will not pay for any private sewage pre treatment facilities or waive any ordinances requiring fire protection or industrial discharge certification. Fundinq sources: Roanoke County shall fund its participation from the General Fund from anticipated tax revenue, or from an Economic Development Fund or other special non-utility funds. There is an intent to continue the maintenance of a fiscally sound utility enterprise fund to provide water and sewer service to County utility customers. (This provision is authorized by County Code Chapter 22 as amended by Ordinance 8-12-86-169, Section 3b.) Aqreement: A written agreement on a form provided by the County Attorney may be required to specify terms of the Public-Private Partnership. 2. That this Resolution establishing and adopting this Policy shall be in full force and effect from and after February 27, 1990. On motion of Supervisor Johnson, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None February 27, 1990 1 J 1 - 3. APproval of fund1nq for Water Line Construction to InQersoll-Rand. A-22790-2 utility Director Clifford Craig reported that Ingersoll Rand has now presented a site plan and a water line can be designed to provide water to the facility. The line will serve the Ingersoll-Rand site, the balance of the Shamrock site and approximately 25 acres on the left of Daugherty Road. The cost is estimated at $46,000 with funds available in the water Off- site Facility Fund. Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the funding. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None IN RE: REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSION Supervisor Johnson asked that the School Board bring their problems regarding this year's budget to the Budget Work Session on March 20, 1990 and would like advance information available for the work session. IN RE: REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING FOR REZONING ORDINANCE - CONSENT AGENDA supervisor Nickens moved to approve first reading and requests for public hearings. The motion carried by the 13 2. : February 27, 1990 - following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: IN RE: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers None 1. An ordinance granting a Use Not Provided for Permit for an open air market located at 3704 Brambleton Avenue in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the request of E. E. Carter. 2. An ordinance to rezone a 1.83 acre parcel from B-1 Conditional to B-1 Conditional (Amendment of Signage Proffers), located on Route 419, adjacent to Sugar Loaf Farms and Orander Park, in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the request of Hong Ki Min. 3. An ordinance to amend the Future Land Use Plan map designation of approximately 1.0 acre from Neighborhood Conservation to Transition, and to rezone said property from R-1 to B-1 for office use, located at 5304 Malvern Road in the Hollins Magisterial District, upon the request of Irwin Warren Simpson. 4. An ordinance to rezone a 2.85 acre parcel from B-2 Conditional To B-2 Conditional (Amendment of Signage Proffers) located at the northeastern corner of Peters Creek Road and Woodhaven Drive in the Hollins Magisterial District, upon the request of Hop-In Food Stores, Inc. An ordinance to rezone a 0.67 acre parcel from B-2 Conditional to B-2 Conditional (Amendment of Signage Proffers), located at the northeastern corner of Glen Heather Dr. and Route 419, in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District upon the request of Hop- In Food Stores, Inc. 5. ,. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of easements February 27, 1990 133 - for a water line proiect. Bonsack Industrial Park. = County Attorney Paul Mahoney presented the staff report and advised these easements are needed for an economic development project. Second reading will be March 13, 1990. Supervisor Robers moved to approve first reading of the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Robers announced that there will be a major conference at VPI&SU regarding the "Smart" Highway on April 24, 1990. Attending will be personnel from General Motors, Ford Motor Company, Motorola, MIT and the University of California, Berkeley. He also discussed with the Principal of the Governor's School the possibility of sending students and teachers to the conference. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA Supervisor Eddy requested a separate vote on Item 1. Supervisor Johnson moved to approve Items 2 - 4. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None Supervisor Johnson moved to approve Item 1. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers 13 4 February 27, 1990 NAYS: None 1==== t:::=: ABSTAIN: Supervisor~,ddy RESOLUTION APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM L- CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. that the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for February 27, 1990 designated as Item L - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 4, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of Minutes - July 11, 1989 2. Request from Bent Mountain Women's Club to use the Old Bent Mountain Fire Station. 3. Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the Grievance Panel, Health Department Board of Directors, and Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee. 4. Approval of Raffle Permit - Roanoke County School Food Service Chapter. 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. IN RE: REPORTS February 27, 1990 13 5 ----; = Supervisor Nickens moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None 1. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Income Analysis and Statement of Expenditures for seven months ending January 31, 1990 - 5. Accounts Paid - January 1990 IN RE: RECESS At 3:35 p.m., Chairman Robers declared a recess. IN RE: RECONVENEMENT At 4:00 p.m., Chairman Robers reconvened the meeting. IN RE: WORK SESSION h Proposed Siqn Ordinance Mr. Hodge reported that he felt the proposed sign ordinance was a good ordinance. He suggested that the sign industry people present their concerns and then the staff can work with their concerns prior to the public hearing scheduled for March 27, 1990. Neil Kinsey presented a report showing where the sign industry differed with the Planning Commission and Sign 1 3 6 ~~ February 27, 1990 Sub~ummlttee'5 recommendations. Tney requested that the term = b::: "taxable value" be replaced with "fair market value". He presented other changes that they requested to the proposed ordinance. A lengthy discussion on the changes followed. Larry Etzler spoke concerning the ordinance as it pertains to temporary signs and requested changes regarding the size of signs and the time limits to display temporary signs. Mr. Turner from Dominion Signs also discussed using taxable value rather than fair market value for amortization. He questioned the legality of using taxable value. He also questioned the legality of section (2) (d) of the proposed ordinance and advised he had an opinion declaring it illegal and unenforceable. There was also a discussion on the separation between freestanding signs. A developer was present to show examples where the limited signage could hurt development of property. Regarding the issue of taxation of signs, Mr. Mahoney advised that the County taxes signs based on their fair market value, so the burden of proof regarding the fair taxation of signs would rest with the sign industry. Following discussion of the ordinance, Don Witt of the Planning Commission advised that the Planning staff would respond to some of the concerns expressed by the sign industry, but many of their suggestions had already been reviewed by the planning staff and planning commission and they do not agree. The Board members asked Mr. Hodge to respond to the February 27, 1990 137 -, concerns in a format similar to that presented by the sign industry and bring back to the Board at first reading of the ordinance on March 13, 1990. - IN RE: RECESS There being no Executive Session, Supervisor McGraw moved to recess for dinner at 5:20 p.m. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. EVENING SESSION (7:00 P.M.) IN RE: RECONVENEMENT At 7:03 p.m., Chairman Robers reconvened the meeting. IN RE: REQUEST FROM CITIZENS TO SPEAK REGARDING "NO LEFT TURN" SIGNS IN BOXLEY HILLS SUBDIVISION Chairman Robers turned the meeting over to Supervisor Johnson for purpose of discussion of the No Left Turn signs at the Boxley Hills subdivision. Supervisor Johnson reviewed the history of problems surrounding the cruising problems in that community. He originally requested that the Virginia Department of Transportation place the No Left Turn signs on Williamson Road in response to a series of meetings and petitions received from over 190 people asking for help in relieving them from the negative impact of cruising in their neighborhood. The signs were not meant to keep people from legally accessing their homes, but to keep cruisers out of the neighborhood. He announced he had received many letters expressing appreciation from citizens who 13 8 February 27, 1990 felt that this action had helped. ~ - The following citizens spoke concerning the impact of the signs: 1. Tom Runions, 802 Commander Drive, spoke in opposition to the signs and stated he had conducted a survey that showed 9 people supporting the signs and 316 against the signs. He also reported that many residents in the community had received tickets for making the illegal turn into their community. 2. Alvin Early, 813 RaYmond Avenue N. W., asked why the people in the Ma1vern Hills area did not receive literature regarding this issue. He spoke in opposition to the signs and asked that all of them be removed. 3. David Clark, pilot Corporation, 5611 Williamson Road, spoke in opposition to the signs because of the adverse impact to his business as a result of cruisers turning around on his property. 4. C. P. Lockhart, 827 Commander Drive, spoke in opposition to the signs. 