Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/20/2005 - Regular December 20, 2005 1329 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 December 20, 2005 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the third Tuesday and the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of December, 2005. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Michael W. Altizer, Vice-Chairman Michael A. Wray, Supervisors Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Richard C. Flora, Joseph McNamara MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Dan O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk to the Board; Teresa Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by Reverend David Walton, Belmont Christian Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Presentation from the U. S. Marine Corps Reserve Unit and the Marine Corps LeaQue and appropriation of $5.000 proceeds from 1330 December 20, 2005 the 10th annual Marine Mud Run. {Pete Haislip. Director of Parks. Recreation and Tourism} A-122005-1 Mr. Haislip introduced the following individuals representing the Marines: Tom Bedwell, Moses Stevens, William Bowles, and Kevin O'Shea. He also introduced Eddie Ford, Parks Coordinator, and Greg Martin, Camp Roanoke Manager. Mr. Haislip advised that for the past ten years, the Marine Corps League and the Marine Corps Reserve Unit have sponsored the mud run which is the largest run in Western Virginia attracting well over 1,000 runners of all ages. The run was started to generate funds for the Toys for Tots Program and Camp Roanoke, and with the tenth year contribution of $5,000, the total contributions to the County are $49,200. These donations have helped Camp Roanoke move its program forward and Mr. Haislip expressed his appreciation to the Marines. Chairman Altizer expressed appreciation to those present for their efforts and presented certificates of recognition to the representatives present from the Marine Corps Reserve Unit and the Marine Corps League. Each of the supervisors expressed their appreciation to the Marines for their efforts. Mr. Haislip advised that some of the Marine reserve personnel who worked with this event in the past have been mobilized to Afghanistan and Iraq, and he wished them a safe return and best wishes to their families during the holidays. December 20, 2005 1331 Mr. Hodge advised that the Marines present represented many years of service to the country and he expressed his appreciation to them. He advised that a few weeks ago, Fred Doyle, who was a good friend, resident of Roanoke County, and member of this organization, died, and he is missed. Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the staff recommendation (accept and appropriate proceeds in the amount of $5,000 from the 10th annual Marine Corps Mud Run to the Camp Roanoke Fee Class Account). The motion carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 2. ReQuest to approve fundinQ in the amount of $150.000 to desiQn and build ª bay addition at the Back Creek Fire and Rescue station. (Rick Burch. Chief of Fire and Rescue) A-122005-2 Chief Burch advised that the Fire and Rescue Department has included a request to construct a bay addition onto the Back Creek Fire and Rescue station in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) submission for the past several years. He is requesting approval of these funds now because Back Creek Fire and Rescue has offered to share in the construction expense by utilizing funds collected through their citizen donation campaigns and has committed $50,000 toward the bay expansion project. He advised that in 2004, the County partnered with the volunteers at Read 1332 December 20, 2005 Mountain and Botetourt County for a similar project which was very successful. Chief Burch advised that if approved, the $50,000 will be placed in a budget line item and the County's bid process and procedures will be followed. The Back Creek station was built in 1989 and the bay space was designed primarily for fire response. Since the Back Creek station opened, the volunteers have purchased an ambulance and in 2005, they obtained a FEMA grant to purchase a mini-pumper which added to their response capability but also created another vehicle to be housed in the bay area. In November 2005, career staff on a 24 hour/7 day schedule was added to the Back Creek Station which created the need for a second ambulance to provide enhanced coverage and service to the citizens. He advised that staff would like to take advantage of the offer from the volunteers to partner with the County to create another bay to provide safer operations in the Back Creek area. Supervisor Wray asked Chief Burch to update the Board on the current staffing at Back Creek. Chief Burch advised that there are currently three people on duty Monday through Friday, 12 hours a day; at 6:00 p.m. two staff members remain to provide the two-person ambulance cover; and on Saturdays and Sundays, there are two people at the station to operate the ambulance. Supervisor Wray inquired if there was an increase in staffing. Chief Burch advised that four additional personnel were assigned in November 2005 to implement the 24/7 schedule. Supervisor McNamara advised that he would like to thank someone personally from the Back Creek Fire and Rescue Station and stated that when the December 20, 2005 1333 Board has an opportunity to work with volunteers who commit their time and efforts to raising funds, it is worthwhile. Chief Burch advised that Chief Georgoulis from the Back Creek Fire and Rescue was unable to attend the meeting due to other work commitments. Supervisor McNamara stated that it was his opinion that the County needs to revisit the nomenclature used for the minor capital reserve fund. He stated that while he feels it is appropriate to distinguish between major and minor capital funding, when there is $6 million in the County minor capital reserve fund, the word "minor" does not seem appropriate. Supervisor Flora inquired if this was a one-bay addition, what was the size and how much equipment it would hold. Chief Burch advised that it should be able to hold two of the larger pieces and three of the smaller pieces but it has not yet been decided what will be stored in the new bay. Chief Burch advised that he feels that the addition of this bay will cover their immediate needs and they do not anticipate adding any other equipment in the future. Supervisor Flora inquired if the site would be adequate if it is necessary to add another bay in twenty years. Chief Burch advised that he was unsure about the property lines, that there is a steep bank on one side, and adding another bay would decrease the parking area. Mr. Hodge advised that the house next door belongs to the County as part of the fire and rescue property but there is a steep bank on the other side. He reported that the parking area would be impacted and the house would have to be removed in order for an additional expansion. Supervisor 1334 December 20, 2005 Flora advised that he believes that this area of the County is going to be one of the faster growing areas in the coming years and he would like to see long-range planning to prevent the County from having an inadequate facility in the future. He suggested that if it was appropriate, the architectural firm designing this bay could determine if the facility could be expanded; and if land needs to be acquired in the future, that process should be started. Chief Burch advised that they could request the architectural firm to do this. Supervisor Church advised that this progress has been made due to the efforts of everyone, and asked Chief Burch to convey his appreciation to everyone involved, especially the volunteers. Supervisor McNamara moved to approve staff recommendation (appropriate funds in the amount of $150,000 from the Minor County Capital Reserve to combine with the $50,000 commitment from Back Creek Fire and Rescue, Inc. to complete the bay addition). The motion carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 3. ReQuest to contribute funds in the amount of $100.000 to the Town of Vinton for the expansion of the Vinton War Memorial. (Elmer C. HodQe. County Administrator) A-122005-3 December 20, 2005 1335 Mr. Hodge welcomed Bradley Grose, Mayor of the Town of Vinton, and Kevin Boggess, Vinton Town Manager, to the meeting, and advised that the Town is in the process of expanding the Vinton War Memorial. Mr. Hodge advised that the residents of the Town of Vinton are also Roanoke County citizens because in Virginia, towns are considered part of the counties. He pointed out that the relationship between Roanoke County and the Town of Vinton is outstanding, and that the Town provides many services that the County would have to provide at a much greater expense. He advised that expanding the facility will be outstanding because this is one of the few facilities in the area that the County may use without charge. The Town has offered to increase the County's usage, and he recommended approval of the funding. Mayor Grose advised that the War Memorial has been a source of pride to the many County citizens who live in the Vinton area. After sixty years of service, the War Memorial is in dire need of repairs and the renovation and expansion will allow it to be of greater service to the citizens of the County. There is already a great deal of excitement and anticipation about what a major remodel and expansion can produce at the War Memorial. The County's participation will ensure that the Vinton War Memorial will continue to be a source of pride for the citizens of Roanoke County and will be an important community center in Eastern Roanoke County. He advised that he and Town Manager Boggess would be glad to answer any questions. Supervisor Altizer advised that the Town and County partner together in many ways and that the Vinton citizens contribute approximately $11 million per year in 1336 December 20, 2005 personal property and real estate taxes to Roanoke County. He feels that the War Memorial does need a facelift and expansion, and this is another way for the County and the Town to cooperate. The War Memorial is a regional facility that draws many people and if the capacity increases to 220, he would hope that a future State of the County address could be given there. He recommended approval of the funding and advised that this is a worthwhile investment for the County and its citizens. Supervisor Church advised that he never thought of Vinton as anything other than a different area of Roanoke County. He believes that most citizens also feel that Vinton is not separate and as with any of the five districts, when there are needs the Board will do its best to help them financially within reason. He advised that this is a worthwhile endeavor and he thanked Mayor Grose and Mr. Boggess for their assistance. Supervisor Flora advised that he intended to support this action and he would have probably supported two or three times this amount. He advised that not only do the Town and the County governments work cooperatively, the school administrations also partner together. The War Memorial has clearly become an icon in the County and has served a great purpose over the past sixty years, and he thinks it is a very worthwhile cause to update the facility. He thanked the Town officials for giving the County the opportunity to be a partner in this endeavor. Supervisor Wray welcomed the Town officials to the meeting and advised that he perceived Vinton as being a partner with Roanoke County. He advised that December 20, 2005 1337 since Vinton made the commitment of $1.8 million in funding, he thinks that the $100,000 from the County is appropriate. He advised that the War Memorial is a well- known landmark, and he supports the relationship that the County has with the Town and its council members. Supervisor Wray advised that he looks forward to future endeavors and utilizing the facility. He thanked the Town for giving the County the opportunity to participate. Supervisor McNamara advised that he also was glad to participate and that the Town has been generous to the County for utilization of the facility in the past. He has been there many times for functions of the Town and County. He asked for a brief synopsis concerning the renovations. Mayor Grose advised that they plan to maintain the front facade and keep the integrity of the building as much as possible. The expansion will be to the back portion of the building and will enlarge the ballroom to accommodate 220 people. The heating, air conditioning and electrical systems will be upgraded and an elevator will be added if funds permit so that the rooms upstairs and the basement can be used. The smaller library room will have a back hallway entrance and they plan to do some landscaping depending upon the amount of funds available. While they do plan to keep the historic integrity of the front portion of the building, there will be many renovations made and they hope to complete them within a year. They look forward to Roanoke County increasing their use the facility in the future since it will be large enough to 1338 December 20, 2005 accommodate more events. The Town also enJoys the good relationship with the County and it shows that a lot of good things can be accomplished. Supervisor Church inquired if Mr. Boggess would like to update the Board on the papers that he was holding. Mr. Boggess advised that he has the latest version of the architectural drawing of the War Memorial project which incorporates additional landscaping and moving the parking area toward the rear of the facility. Mr. Boggess advised that Mr. Haislip provided great assistance in working through the issue with the Jaycee ballfields which are currently located behind the Vinton War Memorial. The drawing that he has shows the layout if the Jaycee ballfields are relocated to Vinyard Park so the parking area can be increased. He pointed out the significant items on the drawing for the Board members. He also advised that they plan to make some improvements to the parking at the Vinton Library. Supervisor Church advised that he was glad to see the parking area being enhanced and moved because it has been difficult to negotiate the current entrance. Mr. Boggess advised that Richard Rife, architect for the project, and Rod Meador, landscape architect, have done an excellent job and their goal has been to preserve the front facade while increasing the park-like atmosphere and making the facility more functional. Supervisor Church advised that he thought there would be greater utilization of the facility because of the increased accessibility. December 20, 2005 1339 Supervisor Wray inquired about the number of parking spaces. Mr. Boggess advised that according to the drawing, there would be 198 parking spaces and he also believes that there will be increased participation due to the enhanced parking. Supervisor Altizer expressed appreciation to Mr. Haislip for working with the Town to move the ballfields and allow for enhancements to the parking area. He commended the Town officials for their vision. Mayor Grose advised the Town appreciates the efforts of the County and its leadership. Supervisor Altizer moved to approve staff recommendation (appropriate funds in the amount of $100,000 from the Minor County Capital Fund to be used as a contribution to the renovation of the Vinton War Memorial). The motion carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 4. ReQuest to enter into ª contract to serve as fiscal aQent for the Western VirQinia ReQional Jail Authority. (Diane D. Hyatt. Chief Financial Officer) A-122005-4 Ms. Hyatt advised that the Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority has asked the County of Roanoke to serve as fiscal agent for the Authority. At their meeting on December 1, 2005, the Authority voted to approve entering into a contract with the County to provide these services and a copy of this agreement has been provided for 1340 December 20, 2005 the Board members. She reported that the services to be provided by the County of Roanoke include paying bills, handling accounting and auditing, payrolls, and investments. The County will provide monthly financial statements to the Treasurer of the Authority and be responsible for the setup of all of the accounting and payroll procedures, and the filing of bond reimbursements. The bills will be processed for the Authority on a weekly basis, as they are submitted for payment. The Authority has received interim financing bond proceeds of $10 million which are being held in an escrow account and the County will be reimbursed from these bond proceeds. Ms. Hyatt advised that the Authority will usually have a negative cash balance until the monthly reimbursement is received from the escrow account; thereby, in effect using Roanoke County funds for cash float. When the County allocates interest income earned at the end of each month based on the percentage participation in the pooled cash, the Authority will receive a negative allocation. Ms. Hyatt advised that these services will be provided for $60,000 annually and the term of the agreement is from January 1, 2006 to June 30, 2009. At that time, the Authority may be able to handle their own financial operations internally, or they may choose to contract for another period of time with the County. She advised that staff recommends authorizing the County Administrator to enter into a Fiscal Agent Agreement with the Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority in a form approved by the County Attorney. December 20, 2005 1341 Supervisor Wray inquired if this action would require additional staff. Ms. Hyatt responded that it will not. Supervisor Wray advised that he served on the Authority during the past year and with the Authority being located in the County, he feels it is appropriate that the County serve as the fiscal agent. He thanked Ms. Hyatt for the excellent assistance she provided for the financing issues. Supervisor Wray moved to approve staff recommendation (authorize the County Administrator to enter into a Fiscal Agent Agreement with the Western Virginia Regional Jail, in a form approved by the County Attorney). The motion carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 5. ReQuest to increase services and staffinQ hours at the Bent Mountain and Mount Pleasant libraries. (Diana Rosapepe. Director of Library Services) A-122005-5 Ms. Rosapepe advised that at the Board meeting on December 20, 2005, a citizen from Bent Mountain, Joan Carver, appeared to discuss her interest in providing pre-school story time at Bent Mountain Library on Wednesday mornings. Ms. Rosapepe advised that Ms. Carver, who is present today, and her colleagues have provided valuable assistance to the Bent Mountain Library. Ms. Rosapepe advised that in discussing this issue with Ms. Carver by telephone, she explained that the library has 1342 December 20, 2005 concerns about this request but they are more about differing priorities than differing intents. The library provides two story times per week throughout the system, and a major concern with this particular story time is that there are not enough children to make it a viable opportunity since most of the children in the area are already in day care in Floyd County. The day care owner has indicated that she would have difficulty in bringing the children to the library because of safety requirements for transporting children. Ms. Rosapape advised that another maJor concern is that the Mount Pleasant Library will fall behind in services since that branch has half the service hours that Bent Mountain has. Although Mount Pleasant does have an after school story time, the Library Board has been very interested in restoring parity between these two community branches. Ms. Rosapepe advised that Ms. Carver acted to rectify the situation for Bent Mountain and offered for the volunteers to fund the story time for six months until the next fiscal year budget. Ms. Rosapepe advised that the issue with accepting the funding from the volunteers IS that the County would have difficulty assuming the costs after those six months. Ms. Rosapape summarized the two alternatives as presented by staff in the Board report as follows: (1) Work within the existing 24 hours at Bent Mountain Library and offer story time on Saturday morning. A staff member would need to be provided for the story time which is the basis for the cost. At that time, they would add 12 hours to Mount Pleasant Library to bring it up to the same 24 hours that Bent December 20, 2005 1343 Mountain Library has. (2) Add four hours on Wednesday morning to the Bent Mountain Library, work to develop an audience for that story time, and add 16 hours operational time to Mount Pleasant to keep it in sync with Bent Mountain for a total of 28 hours at each branch. The annual costs would be $14,400 at Mount Pleasant and approximately $3,600 at Bent Mountain. Ms. Rosapepe advised that the fiscal impact of Alternative 1 would be to appropriate funding of $6,300 from the Board Contingency Fund, and Alternative 2 would be to appropriate $9,000. After using these funds, future costs would be absorbed during the budget process. Supervisor Wray inquired if the Board approved Alternative 2 and there was some doubt about attendance for the story time, how would this affect the program. Ms. Rosapepe advised that there is a need for more morning hours at Bent Mountain Library and if the story time did not work on Wednesday mornings, the next approach would be to make Bent Mountain a pilot project and shift it to a Saturday morning when the day care children might be available to come. It could be promoted at the day care and through the library to generate a pre-school story time. Supervisor McNamara thanked Ms. Rosapepe for looking into solutions for this area; however, he advised that he feels the recommendations are in conflict with the discussions and specifically, if the children are not available for a weekday story time, why would they not try a pilot program on a Saturday where it has a higher chance of success in the first place. Ms. Rosapepe advised that the Saturday morning program 1344 December 20, 2005 has a