5. Thomas Elmore, 5815 Darby Road, spoke in support of keeping the signs. He described what the residents on Darby Road had to contend with from the cruisers. He asked that the signs remain until another solution is found. 6. Sally Van Lear, 729 Palmyra Drive, spoke in opposition to the signs and advised that the cruising does not impact the entire neighborhood but only a minority. ¡ February 27, 1990 13 9 ~ 7. Harry Withers, 5734 Thornrose N. W., spoke in support of the signs and questioned the accuracy of the survey that was turned in because he wasn't asked to sign. 8. Virginia Jones, 5619 Darby Road, spoke in support of the signs. 9. Ron Blandy, 810 Commander Drive, spoke in opposition to the signs and advised that many people have been ticketed as a result of the signs. He asked that all signs be removed. Mr. Hodge pointed out that the signs were installed to help the residents and spoke in support of the deputies who were ticketing. Supervisor Nickens pointed out that the citizens who were ticketed had deliberately ignored the law. Supervisor McGraw spoke in support of Supervisor Johnson's efforts to alleviate the problem. Supervisor Eddy advised that he was not knowledgeable about the background of the situation and was unsure how to vote. He suggested further research. Supervisor Johnson described the efforts that he, the Virginia Department of Transportation and staff had done to solve the problem including researching ordinances aimed at eliminating cruising. He pointed out that the No Left Turns were only in force for 18 hours per week. \ Supervisor Johnson moved to ask the Virginia Department of Transportation to remove the signs at Ma1vern and Commander and that the sign on Darby remain. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: 14 0 February 27, 1990 AX~~: SU~~Lvl~urs McGraw, Johnson, HODers '-- NAYS: Supervisor Nickens ABSTAIN: Supervisor Eddy IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (PUBLIC HEARING 290-1 WAS HEARD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1990) 290-2 Ordinance to amend the Future Land Use Plan Map designation of approximately 54 acres located west of Hollins Road and south of Lois Lane in the Hollins Magisterial District from Development to Principal Industrial and to change the zoning classification R-1 to the Zoning Classification M-1 for industrial purposes upon the application of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County. (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 19, 1989.) 0-22790-5 Planner Jon Hartley presented the staff report. He reported on the concerns highlighted by staff. Regarding the amendment to the Land Use Plan, the staff felt the factors support the change. The concerns regarding the rezoning included the lack of public road access to the site, the possibility for significant air pollution on the surrounding residential area, and the possibility of noise pollution because the staff does not know what will go on the site. Six conditions have been proffered. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning and amendment to the Land Use Plan by a 4-0-1 vote. Supervisor Johnson expressed concern about the number of low ratings on the staff report because of the lack of knowledge of what industry will locate on the site, but felt that the proffers will address some of the problems. February 27, 1990 14 1 = In response to a question from Supervisor Eddy, Mr. Hartley explained that while they can recommend conditions, the property owner must agree to any conditions. Gail Boyer, 1209 Beaumont Road N. E., representing the Hollins Action League, spoke in opposition to the rezoning because of the devaluation of property, bad road conditions and lack of knowledge of what industry will go on the property. She questioned the legality of rezoning property without an option to buy. Mr. Mahoney advised that a governing body has the right to rezone any property. Supervisor Johnson moved to grant the petition. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None ORDINANCE 22790-5 TO AMEND THE FU'.l'URE LAND USE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 54 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF HOLLINS ROAD AND SOUTH OF LOIS LANE IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM DEVELOPMENT TO PRINCIPAL INDUSTRIAL AND TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION R-1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION M-1 WITH CONDITIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES UPON THE APPLICATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. WHEREAS, by Resolution 91289-4 the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, initiated amendments to the 14 2 February 27, 1990 CUlI1FL~h~,m:ilve PIClO Clod to the classifications of cert:ain rea~ ,= t::= estate located in Roanoke County to serve the pUblic purposes of the County as required by public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice to implement the recommendations of the Economic Development Action Plan for FY 1989-90; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 24, 1989, and the second reading and public hearing was held on December 19, 1989; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a pUblic hearing on this matter on November 9, 1989; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Future Land Use Plan map designation of a certain tract of real estate containing approximately 54 acres, as described herein, owned by Friendship Manor and located west of Hollins Road and south of Lois Lane in the Hollins Magisterial District be changed from Development to Principal Industrial; and 2. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing approximately 54 acres, as described herein, owned by Friendship Manor and located west of Hollins Road and south of Lois Lane in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of R1, Single- February 27, 1990 14 3 ¥am~lY Res~dentia1 District, to the zoning classification of Ml, ~ Light Industrial District. 3. That the Board initiated the application to change the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning classification of this real estate located in Roanoke County to serve the public purposes of the County as required by public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice to implement the recommendations of the Economic Development Action Plan for FY 1989-90. 4. That the applicant has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts: a. The following permitted uses will not be allowed: b. c. d. 5. That i. flea markets ii. commercial laundries and dry cleaning iii. commercial kennels iv. seed and feed stores v. manufacture of pottery, etc. vi. automobile repair, etc. Type "E" screening where adjacent to residential uses. Noise levels to be limited to 60 decibels when measured at adjacent residence. Dust mitigation measures during site development and construction. said real estate is more fully described as follows: Beginning at an iron pin set in the right- of-way line of Hollins Road, State Route 601 (Old Route 115); thence with the right-of- way line of Hollins Road, S. SO 54' 20" W. 14 4 February 27, 1990 - 2~/.3~ reet; tnence S. 8~ 23' 40" W. 467.04 feet; thence on a curve bearing S. 110 50' 54" W., a tanqent of 286.36 feet on a radius of 2,759.65 feet, an arch distance of 570.67 feet, with a chord bearing of S. 140 19' 7" W., and a cord distance of 569.66 feet, to an iron pin at the corner to property of David W. Hinman; thence with the Hinman line S. 450 44' W. 347.33 to an iron pin set; thence N. 380 45' 00" W. 117.00 feet to an iron pin set; thence S. 300 45' 00" W. 296.00 feet to an iron pin set; thence S. 590 15' 00" E. 67.50 feet to an iron pin set; thence N. 400 22' 00" E. 42.00 feet to an iron pin set; thence S. 490 38' 00" E. 14.00 feet to an iron pin set; thence S. 410 00" W. 351.25 feet to a corner post¿ thence continuinq with the Hinman line N. 32 30'" W. 1,122.00 feet to an iron pin set in the line of RaYmond B. and Hammer W. Meador near a 36-inch white oak; thence with the Meador line N. 390 23' 40" E. 304.38 feet to a post; thence N. 10 03' 00" W. 115.5 feet to an iron pin; thence N. 830 35' 00" W. 107.18 feet to a corner of the property of H. H. Meador located in the middle of Tinker Creek; thence with the line of H. H. Meador continuing upstream bisecting Tinker Creek N. 80 36' 40" W. 150.00 feet to a point; thence N. 70 23' 20" E. 100 feet to a point; thence N. 120 23' 20" E. to a point; thence 417.00 feet to a point in the median line of Tinker Creek, a corner to property of Ethel B. Stokes; thence continuing upstream bisecting Tinker Creek N. 150 59' 40" E. 207.95 feet to a point; thence N. 240 19' 00" E. 199.75 feet; thence N. 00 22' 00" E. 130.89 feet to an iron pin set at the base of a 36" sycamore tree on the bank of Tinker Creek in the property line of Mattie B. Dowdy's heirs; thence with the line of the Dowdy heirs, S. 720 42' 00" E. 123.75 feet to an iron pin set; thence S. 790 12' 00" E. 300.30 feet to an iron pin set adjacent to the edge of an old farm road; thence continuing with the line of the Dowdy heirs and property of James G. and Marian F. Kelly, S. 690 42' 00" E. 342.70 feet to an iron pin set at the corner of properties of Minnie B. Nichols and Josephine L. Showalter and Ester S. Rhodes; thence continuing with the line of Showalter and Rhodes, S. 22 28' 00" W. = February 27, 1990 1; 5 - = 515.70 feet to the point and place of beginn- ing; containing 52.11 acres as shown a plat of survey dated March 2, 1976, prepared by Buford T. Lumsden and Associates, C.L.S., to which reference is hereby expressly made for a more particularly description of the property herein expressed. 6. That the effective date of this ordinance shall be February 27, 1990. On motion of Supervisor Johnson, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None 290-3 Ordinance to amend the Future Land Use Plan map designation of approximately 105 acres from Development to Principal Industrial and to rezone said property from R-E to M-1 for industrial development located between Route 11/460 and Carson Road in the Hollins Magisterial District, upon the application of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County. 