chance of success, but they cannot be sure of the success of Wednesdays; however, they would make every effort to ensure its success. Part of the difficulty is that it is very hard to gain a sense of the number of pre-school children anywhere and they are interpreting the information available. Supervisor McNamara asked if it would not be reasonable to think that the likelihood of attendance would be greater on a Saturday than a weekday. Ms. Rosapepe concurred. Supervisor McNamara advised that he feels if someone is available to attend on a Wednesday; there is a very good chance they can attend on a Saturday. Ms. Rosapepe advised that the only thing to argue against that would be that some parents have other plans on Saturdays so they might not be willing to invest the time necessary to come to the library. Supervisor McNamara asked if the story times in other libraries are held during the week. Ms. Rosapepe advised that they are held during weekdays with some being held in the evenings. She reported that a pilot program on Saturdays at headquarters has been discussed but this would be primarily a staffing issue. Supervisor McNamara stated that if you have a trial program, you would want it to have the highest possibility of success and it seems to be contradictory that the Board report is recommending weekday hours. Ms. Rosapepe advised that this is mainly because the Bent Mountain citizens have indicated that this is what they would support. Supervisor McNamara inquired if there had been any discussion with the citizens in Mount Pleasant about this issue. Ms. Rosapepe advised that Mount Pleasant is a growing area with many subdivisions and 194 students enrolled in Mount December 20, 2005 1345 Pleasant Elementary School with a pre-school program of 12 students. She reported that expanding the schedule has not been discussed specifically with the Mount Pleasant community and library staff but they have an after-school story time there which is very successful. She advised that a pre-school program there might work very well because there are a lot of young families in the area. Supervisor Church asked if Saturdays would be feasible and if staff has checked with the citizens we are trying to accommodate. He is not sure if a change should be made from a weekday, as with other branches, to a Saturday unless the community supports such a change. He indicated that he is supportive of what will help the area and agrees that the Mount Pleasant situation is not equal. He asked about the success of the other weekday programs. Ms. Rosapepe advised at the afternoon story time, the children come straight from school and there are usually anywhere from 15 to 100 children in attendance. The children come from Back Creek, Floyd County and other areas. Ms. Rosapape further advised that the reason staff is recommending Wednesday is because it was requested by the citizens and they will support the program better if it is something they desire. Supervisor Altizer advised that Mount Pleasant has neither Saturday hours nor any hours past 5:00 p.m. during the week and he has received requests from citizens for extended hours past 5 p.m. which would relieve the pressure at the Vinton Library. He noted that some people utilize the main library branch on Route 419. He advised that Alternative 2 includes plans for Saturdays if Wednesdays are unsuccessful. 1346 December 20, 2005 Ms. Rosapape advised that staff will do everything they can to make it successful and if Wednesday does not work, they will move the story time to Saturday. She reported on another alternative which is a volunteer staffed program called "books to go" that they take to day care facilities in the area; however, they would have to get permission through the Montgomery Floyd Regional Library because the area is in their district. Supervisor Altizer advised that the community is asking for story time on Wednesday and if you seek out the citizens' input, it would seem that the burden will fall on the citizens to make it work and he would like to see them do everything possible to make it a success. Ms. Rosapape advised that if history is any indication, they will. Supervisor McNamara advised that he would try to craft a motion and gave the rationale behind it. Supervisor McNamara stated the following motion which he advised is a combination of approaches: approve story time on Wednesday morning at a cost of which is basically Alternative 2; wait until the new budget session and add 12 hours at Mount Pleasant; if the story time stays on Wednesday, add 4 more hours to Mount Pleasant and add a Saturday story time at Mount Pleasant in the new budget process so they are equivalent. He advised that if a switch of days is necessary for the story time, the imbalanced situation would not continue. His advised that his concern is that the Board will fund something against Ms. Rosapape's judgment and if that judgment is accurate, he would not want to decrease services at a future date. If Ms. Rosapepe's judgment is inaccurate, the ground rules have been laid to rectify the decision in July, and during the intervening period, it could serve as a trial. December 20, 2005 1347 Supervisor Altizer requested clarification of the motion and inquired if by taking back the four hours, it would be cutting back the Saturday hours at Mount Pleasant by restricting it from 16 to 12. Ms. Rosapepe advised that the Mount Pleasant schedule is not established, it would just give them the gross number of hours. Ms. Rosapepe advised that with the Board's permission, they would prefer to set Mount Pleasant's schedule with the citizens in Mount Pleasant as they have with the citizens in Bent Mountain because what will work in one area may not work as well for another. Supervisor Altizer asked if Ms. Rosapepe's recommendation for Mount Pleasant is 16 hours. She responded in the affirmative. Supervisor McNamara advised that he is trying to avoid an imbalance if the Wednesday story time shifts to Saturday. Ms. Rosapepe advised that the library would still be open for services on Wednesday morning, there would just not be a pre- school story time. Supervisor McNamara withdrew his motion. Supervisor Flora urged the Board to appropriate the funds and allow the staff the flexibility to set the hours that most appropriately serve the citizens in each community. If the Board tries to establish a process that does not work, staff will be required to come back to the Board for approval of any changes. Supervisor Altizer inquired if it was Ms. Rosapepe's recommendation to approve Alternative 2. Ms. Rosapepe replied in the affirmative. Supervisor Wray advised that he has faith in Ms. Rosapepe to make the decisions and he would rather appropriate the money than the hours and he thinks that 1348 December 20, 2005 staff will do what is needed by the citizens in each community. Supervisor Altizer moved to approve staff recommendation: Alternative #2 (Add four additional hours to Bent Mountain and bring Mount Pleasant to parity at a total annual cost of $18,000: (a) Hold the preschool story time on a weekday morning and evaluate the attendance. Cost is $3,600 in additional staff time. (b) Add 16 hours of operational time to the Mount Pleasant Library so that it is in parity with the existing Bent Mountain operational time. Cost is $14,400 in additional staff time. (c) Appropriate funding in the amount of $8,000 from the Board Contingency Fund for a six- month period for services to begin in January 2006.) The motion carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA Supervisor Church moved to approve the first readings and set the second readings and public hearings for January 24,2006. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer None December 20, 2005 1349 1. First readinQ of an ordinance to rezone 1.14 acres from C-2C. General Commercial District with conditions. to C-2. General Commercial District. for the operation of ª medical office located at 5296 Peters Creek Road. Catawba MaQisterial District. upon the petition of Vistar Eye Center. 2. First readinQ of an ordinance to rezone 3.564 acres from R-3C. Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District with conditions. to C-2. General Commercial District. and to obtain ª special use permit for the construction of ª life care facility located at 6509 Carefree Lane and 6920 Williamson Road. Hollins MaQisterial District. upon the petition of Friendship Manor Apartment VillaQe Corporation. 3. First readinQ of an ordinance to rezone 8.92 acres from C-2S. General Commercial District with special use permit. to R-3. Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District. for the construction of a townhouse development located at 7656 Williamson Road. Hollins MaQisterial District. upon the petition of Eric Eanes and Todd Conner. - -- 1350 December 20, 2005 IN RE: SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES 1. Second readinQ of an ordinance authorizinQ conveyance of an easement to Verizon VirQinia. Inc. on property owned Qy the Board of Supervisors to provide telephone service to the new Public Safety Center. Catawba MaQisterial District. (Joseph B. Obenshain. Senior Assistant County Attorney) 0-122005-6 Mr. Obenshain advised that there have been no changes since the first reading of this ordinance; however, a more identifiable map was submitted to staff this morning and he distributed a copy of it to the Board members. This map more clearly identifies the location of the three poles necessary to bring telephone service to the new Public Safety Building and he advised that none of the poles are on the School Board property. There was no discussion. Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ORDINANCE 122005-6 AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO VERIZON VIRGINIA INC. ON PROPERTY OWNED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (TAX MAP #036.16-01-11.1) TO PROVIDE TELEPHONE SERVICE TO NEW PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT December 20, 2005 1351 WHEREAS, Roanoke County is constructing a new Public Safety Center on Cove Road and requires telephone service to this building; and, WHEREAS, Verizon Virginia Inc. (Verizon) requires a 15' right of way and easement for placement of utility poles along Cove Road through the Roanoke County property, designated on the Roanoke County land records as Tax Map #036.16-01-11.1 and located at 5925 Cove Road in the Catawba Magisterial District; and, WHEREAS, the proposed right of way will serve the interests of the public and is necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare of citizens of the County of Roanoke. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on December 6, 2005, and a second reading was held on December 20, 2005. 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the interests in real estate to be conveyed are hereby declared to be surplus, and are hereby made available for other public uses by conveyance to Verizon Virginia, Inc. for the provision of telephone service, also designated as a communication system, in connection with Roanoke County's construction of the new Public Safety Center at 5925 Cove Road in the Catawba Magisterial District. 3. That donation to Verizon Virginia Inc. of an easement and right-of-way for placement of utility poles and related equipment, within the "15' VERIZON EASEMENT" on the County's property (Tax Map #036.16-01-11.1) extending along Cove Road in the Catawba Magisterial District as shown on Verizon Drawing No. PAOHBCC-88573-R, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby authorized and approved. 4. That the County Administrator, or Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such further actions as may be necessary to accomplish this conveyance, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 5. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 1352 December 20, 2005 2. Second readinQ of an ordinance authorizinQ the acceptance of ª donation of an easement from Occidental Development. LLC. for construction of ª drainaQe easement at Sunscape Apartments. Cave SprinQ MaQisterial District. (Joseph B. Obenshain. Senior Assistant County Attorney) 0-122005-7 Mr. Obenshain advised that this is the second reading of an ordinance accepting the donation of an easement of slightly less than 3,000 square feet on the property of Sunscape Apartments which will allow the Community Development Department to complete a stormwater drainage improvement project. He advised that there are no changes from the first reading. There was no discussion. Supervisor Wray thanked Mr. Obenshain for his work on getting this donation for the benefit of the citizens in the Georgetown Park subdivision. Supervisor Wray moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ORDINANCE 122005-7 AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A DONATION FROM OCCIDENTAL DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. OF AN EASEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT AT SUNSCAPEAPARTMENTS WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Department of Community Development has plans for the improvement of the stormwater drainage situation in the area of Georgetown Park subdivision in the Cave Spring Magisterial District of the County, and, December 20, 2005 1353 WHEREAS, successful completion of this project requires the acquisition of a variable width drainage easement and construction of a concrete channel on a small area of approximately 3,000 square feet on the property currently occupied by the premises of Sunscape Apartments; and, WHEREAS, Occidental Development, L.L.C., owner of Sunscape Apartments, has offered to donate the area required for this variable width drainage easement to the County and the Department of Community Development has recommended acceptance of the property; and, WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition of real estate be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 6, 2005; and the second reading was held on December 20, 2005. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to accept the donation of an easement for drainage of approximately 3,000 square feet, designated and shown as "PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH DRAINAGE EASEMENT" upon the "PLAT SHOWING DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING CONVEYED TO ROANOKE COUNTY BY OCCIDENTAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC," and being a part of that parcel of real estate, located in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, Roanoke County, previously conveyed by deed (Roanoke County Tax Map Parcel # 77.11-091-55.00) recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County in Deed Book 1296, page 37, a copy of which plat is attached hereto as Exhibit A, from Occidental Development, L. L. C. 2. That the County Administrator or an Assistant County Administrator is authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition and acceptance of this property, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. 3. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: APPOINTMENTS ~ LenQth of Service Awards ProQram (LOSAP) for Fire and Rescue Supervisor Altizer asked the Clerk to follow up with the Volunteer Fire and Rescue Chiefs Board to determine if they had any recommendations for the appointments to the LOSAP. 1354 December 20, 2005 ~. Southwest Development FinancinQ. Inc. Supervisor Altizer nominated Wendi Schultz to serve an additional two- year term that will expire on January 12, 2008. He requested that confirmation of this appointment be added to the consent agenda. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-122005-8; R-122005-8.a Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None RESOLUTION 122005-8 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J - 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 December 20, 2005, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 2, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes - December 6, 2005 2. Acceptance of a portion of Innsbrooke Drive and Hanging Rock Court into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System 3. Confirmation of committee appointment to Southwest Development Financing, Inc. 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. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the consent resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None December 20, 2005 1355 RESOLUTION 122005-8.a REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF A PORTION OF INNSBROOKE DRIVE AND HANGING ROCK COURT INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Addition Form LA-5(A), fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and WHEREAS, the representative for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Virginia Department of Transportation's Subdivision Street Requirements, and WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999 for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) described on the attached Additions Form LA-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, after receiving a copy of this resolution and all outstanding fees and documents required of the developer, whichever occurs last in time. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Moved by: Supervisor Altizer Seconded by: None Required Yeas: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer Nays: None IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Flora moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 1356 December 20, 2005 2. Capital Reserves 3. Reserve for Board ContinQency 4. Future Capital Projects 5. Accounts Paid - November 2005 -- - 6. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for the month ended November 30. 2005 7. Statement of Treasurer's accountability per investment and portfolio policy as of November 30. 2005 8. Public Safety Center BuildinQ Project BudQet Report 9. Public Safety Center BuildinQ Project ChanQe Order Report IN RE: WORK SESSION 1. Work session to discuss the County of Roanoke secondary roads system six-year improvement plan for fiscal years 2006-2012 and review of the revenue sharinQ priority list for fiscal years 2006- 2007. includinQ potential increase in County matchinQ funds from $500.000 to i1 million. (Anthony Ford. Transportation EnQineerinQ ManaQer) The work session was held from 4:30 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. Staff present included the following: Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; and Anthony Ford, Transportation Engineering Manager. Also present were Jeff Echols, December 20, 2005 1357 Resident Administrator - Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and Susan Hammond, Assistant Resident Administrator - VDOT. Mr. Ford summarized the changes made to this year's secondary roads six-year improvement plan, including the revenue sharing priority list and rural addition priority list. He advised that the County received $2.72 million in VDOT allocations during the current fiscal year for secondary road improvement projects. He reported that Roanoke County's budget for FY 2006-2007 is estimated to be approximately $3.08 million which is an increase of approximately $360,000. Those funds will be divided into two funding categories in the six-year plan: (1) County-wide incidental improvements in the amount of $160,000; and (2) numbered projects in the amount of $2.9 million. There was general discussion concerning whether to increase the County's request to VDOT for matching funds from $500,000 to $1 million but no consensus was reached. Mr. Ford advised that the State did not allocate any money to the rural addition program for the upcoming fiscal year and after January 1, 2006, the County will be in non-compliance with the VDOT rural addition program unless changes are made to the current ordinance. It was the consensus of the Board not to make any changes to the County ordinance and to allow private roads to be built to non-VDOT standards. Mr. Ford was asked to review the rural addition projects on the County's priority list and meet with the interested citizens during the coming year to determine 1358 December 20, 2005 which projects would be eligible to be brought up to VDOT standards by utilizing a County-administered rural addition program and County funds. 2. Work session to discuss the fiscal year 2006-2007 budQet development. (Elmer C. HodQe. County Administrator: Brent Robertson. Director of ManaQement and BudQet) @} BudQet development calendar ll!} Discussion reQardinQ work schedule in the Community Development Department and reQuest for additional staffinQ {£} Contributions to community aQencies (Q} SiQnificant expenditure items Í!Ù Update on CIP Review Committee The work session was held from 5:30 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. Staff present included the following: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget; and Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development. Mr. Hodge advised that additional staffing is needed in the Community Development Department and he would recommend hiring staff in advance of the budget process because of the difficulty they may encounter in filling the positions. Mr. Covey reviewed the staffing needs in the Community Development Department and advised that additional staff is necessary because of the increased workloads and responsibilities. The Board requested that Mr. Covey provide the following information December 20, 2005 1359 for further discussion at the January 10, 2006, meeting: (1) a current and proposed organizational chart showing staff, and their responsibilities, and (2) all related costs including salaries and fringe benefits. Mr. Hodge advised that staff has been informed that Roanoke City will require additional information from the agencies and organizations that apply for funding, and he feels that it is appropriate for the County to request similar information from those requesting County funds. Mr. Robertson distributed a copy of the County's revised guidelines for funding non-profit organizations and advised that they were based upon Roanoke City's guidelines. He advised that while non-adherence will not prohibit an agency from receiving funds, adherence will be used as one of the key factors in determining funding. Mr. Robertson reported that the guidelines include the following requests: (1) Organizations must develop a business plan that includes evidence of community involvement and an outline of long term plans for financial sustainability. (2) Boards of organizations must demonstrate engagement with their organization by certifying that 100% of their board members have made a financial commitment to the organization and that annual average Board member participation (attendance), in aggregate, must total at least 75%. (3) Organizations must agree to an annual joint site visit by Roanoke County, Roanoke City, Carilion Foundation, and the Funders Circle, and periodic reporting of results achieved through funds received. (4) An annual audit of the organization's finances must be provided by any organization which has been in 1360 December 20, 2005 operation for two years or longer with an annual budget of $50,000 or more. After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to implement the County's proposed guidelines with the following changes: (1) delete paragraph 2; and (2) amend paragraph 4 to require an audit for organizations with an annual budget in excess of $25,000 rather than $50,000. Mr. Robertson advised that the guidelines will apply to funding requests for $25,000 and above. Mr. Robertson advised that there is a special budget meeting scheduled for March 21, 2006, and that the funding requests from agencies will be heard at two separate meetings. 