0-22790-6 Mr. Hartley presented the staff report and advised this was similar to the previous rezoning. He advised that it has been identified as a potential industrial site and has access to a primary road. The staff's major concern was the issue of access and on-site circulation. This has been addressed in the proffers. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the change to the land use designation and the rezoning request by a vote of 4 to 1. Supervisor Eddy noted that Mr. Winstead of the Planning Commission voted against this rezoning and recommended a corridor 1 4 6 .. February 27, 1990 study of the Route 4bO area ana ne supported th~s action. .~ = Supervisor Johnson responded that he did not feel this was necessary and would take a large amount of staff time. Mr. Hodge recommended going forward with this rezoning and addressing funding of a corridor study in the budget process. Supervisor moved to Johnson. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McGraw, JOhnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: Supervisor Eddy ORDINANCE 22790-6 TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 105 ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN ROUTE 11/460 AND CARSON ROAD IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM DEVELOP- MENT TO PRINCIPAL INDUSTRIAL AND TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM RE TO THE ZONING CLASS- IFICATION M1 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY WHEREAS, by Resolution 91289-4 the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, initiated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and to the classifications of certain real estate located in Roanoke County to serve the public purposes of the County as required by public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice to implement the recommendations of the Economic Development Action Plan for FY 1989-90; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 19, 1989, and the second reading and public hearing February 27, 1990 14 7 was held on l"eoruary 27, 1990; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a pUblic hearing on this matter on January 3, 1990; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Future Land Use Plan map designation of a certain tract of real estate containing approximately 105 acres, as described herein, owned by Fralin & Waldron Inc. and located between Route 11/460 and Carson Road in the Hollins Magisterial District be changed from Development to Principal Industrial; and - 2. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing approximately 105 acres, as described herein, owned by Fralin & Waldron Inc. and located between Route 11/460 and Carson Road in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of RE, Residential Estate District, to the zoning classification of M1, Light Industrial District. 3. That the Board initiated the application to change the zoning classification of this real estate located in Roanoke County to serve the public purposes of the County as required by public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice to implement the recommendations of the Economic Development Action Plan for FY 1989-90. 14 8 February 27, 1990 - 4. That the applicant nas VOluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors - hereby accepts: a. The property will not include permitted uses for: i. Manufacture of pottery and figurines or other similar ceramic products; ii. Veterinary hospital and commercial kennels with exterior runs and yards; iii. Outside flea markets, unless a special exception has been granted by the Board of Supervisors. b. That all 10cational signage [Sec. 21-93(D)] will be aesthetically pleasing and be no more than forty (40) square feet in sign face and no more than eight (S) feet in height. Outdoor advertising signs (billboards) will be prohibited. c. That all utilities will be underground. d. That there will be no on-street parking. e. That there will be sufficient truck loading spaces designed for each building site, as necessary. f. That the Petitioner will evaluate the drainage situation for the subject tracts and implement a design for drainage facilities to either retain or detain the two (2) year storm (as required by Roanoke County) and the retention or detention for a ten (10) year storm. g. That primary access to the property will be limited to Route 460. h. Building placement and parking will be designed to not impede the future widening of one additional lane along Routes 460 and 758. i. Should out-parcels be subdivided along Route 460 frontage (Parcel A), access will be February 27, 1990 14 9 - j. k. m. provided via an internal road network plan utilizing the existing median cut on Route 460. Type E (Option 2) buffer and screening requirements will be provided between Parcel "A" and single-family residences. All Roanoke County screening and buffering requirements will be implemented as specific development occurs. 