3. Work session to review the site feasibility study for the new South County library. (Diane D. Hyatt. Chief Financial Officer: Diana Rosapepe. Director of Library Services: GeorQe Simpson. Assistant Director of Community Development) The work session was held from 6: 1 0 p.m. until 6: 17 p.m. Staff present included the following: Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer; Diana Rosapepe, Director of Library Services; and George Simpson, Assistant Director of Community Development. Ms. Hyatt advised that Engineering Concepts, Inc. (ECI) was contracted to conduct multiple site studies to assess the feasibility of constructing a new library branch in South Roanoke County. Through a previous site selection study undertaken by the Library Board of Trustees, ten tracts of available land were reviewed by ECI for December 20, 2005 1361 suitability of meeting Board generated site design criteria and program requirements. ECI was asked to perform limited site feasibility studies on four of the sites identified within the Trustees' report. Ms. Hyatt advised that the study ranked the four sites as follows: (1) Vandelinde, (2) Parker, (3) Merriman, and (4) Finney. Ms. Hyatt advised that the negotiations are still underway on the Vandelinde site and that the purchase of the Parker site will be complete in January 2006. She presented the tentative timeline for the project and advised that Ms. Rosapepe is writing the Request for Proposal (RFP) for selection of an architectural and engineering firm which will be posted in January 2006. Mr. Hyatt explained that the final site selection will be determined in April or May 2006, and the final design is due in May 2007. It was the consensus of the Board for staff to move forward with their plans and time line while continuing to negotiate for the Vandelinde site. IN RE: RECOGNITIONS Chairman Altizer recognized Robert Lindsey, Scout Leader, and members of Troop 418 from Penn Forest Wesleyan Church, who were present at the meeting. IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Withdrawn at the reQuest of the petitioner. Second readinQ of an ordinance to obtain ª special use permit to construct ª 150 ft. broadcast tower on North Mountain accessed from the 5200 block - --- of Keffer Road. Catawba MaQisterial District. upon the petition of 1362 December 20, 2005 Cell co Partnership. dlbla Verizon Wireless. (Janet Scheid. Chief Planner) Chairman Altizer advised that this item has been withdrawn at the request of the petitioner. 2. Continued until February 28. 2006. at the reQuest of the petitioner. Second readinQ of an ordinance to rezone 1.3014 acres from C-1. Office District. and .0786 acres from C2C. General Commercial District with conditions. to C-2C. General Commercial District with conditions. and to obtain ª special use permit for the construction of a fast food restaurant with drive-thru located at 3814 ---- - -- ChallenQer Avenue. Hollins MaQisterial District. upon the petition of Grant Avenue Development. Inc. (Janet Scheid. Chief Planner) Chairman Altizer advised that this item has been continued until February 28, 2006, at the request of the petitioner. 3. Second readinQ of an ordinance to exempt the property owned Qy Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs. Inc. from property tax. said real property assessed at $712.100 beinQ 2.60 acres at 3640 Colonial Avenue. Cave SprinQ MaQisterial District. (Paul M. Mahoney. County Attorney) 0-122005-9 December 20, 2005 1363 Mr. Mahoney advised this is the second reading and public hearing on this request by the Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs to grant an exemption from real estate taxation for its property on Colonial Avenue. Mr. Mahoney advised that this application is made pursuant to the recent constitutional amendment providing that local governing bodies, rather than the General Assembly, grant these exemptions from local taxation. He referenced Section 58.1-35651, Code of Virginia, which sets out eight specific findings which must be met or satisfied in order to secure this exemption. These findings are as follows: (1) Whether the organization is exempt from taxation pursuant to § 501 (c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; (2) Whether a current annual alcoholic beverage license for serving alcoholic beverages has been issued by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to such organization, for use on such property; (3) Whether any director, officer, or employee of the organization is paid compensation in excess of a reasonable allowance for salaries; (4) Whether any part of the net earnings of such organization inures to the benefit of any individual; (5) Whether the organization provides services for the common good of the public; (6) Whether a substantial part of the activities of the organization involves carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation and whether the organization participates in, or intervenes in, any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office; (7) The revenue impact to the locality and its taxpayers of exempting the property; and (8) Any other criteria, facts and circumstances that the governing body deems pertinent to the adoption of such ordinance. 1364 December 20, 2005 Mr. Mahoney advised that the fiscal impact of this action would be $3,130.40. As has been the practice for the past twenty years, the Board sought an agreement with the organization seeking tax exemption for a service fee in lieu of real estate taxes. The service fee concept is specifically authorized under the Code of Virginia, 58.1-3400 and it is limited to a maximum of 20%. The Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs has executed a draft agreement and if the Board grants the exemption, the County Administrator will execute this agreement for a service fee. Supervisor Wray advised that it is not new for the Board to consider an ordinance like this. Mr. Mahoney advised that the Board does not receive these applications at every Board meeting but the Board has granted exemptions for other organizations in the past. Supervisor Wray inquired about the procedure to check on the status of such organizations which receive exemptions. Mr. Mahoney advised that the appropriate County staff and the Commissioner of the Revenue's Office would monitor and review the actions and activities of the organizations to ensure that they continue to adhere to the constitutional and statutory requirements to maintain their eligibility for this benefit. Supervisor Wray asked if the 20% service fee was standard. Mr. Mahoney advised that this is the maximum percentage that a locality can request under the State Code. He advised that the service fee is not applicable in all categories of exempt organizations and that churches, property owned by the Commonwealth, and schools are in a different classification where the service fee is not applicable. December 20, 2005 1365 Supervisor Church inquired about the amount of money that would be gained from the service fee. Mr. Mahoney advised that it would be approximately $600 per year since the annual real estate taxes would be approximately $3,100. He further advised that being an exempt organization does not limit the organization's ability to question or challenge the assessment value placed on the property, and that the service fee is based upon the current assessment. Ms. Phyllis Holton, 5475 Setter Road, advised that she served as chair of the relocation committee for the Roanoke Council of Garden Club. Her appearance tonight is about this matter but she also wanted to express her appreciation for the assistance that the staff, particularly Mr. Murphy, Mr. Beard, and Mr. Mahoney, have provided. She also advised that the Garden Club will get their sign up this week which will identify them. She commended the staff for being helpful and educating her as to what was required in each phase of this request. Supervisor Wray moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 1366 December 20, 2005 Ms. Holton expressed appreciation to the Board and advised that this was a very meaningful measure for the members of the Garden Club. ORDINANCE 122005-9 TO EXEMPT THE PROPERTY OWNED BY ROANOKE COUNCIL OF GARDEN CLUBS, INC., FROM PROPERTY TAX, SAID REAL PROPERTY, ASSESSED AT $712,100.00, BEING 2.60 ACRES AT 3640 COLONIAL AVENUE IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, The Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc., ("Petitioner") has petitioned this Board for tax exemption for certain of its property from taxation pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia; and WHEREAS, Virginia Code §58.1-3651 (A) sets forth the process and procedure by which a locality may designate property as tax exempt; and WHEREAS, Virginia Code §58.1-3651 (B) establishes certain requirements for notifying the public of a hearing regarding the proposed adoption of an ordinance exempting property and sets forth questions to be considered by the local governing body before adopting such an ordinance.; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 6, 2005, and the public hearing and second reading of this ordinance was held on December 20, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors, after due notice and public hearing has considered the questions set forth in Virginia Code §58.1-3651 (B) and, upon consideration of those questions, has determined that the application for the proposed exemption from taxation should be granted; now, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That, in accordance with Section 58.1-3651 (A) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, the Board grants an exemption from taxation under Article X, Section 6 (a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia of property owned and used by the Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc. for charitable, patriotic, historical, benevolent, cultural, or public park and playground purposes. This ordinance is adopted by the Board after holding a public hearing with respect hereto as to which public notice was given and at which citizens had an opportunity to be heard. In adopting this ordinance, the Board has examined and considered the provisions of §58.1-3651 (B) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. The total assessed value of the real property owned by the Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc. is $712,100.00 and the property tax is $3,130.40 per year. The Tax Parcel No. of the property is 77.18-3-15 and said parcel is located at 3640 Colonial Avenue, Roanoke County, Virginia, 24018. 2. That pursuant to §58.1-3605, the Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc. shall file triennially an application with the County's assessing officer as a requirement December 20, 2005 1367 for retention of the exempt status of the property. Such application shall show the ownership and usage of such property and shall be filed within the next sixty days preceding the tax year for which such exemption, or the retention thereof, is sought. 3. That the Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc. has agreed to enter into a Service Agreement with Roanoke County providing for the payment of an annual service fee in the amount of 20% of the County's real estate levies, were the Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc. not exempt from local taxation, for so long as Petitioner is exempted from state and local taxation. This service fee shall commence July 1, 2005, and shall continue for succeeding years so long as Petitioner is exempted from state and local taxation. 4. That the property owned by the Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc. be, and is hereby designated as exempt from property taxes of the County based upon the Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc.'s exclusive use of said property for charitable, patriotic, historical, benevolent, cultural, or public park and playground purposes. 5. That the clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this ordinance to the Commissioner of the Revenue and the Treasurer for Roanoke County, and to Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc. 6. That the continuance of this exemption shall be conditioned upon the continuous use of this property in accordance with the purpose for which this organization has been designated; and, 7. That the effective date of this Ordinance is July 1, 2005. On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 4. Second readinQ of an ordinance amendinQ the Roanoke County Code Qy addinQ ª new Section 21-22 to provide for the implementation of the 2004-2005 chanQes to the Personal Property Tax Relief Act (PPTRA) of 1998. (Diane D. Hyatt. Chief Financial Officer) 0-122005-10 Ms. Hyatt advised that the Personal Property Tax Relief Act (PPTRA) of 1998 established a state-wide program to provide relief to owners of personal use motor 1368 December 20, 2005 vehicles. The 1998 Act envisioned a five year phase-in of relief expressed as a percentage of the bill related to the first $20,000 of personal use vehicle value. Costs soared and the percentage has been frozen at 70% since 2001. The 2004 General Assembly standoff resulted in the compromise of capping the PPTRA relief at $950 million and shifting the reimbursement to the state fiscal year, effectively gaining a $229 million windfall for the state at the expense of delaying reimbursement to about three dozen localities (spring billers). Ms. Hyatt advised that in order to put these changes into effect, the County must adopt an ordinance that sets the framework for the implementation and administration of the state tax relief program. It is recommended that this ordinance be in place by January 1, 2006. The Board will also need to adopt an annual resolution with the first one being before the 2006 tax bills are mailed. The resolution will set the percentage reduction in personal property for that year. This percentage will be computed based upon historical trends and the current tax assessment book. Ms. Hyatt advised that at the work session which was held on November 15, 2005, the Board reviewed and approved the following to be incorporated into the PPTRA implementation ordinance: (1) The County chooses the "specific relief" method (percentages reduction) of computing tax relief. (2) The County will allocate the relief at a single percentage across the board to the first $20,000 of personal vehicle value. (3) The County will continue to exempt vehicles valued at $1,000 and below from taxation. December 20, 2005 1369 (4) The Treasurer is authorized to "balance bill" any taxes from 2005 and prior that are still delinquent at September 1, 2006, or when the state funding for tax relief is depleted. There was no discussion and no citizens were present to speak on this item. Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ORDINANCE 122005-10 AMENDING THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 21-22 TO PROVIDE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2004-2005 CHANGES TO THE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX RELIEF ACT OF 1998 WHEREAS, the Personal Property Tax Relief Act of 1998, Va. Code §§ 58.1- 3523 et seq. ("PPTRA") has been substantially modified by the enactment of Chapter 1 of the Acts of Assembly, 2004 Special Session I (Senate Bill 5005), and the provisions of Item 503 of Chapter 951 of the 2005 Acts of Assembly (the 2005 revisions to the 2004-06 Appropriations Act, hereinafter citied as the "2005 Appropriations Act"); and WHEREAS, these legislative enactments require the County of Roanoke to take affirmative steps to implement these changes, and to provide for the computation and allocation of relief provided pursuant to the PPTRA as revised; and WHEREAS, these legislative enactments provide for the appropriation to the County, commencing 2006, of a fixed sum to be used exclusively for the provisions of tax relief to owners of qualifying personal use vehicles that are subject to the personal property tax ("PPT") on such vehicles, and provide the opportunity for the County to fashion a program of tax relief that serves the best interests of its citizenry; and WHEREAS, first reading of this ordinance was held on December 6, 2005, and the second reading and public hearing were held on December 20, 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Chapter 21, Article II of the Roanoke County Code be, and hereby is, amended to add Section 21-22, which shall read and provide as follows: Section 21-22. (a) Purpose; Definitions; Relation to other Ordinances. 1370 December 20, 2005 (1) The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for the implementation of the changes to PPTRA affected by legislation adopted during the 2004 Special Session I and the 2005 Regular Session of the General Assembly of Virginia. (2) Terms used in this ordinance that have defined meanings set forth in PPTRA shall have the same meanings as set forth in Va. Code § 58.1-3523, as amended. (3) To the extent that the provisions of this ordinance conflict with any prior ordinance or provision of the County Code, this ordinance shall control. (b) Method of Computing and Reflecting Tax Relief. (1) For tax years commencing in 2006, the County adopts the provisions of Item 503. E of the 2005 Appropriations Act, providing for the computation of tax relief as a specific dollar amount to be offset against the total taxes that would otherwise be due but for PPTRA and the reporting of such specific dollar relief on the tax bill. (2) The Board shall, by resolution or by order, set the percentage of tax relief at such a level that it is anticipated fully to exhaust PPTRA relief funds provided to the County by the Commonwealth. (3) Personal property tax bills shall set forth on their face the specific dollar amount of relief credited with respect to each qualifying vehicle, together with an explanation of the general manner in which relief is allocated. (c) Allocation of relief among taxpayers. (1) Allocation of PPTRA relief shall be provided in accordance with the general provisions of this section, as implemented by the specific provisions of the County's annual resolution relating to PPTRA relief. (2) Relief shall be allocated in such a manner as to eliminate personal property taxation of each qualifying vehicle with an assessed value of $1 ,000 or less. (3) Relief with respect to qualifying vehicles with assessed values of more than $1,000 shall be provided at a percentage, annually fixed by County resolution and applied to the first $20,000 in value of each such qualifying vehicle that is estimated fully to use all available state PPTRA relief. The rate shall be established annually by County resolution. (d) Transitional provisions. (1) Pursuant to authority conferred in Item 503.D of the 2005 Appropriations Act, the County Treasurer is authorized to issue a supplemental personal property tax bill, in the amount of 100 percent of tax due without regard to any former entitlement to state PPTRA relief, plus applicable penalties and interest, to any taxpayer whose taxes with respect to a qualifying vehicle for tax year 2005 or any prior tax year remain unpaid on September 1, 2006, or such date as state funds for reimbursement of the state share of such bill have become unavailable, whichever earlier occurs. (2) Penalty and interest with respect to bills issued pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall be computed on the entire amount of tax owed. December 20, 2005 1371 Interest shall be computed at the rate provided in § 21-18 of the County Code from the original due date of the tax. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after January 1, 2006, and it shall become effective for the 2006 personal property tax year and all subsequent tax years. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 5. Second readinQ of an ordinance amendinQ Section 30-71. EP Explore Park District. and related sections 30-29. Use Types Generally. and 30-80 throuQh 30-88. Use and DesiQn Standards. of the Roanoke County ZoninQ Ordinance. upon the petition of the Roanoke County PlanninQ Commission. (Elmer C. HodQe. County Administrator: David Holladay. Senior Planner) 0-122005-11 Mr. Hodge advised that he would give a procedural overview of this item and that there are two agenda items requiring action at this meeting. He advised that he is sure that many of the citizens asking to speak would like to have their comments pertain to both items. He recognized the members of the Vinton Town Council who were present: Brad Grose, Mayor; Robert R. Altice, Carolyn D. Fidler, Thomas A. Rotenberry, and Kevin Boggess, Vinton town Manager. Also present were the following members of the Virginia Recreation Facilities Authority (VRFA): Carolyn Fidler, Bootie Chewning and Stan Lanford. Mr. Hodge advised that the VRFA is the governing board for Explore Park and its members are appointed by the Governor. 