1. Existing oak trees on Parcel "A" will be preserved to the extent allowing for feasible development of the subject parcel. All internal thoroughfares will be designed and constructed to VDOT standards for future dedication. Dust mitigation controls will be implemented during site excavation activities. The developer will cooperate with the Roanoke County utility Department to provide necessary utility easement(s) for a sanitary sewer submain along Route 758 (Carson Road) at a mutually agreed upon location. 5. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Parcel 1 n. BEGINNING at a point on the southerly line of U. S. Route 460 (Variable R/W), said point being the northwesterly corner of property now or formerly James L. Swortzel (D.B. 764, page 596); thence with the southerly line of U. S. Route 460, the following five distances: N. 420 48' 15" E. 583.03 feet; N. 540 06' 05" E. 102.19 feet; N. 290 36' 10" E. 153.33 feet; N. 580 23' 40" E. 260.62 feet; N. 360 07' 10" E. 321.02 feet to a point, being on the westerly line of property of Valley Reformed Presbyterian Church (D.B. 1105, page 512); thence with the same, the following two distances: S. 420 23' 30" E. 367.84 feet; and N. 470 36' 30" E. 605.02 feet to a point in the center of Virginia Route 758; thence with the same, the 15 0 February 27, 1990 to~~owing eleven d~stances: s. 28° 11' 05" E. 40.86 feet to a point of curve; thence with a curved line to the left, whose radius is 385.08 feet, and whose chord bearing and distance is S. 330 53' 25" E. 76.57 feet, an arc distance of 76.70 feet to another curve; thence with a curved line to the right, whose radius is 837.10 feet, and whose chord bearing and distance is S. 330 30' 40" E. 177.48 feet, an arc distance of 177.81 feet to another curve; thence with a curved line to the right, whose radius is 6197.83 feet, and whose chord bearing and distance is S. 260 37' 40" E. 172.77 feet, an arc distance of 172.78 feet to another curve; thence with a curved line to the right, whose radius is 369.04 feet, and whose chord bearing and distance is S. 15° 14' 05" E. 135.70 feet, an arc distance of 136.48 feet to a point; thence S. 040 38' 25" E. 70.83 feet to a point; thence with a curved line to the left, whose radius is 236.27 feet, and whose chord bearing and distance is S. 140 22' 00" E. 79.84 feet, an arc distance of 80.22 feet to a point; thence S. 240 05' 40" E. 161.25 feet to a point; thence with a curved line to the left, whose radius is 409.56 feet, and whose chord bearing and distance is S. 390 59' 55" E. 224.47 feet, an arc distance of 227.38 feet to a point; thence S. 550 54' 10" E. 133.15 feet to a point; thence with a curved line to the right, whose radius is 421.97 feet, and whose chord bearing and distance is S. 480 22' 10" E. 110.65 feet, an arc distance of 110.97 feet to a point; thence leaving Virginia Route 758, and with the northerly line of property of Roanoke County (D.B. 1285, page 1524), S. 610 06' 54" W. 201.30 feet to a point; thence S. 280 53' 05" E. 100.00 feet to a point on the northerly line of otis C. Chambers, et ux (D.B. 467, page 252); thence with same, S. 610 06' 54" W. 336.77 feet to a point; thence S. 310 49' 10" E. 740.29 feet to a point on the aforesaid Virginia Route 758; thence with the same, the following four distances: S. 230 03' 10" W. 104.70 feet; S. 210 12' 50" W. 172.94 feet; with a curved line to the right, whose radius is 307.83 feet, and whose chord bearing and distance is S. 340 19' 45" W. 139.70 feet, an arc distance of 140.93 feet = February 27, 1990 15 1 = to a point; thence S. 47v 26' 40" W., crossing the centerline of a 20 foot waterline easement at 268.90 feet, in all 417.95 feet to a point; thence N. 510 57' 30" W. 232.09 feet to a point; thence S. 860 43' 50" W. 294.09 feet to a point; thence S. 810 46' 55" W. 179.24 feet to a point; thence with the northerly line of property of I. J. Bower, et ux. (D.B. 712, page 302), S. 670 22' 50" W. 942.82 feet to a point on line of property now or formerly Joel J. Ewen (D.B. 1449, page 737, Roanoke City); thence N. 210 35' 00" W. 565.59 feet to a point on the southerly line of property of Jack Wa1drond (D.B. 996, page 719); thence with the same, N. 710 16' 00" E. 201.70 feet; thence N. 010 29' 30" W. 1347.57 feet to a point; thence with the northerly line of aforesaid Swortze1, S. 790 29' 35" W. 268.07 feet to the place of beginning, and known as Tract A, containing 104.27 acres, as more fully shown on a survey of Dr. Richard Lowe Property for Fralin & Waldron Properties, prepared by Robert S. Lang, Land Surveyor, dated August 1988. TOGETHER with that certain 60-foot wide non- exclusive easement across property of Trustees of Valley Reformed Presbyterian Church of America, as reserved by Richard H. Lowe, Jr., in deed recorded in Deed Book 1253, page 74. Parcel 2 BEGINNING at a point on the southerly side of u. S. Route 460 (Variable R/W) at its intersection with the centerline of Virginia Route 758; thence continuing with the centerline of Virginia Route 758, S. 220 12' 55" E. 241.32 feet to a point; thence leaving Virginia Route 758, S. 540 20' 54" W. 163.89 feet to a point; thence N. 190 03' 10" W. 244.90 feet to a point on the southerly side of U. S. Route 460; thence with the same, N. 540 20' 30" E. 150.00 feet to the Place of Beginning, and known as Tract B, containing 0.846 acre, as more fully shown on the aforesaid Survey of Dr. Richard Lowe Property for Fralin & Waldron Properties, prepared by Robert S. Lang, Land Surveyor, dated August 152 February 27, 1990 1988. ~ -------- February 27, 1990. 6. That the effective date of this ordinance shall be On motion of Supervisor JOhnson, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: Supervisor Eddy 290-4 290-5 0-22790-7 An Ordinance to amend the Future Land Use Map designation of a 53.44 acre tract from Development to Principal Industrial and to rezone said property from R-E to M-1 for industrial development, located east of West Ruritan Road and north of Homestead Lane, Hollins Magisterial District upon the request of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. (PETITIONER REQUESTED CONTINUANCE TO MARCH 27, 1990) An ordinance to amend the Future Land Use Map designation of a 24.09 acre tract from Rural Village to Principal Industrial, and to conditionally rezone said property from M-2 to M-3 to construct and operate an asphalt batch mix plant, and east of the Blue Ridge Parkway in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the request of Virginia Asphalt Paving Co., Inc. Mr. Hartley presented the staff report. Significant impact factors included the surrounding land uses such as the Blue Ridge Parkway and the rural nature of the area. The Blue Ridge Parkway did not take an official position but the tower to be constructed could be visible from the parkway. Residents spoke at the Planning Commission expressing concerns about the February 27, 1990 15 3 - no~se, beepers, and potential health risks from air and odor - generated from the plant. The Planning Commission expressed concerns about the Blue Ridge Parkway and groundwater issues and inconsistency with the current land use designation of Rural Village. Proffered conditions were offered by the petitioner to address the noise and air pollution. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the land use amendment by a 5-0 vote but recommended approval of the rezoning by a 3-2 vote. Mike Pace, attorney for the petitioner advised that the property was originally rezoned M-2 to permit Virginia Asphalt to construct its offices and shop facilities on the property. They are now requesting rezoning to M-3 to consolidate their business and build an asphalt plant on the property. He pointed out that the facility will be shielded from the residents by the topography. He described conditions that the petitioner was willing to proffer to address the noise and air pollution such as installation of noise reduction devices, installation of dust control devices, screening and buffering, location of the plant and painting of the facility to blend with the environment. He advised that the staff received a letter from the National Parks Service, but Virginia Asphalt had met with the Parkway District Ranger who visited the site and felt that the Parkway should have no objection to the rezoning. The following citizens spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning citing noise and air pollution, odor and dirt 15 4 February 27, 1990 from the proposea tac~l~ty; ~ncreased traffic, negative health - = factors caused by the pollution, and potential drainage problems. l. Mary Ann Wyrick, 3519 Buck Mountain Road 2. Arthur Hale, 3797 Sand1ewood Road 3. Kindie Austin, 3795 Sand1ewood Road 4. Irene Janney, 3617 Sand1ewood Road 5. Mamie Austin, 3795 Sand1ewood Road 6. Don Wo1thuis, attorney representing the residents of the C1earbrook community, expressed concern about the enforceability of the proffered conditions in addition to the other concerns. Mr. Pace rebutted that the petitioners were aware of the concerns and that the proffered conditions were designed to address the situations expressed. He reminded that the property is currently zoned industrial and the petitioners would just like to expand their business. Supervisor Robers moved to deny the petition because it was incompatible with the present Rural Village Designation. Supervisor Johnson advised that he felt the site of the proposed rezoning was better than the present site. In response to a question from Supervisor JOhnson, Mr. Hartley replied that the concept plan was not a proffered condition although the petitioner has indicted the location of the plant. Associate Planner Tim Beard described the previous dumping problem on the site and that the petitioners solved the problem to his satisfaction. February 27, 1990 15 5 - supervisor McGraw also expressed concern about maintaining the current Rural Village land use designation. Supervisor Johnson pointed out that the site could still be developed as an industrial site under its present M-2 zoning. Supervisor Robers' motion to deny the rezoning carried = by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Robers NAYS: Supervisors Johnson, Nickens DENIAL OF ORDINANCE 22790-7 TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 24.09 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF BUCK MOUNTAIN ROAD AND EAST OF THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM RURAL VILLAGE TO PRINCIPAL INDUSTRIAL AND TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM M2 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION M3 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF VIRGINIA ASPHALT PAVING CO., INC. WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 23, 1990, and the second reading and public hearing was held on February 27, 1990; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a pUblic hearing on this matter on January 3, 1990; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: On motion of Supervisor Robers, and carried by the ,56 -4 February 27, 1990 ~ following recorded vote: = AYES: NAYS: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Robers Supervisors JOhnson, Nickens IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS 290-6 Public Hearing to elicit comment on Pinkard Court Community Development Block Grant application. R-22790-8 Associate Planner Janet Scheid presented the report explaining that the Pinkard Court neighborhood was identified several years ago as needing community improvements. A community improvement Grant has been prepared that includes water system improvements, sanitary sewer construction drainage system construction, road construction and improvements and housing rehabilitation. The total amount of the project costs are $872,000 including $23,000 in administration costs and building permit costs. The Community Development Grant funds will be $700,000. She reviewed the other costs associated with the project. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the grant application and resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, JOhnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None RESOLUTION 22790-8 SUPPORTING THE SUBMITTAL OF A VIRGINIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION February 27, 1990 15 7 - = FOR THE PINKARD COURT COMMUNITY WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors had adopted policies aimed at promoting community development improvements in the County, and has directed the staff to prepare programs aimed at implementing these policies, and WHEREAS, staff has conducted a community needs assessment and ranked communities on the basis of needs, and WHEREAS, in this assessment the Hollins community ranked first and the Pinkard Court community ranked second, and WHEREAS, the Hollins community development project has been completed, and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors approved a Virginia Community Development Planning Grant to study the Pinkard Court community, and WHEREAS, the planning study has been completed and found significant community improvement needs, and WHEREAS, funding in addition to the Community Development Block Grant will be obtained from the Virginia Department of Transportation in the amount of $76,200, from previously planned utility improvements in the amount of $56,250 and from Roanoke County in the amount of $16,000, and WHEREAS, the improvements funded by the Community Development Block Grant will result in fifty-two residents receiving new and/or improved water, sewer, drainage, and road systems and thirty-four of these residents have low to moderate 15 8 ~ February 27, 1990 Income levels, ana - t:::=: WHEREAS, seventeen residents (six homes) qualify for housing rehabilitation and two of these homes do not have indoor plumbing facilities. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to public hearings, Roanoke County wishes to apply for $700,000 of Virginia Community Development Block Grant funds for the Pinkard Court community improvement project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Elmer C. Hodge is hereby authorized to sign and submit the appropriate documents for submittal of this Virginia Community Development Block Grant application. Adopted this 27th day of February, 1990. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, MCGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None IN RE: OTHER BUSINESS 1. Extension of Option to purchase the Lloyd ProDerty: Mr. Hodge advised that the proposed purchasers of the 37.86 acre tract located in the City of Salem known as the Lloyd property have asked for a 30 day extension through the end of March 1990. Supervisor Johnson moved to grant the extension. The February 27, 1990 15 9 = ==9 mot~on carr~ed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None Supervisor Nickens requested that the staff and Planning Commission present staff reports regarding proffered conditions in a consistent manner in the future. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT At 10:02 p.m., Supervisor Robers moved to adjourn. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. R~~~~rs, Chairman i== F==