1372 December 20, 2005 Mr. Hodge advised that Explore Park is a unique and beautiful piece of property which is located at the intersection of the Roanoke River and Back Creek, alongside the Blue Ridge Parkway (BRP) and just minutes from the largest metropolitan center west of Richmond. It is within a few miles by road or river of Smith Mountain Lake. He gave the following background about Mr. Charlie Palmer who owned approximately 600 acres of Explore Park. The City of Roanoke, Roanoke County, and the Town of Vinton were trying to expand the landfill in the late 1980's and the property known as the Palmer property was adjacent to the Rutrough Road Landfill. With the Board's permission, Mr. Hodge contacted the executor of that estate, Mr. Frank Delaney, who lived in Florida, to determine if he would grant a contract on the property for Explore Park rather than for an extension of the landfill. Mr. Delaney advised that Mr. Palmer had been an attorney from Chicago who, on one of his trips to the area, purchased the property of Explore Park because of its significant beauty. Mr. Hodge stated that the beautiful property of the Explore Park almost became a landfill extension. Mr. Hodge advised that the County should build on the successes of those who have gone before us, those who have envisioned something better than a landfill, bought the property, built the buildings, built the Roanoke River Parkway and worked over the years as interpreters and staff when funding was inadequate. The opportunity to partner with Virginia Living Histories (VLH), BRP, VRFA, and the River Foundation is an important reason for these actions. It is also important to remember that the property December 20, 2005 1373 is state owned, but there are no state funds for operations or maintenance which is sorely needed. Mr. Hodge advised that Explore Park has repeatedly asked the General Assembly for funding without success, and the County requested assistance from our legislators and the Secretary of Conservation and Natural Resources, Tayloe Murphy, also without success. The County entered into a five-year contract with Explore Park to provide support and funding and that contract ends in June 2006. Mr. Hodge advised that Mr. Larry Vander Maten has requested flexibility for VLH in order to market this property, and the County has come to understand the need for this flexibility in programming the use of Explore Park. The County has established performance standards that take the place of a master plan which will guide decisions now and in the future. This approach is similar to the development of a large athletic facility for Roanoke County which could be used for many purposes such as football, soccer, softball and will be adapted to the future needs if the guidelines as established by the Board, are met. Mr. Hodge advised that to help staff fulfill its responsibilities for planning, zoning and inspections, building permits will be issued if they are consistent with the stated theme for a family destination resort. The County will use the ordinance, if adopted tonight, and the twelve proffers submitted by the petitioner to enforce buffers, set-backs, and other protective measures for the residents and the parkway. The rezoning process is similar to one used by Arlington, Texas, and other localities. The County did research to determine what approaches other localities had used, and selected the best of those approaches. 1374 December 20, 2005 Mr. Hodge advised that VLH will contract with the BRP for off-season use of the parkway roads and an extension of utilities; however, this will be a contract between the BPR and Roanoke County because the contract has to be approved by the County. There will be a public process for the request to extend utilities and the County will be involved, as will Bedford County which owns some of Explore Park acreage. Bedford County is a major player in the development of Explore Park and Eastern Roanoke County, and Roanoke County welcomes them as a partner. Mr. Hodge advised that the County and the BRP built the Visitor's Center and the River Parkway, and they have met many times with Gary Johnson, Martha Bogle, and Phil Francis, about this rezoning in order to ensure that the BRP requests were considered before this rezoning was brought to the Board Mr. Gary Johnson, Chief of Resource Planning for the BRP, advised that the BRP and National Park Service (NPS) have been involved with this project for more than twenty years. He served as the park service representative on the Roanoke River Parkway study and for the Explore Park master planning in the 1980's. He advised that his twenty years' perspective has helped him understand what this project was meant to be and how it is being recreated by VLH. He advised that County staff, Larry Vander Maten, Dale Wilkinson, and Maryellen Goodlatte have helped them to understand what they are attempting to accomplish while acknowledging that the BRP is trying to protect the visiting public and the parkway. He reported that there were two areas that they wanted to discuss further after the Planning Commission meeting which included: (1) December 20, 2005 1375 relocation of the BRP Visitor's Center if it became part of the master planning, and (2) eight parcels contiguous to the BRP (four parcels on Highland Road and four parcels in the Mayflower Hills area) and viewshed protection. During the past two weeks and up until late Monday afternoon, they have been discussing the details and wording and the key issue has been collaboration, which has produced an understanding and recognition of how to make this project successful today and into the future. He advised that they appreciate the support from the County and that Mr. Vander Maten and Mr. Wilkinson have heard their concerns. He advised that their concerns about the Mayflower Hills and Highland Road parcels have been resolved, and they have talked about the potential relocation of the BRP Visitor's Center and now understand how that fits into the process. He advised that he supports the Board's approval of the rezoning which will benefit the Roanoke area and the BRP. Mr. Hodge advised that the 1980 master plan and zoning of this area was for a landfill, the 1990 master plan was for a large recreational Explore Park, and today's master plan calls for a family destination resort which is consistent with all of those goals. Staff is encouraged by Mr. Vander Maten's sense of purpose and commitment, and feels that this rezoning provides him the support that he needs to market Explore Park. The County also believes that the controls are in place to guide and measure the performance of this in the future. Mr. Hodge expressed appreciation to the County staff, David Holladay, Janet Scheid, Paul Mahoney, members of the Planning Commission, VRFA, River Foundation and the staff of Explore Park. He 1376 December 20, 2005 thanked Mr. Vander Maten and his partners and he wished them success in developing Explore Park and he recommended approval of the rezoning. David Holladay, Senior Planner, advised that he would give an abbreviated version of the report that he made at the Planning Commission. He advised that in addition to numerous meetings held in September, October and November between County staff and representatives of VLH, the following meetings and events have taken place: (1) September 20, 2005 - Planning Commission held a work session to discuss possible revisions to EP, Explore Park zoning district and the potential list of permitted uses is discussed. (1) September 29, 2005, VLH held a Community Open House at the Explore Park Visitor Center to meet neighbors, answer questions and listen to suggestions for development of a family destination resort. (3) October 18, 2005 - the Planning Commission held a work session to discuss possible revisions to the EP, Explore Park zoning district. The draft code amendments were reviewed and comments received. (4) October 21,2005 - VRFA and VLH submitted an application to rezone Explore Park land in Roanoke County to the proposed new zoning district, pending the following amendments to the EP District code. (5) November 1, 2005 - staff from the BRP, Roanoke County, and representatives of VLH held a conference call to discuss the proposed code amendments, rezoning request, and BRP involvement and issues. (6) November 1, 2005, - the Planning Commission adopted a resolution to consider amendments to the EP, Explore Park District. (7) November 7, 2005 - staff from the BRP, Roanoke County, and representatives of VLH met at the December 20, 2005 1377 Parkway headquarters in Asheville, NC to further discuss the code amendments, rezoning request, and BRP involvement and issues. (8) November 15, 2005 - the Planning Commission held a work session to discuss the latest draft of the proposed code amendments to the EP District, as well as to discuss possible proffered conditions for the proposed rezoning. (9) November 17, 2005 - staff from the BRP and Roanoke County met at the Roanoke County Administration Center to review the latest draft of proposed code amendments and discuss the parkway involvement and issues. (10) November 21, 2005 - Roanoke County staff and representatives of VLH met to discuss the rezoning proffers. (11) December 6, 2005 - the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed amendments and those amendments are being presented to the Board at their meeting tonight. Mr. Holladay advised that this is a two-step process and at the Planning Commission meeting, he presented the staff report for both items together Mr. Holladay advised that with respect to the zoning ordinance amendment to the EP District, there were 16 citizens who addressed the Planning Commission on this matter. Some of the comments addressed both the EP District amendments, as well as the subsequent petition to rezone the Explore Park land. More than half of the citizens who spoke voiced opposition to the petition. The following concerns were noted: destruction of wildlife habitat and forest ecosystems; preference to keep the existing master plan intact; lack of protection for historic and educational features of the park; opposition to proposed land uses such as gasoline station, car 1378 December 20, 2005 rental, convenience store, fast food restaurant; lack of specific details in the rezoning petition; only 30% of the park remaining as open space; lack of information about which areas would be preserved; traffic impacts to surrounding rural areas; references to old traffic studies; process was moving too fast; and the buffer yard width of 75 feet may not be sufficient. Mr. Holladay advised that those in support of the petition cited the following: support of the Town of Vinton through the history of Explore Park and for the proposed amendments; support of the BRP with the understanding that the County and BRP staff would work with VLH prior to December 20 to further review proffers #3 and #8 with respect to land adjacent to the Parkway; and possible relocation of the Visitors' Center. Other supporting speakers addressed the history of the River Foundation and VRFA and the raising of public and private funds to develop a tourist destination, the need to encourage overnight guests to the region, benefits to the valley as a whole, benefits to local neighbors' home security to have more activity at the park, and that the proposed amendments reflect the original mission of VRFA and Explore Park. Mr. Holladay advised that after the public hearing, the Planning Commission requested that several items be added or deleted from the draft document they were considering. The following changes were made: (1) In Section 30-71-4 (C), Ms. Hooker asked that the third sentence be amended to read... "of sufficient clarity, detail, and scale".. (2) Ms. Hooker asked that the following sentence to be added to Section 30-71-4 (C) 7. "Include connections to intermodal transportation systems that December 20, 2005 1379 are proposed in the Community Plan". (3) Mr. Azar asked that amendments to Section 30-85-4.5 Automobile RentallLeasing be struck from the Code. The Commission stated that this use was inappropriate in the park and not necessary. (4) Mr. Azar also asked that the building area in Section 30-85-24.5, design standards for retail use, be reduced from 50,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet. Mr. Holladay advised that Mr. Azar made a motion to recommend approval of the amendments with those changes and the motion was approved with a vote of four to one. Mr. Holladay advised that the second petition is to rezone the property from the EP District with master plan and proffered conditions to the new EP District with new master plan and proffered conditions. Three citizens spoke on this petition at the Planning Commission; however, many of the comments from the previous petition to amend the EP District code addressed both petitions for Explore Park. Citizens commenting on this petition recognized the value of a successful Explore Park, but voiced concerns about lack of specific information, access to the greenway and river front, historic structures in the park, questions if 30% is enough area to preserve, inadequate proffers, the need to find a middle ground between too much information and not enough information in rezoning petitions, and establishing a precedent with this rezoning. Mr. Holladay advised that the Planning Commission voiced concerns about proffer #7 regarding the ultimate maximum height of 125 feet, and asked the petitioner if a lower height of 90 feet would be considered as a proffer. The Planning 1380 December 20, 2005 Commission forwarded the petition with the proffers as written, noting their concerns about the maximum structure height of 125 feet. Mr. Holladay advised that Ms. Hooker cited concern regarding lack of specific details in the petition. She also voiced concerns about public utilities and the future Section 2232 review and expressed the hope that this would not be done in haste after the failure of a system, and that the process would follow its normal steps. Mr. Azar made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning with the proffered conditions and the motion was approved with a vote of four to one. Mr. Holladay advised that since approval by the Planning Commission, some further adjustments have been made to two of the proffers but mainly there is a new Proffer #4 regarding the properties adjacent to the Parkway which were of specific concern to the BRP and agreement has been reached on those issues. Ms. Goodlatte, representing VLH, advised that Larry Vander Maten and Dale Wilkinson were present. She advised that VRFA, which is the owner of Explore Park, has entered into a lease agreement with VLH in order to advance the mandate of VRFA. VLH has embraced its charge to create a family destination resort and is poised to begin its creative process. The reports that Mr. Holladay summarized show that for some time, VLH has been working with the County and others, including the BRP, to review and access the land use regulations under which the park can be developed. The proffers incorporated into the rezoning request being considered address the concerns raised by the County, the BRP, and others, and demonstrate VLH's recognition that a successful Explore Park requires the collaboration and commitment of December 20, 2005 1381 many people. The BRP has been fully engaged in the process which has lead up to this meeting. Ms. Goodlatte advised that Mr. Johnson, who expressed the BRP's support for the project, has traveled from Asheville to Roanoke many times and participated in numerous meetings. She advised that it is very reinforcing to see that the BRP is desirous of having a close relationship with VLH, and that commitment and close relationship will be extremely important as development plans proceed and the voluntary proffers tendered by VLH cement the BRP role in the development process. She advised that the Roanoke River Parkway coming in from the BRP will continue to be the primary access for patrons of Explore Park which is a critical connection for both Explore Park and the parkway. The visual experience enjoyed by parkway travelers is important to both the parkway and VLH and is addressed by mutually acceptable proffers. Ms. Goodlatte advised that encouraging parkway travelers to turn onto the Roanoke River Parkway and stay overnight in Explore Park and enjoy the experience is critical for VLH and a great economic value to the County, the Town of Vinton and the Valley. It is very clear that a successful Explore Park requires the continuation of the relationship between the BRP, the County, and VLH; and VLH is committed to those relationships. They are grateful that the Town of Vinton is actively supporting the request, and their interest and encouragement of this process speaks of the Town's desire to help Explore Park succeed. Ms. Goodlatte stated that the next steps in the evolution by VLH will not be easy or cheap, and VLH will have many people to whom it will be accountable as its plans are developed, Other agencies such as VDOT, 1382 December 20, 2005 Roanoke Valley Resource Authority, Town of Vinton, Commonwealth of Virginia and depending upon the course of development, a number of state and federal agencies and in particular VRFA whose lease with VLH sets out the parameters for operations will have input into the process and control many parts of it. The recommendation of County staff and the Planning Commission for approval is appreciated by VLH, and they appreciate all the time, meetings, work sessions, and efforts put into this task. Ms. Goodlatte advised that at its public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that a few changes be made to the ordinances as described by Mr. Holladay and that VLH agrees with the changes except for two. They are requesting that the language and concept developed by staff working with VLH be reinserted in those two places. The first is Section 30-85-24.5 and the language which the Planning Commission recommended be modified in order to require a special use permit when a retail establishment exceeded 10,000 square feet. VLH agreed with the original language setting the square feet at 50,000 rather than 10,000 and strongly urges the Board to set the retail square footage at 50,000 square feet before a special use permit would be required. As staff can also explain, 50,000 square feet is used in other parts of the County Code when making a distinction between regular retailers and big box retailers. The intent of Section 30-85-24.5 as originally proposed was to discourage big box retailers and VLH agrees with that goal and believes that the same 50,000 square foot standard used in other parts of the County Code is the right standard here. Regular retail, but not big box retail, will be part of the Explore Park experience. Ms. Goodlatte December 20, 2005 1383 advised that Mr. Vander Maten envisions wrapping the retail experience into the overall park experience as is done in other family destination resorts around the country. They believe that a 50,000 square foot limit gives the creative team flexibility within limits that are reasonable and workable, and that a credible tenant may not be interested in less than 10,000 square feet. Developers will tell you that a credible tenant will insist on a certain size and scope for a space and placing the cap at 10,000 feet severely limits VLH's ability to attract the quality credit tenants that it seeks. They respectfully request that the Board adopt the original 50,000 square feet in that section before a special use permit will be required. Ms. Goodlatte further advised that they are also requesting that the automobile rental leasing provisions eliminated by the Planning Commission be reinserted. It is foreseeable that a family spending time in Explore Park might want to rent a car, especially if they arrive at the park by recreational vehicle (RV). That is why they requested that an automobile leasing use be permitted and they request that the section removed by the Planning Commission which was Section 30-85-4.5 be reinserted. Mr. Vander Maten advised that he is from Orlando, Florida, and that approximately one year ago, he had the first opportunity to visit Explore Park and see its potential. Since that time, he has continued to work with the many parties involved to determine the extent of the potential and how it can best be realized. Rather than at this time going back into a lengthy summary of the experiences on this project which 1384 December 20, 2005 have already been summarized by Mr. Hodge, Mr. Holladay, and Ms. Goodlatte, he advised that he is requesting the Board's support and approval of the proposed zoning and ordinances. He asked to reserve any further comments at the conclusion of the vote. The following citizens spoke regarding this item: Stan Lanford, 7942 Hollins Court Drive, advised that he has been involved with Explore Park for the past twenty years, has served on the VRFA, and the summary of all the actions has been very complete. The economic development aspect has not been stressed as much but this has driven him to be a part of this for the past years and he sees this as a tool to make the Roanoke Valley a better place to live and there will be more opportunities for young people to have jobs. He requested that the Board approve the rezoning and advised that all will benefit from it. Brad Grose, Mayor, Town of Vinton, 407 Aragona Drive, advised that the Vinton Town Council canceled their meeting tonight so that their members could personally show their strong support in favor of the rezoning request. He advised that the members of the Town Council feel the rezoning will provide an opportunity for Explore Park to reach its full potential and have a positive impact upon the Town of Vinton, the County, the Valley, and perhaps the entire region. Explore Park holds the promise of providing diversity to the local economic base and provide more opportunities for the entire population. The potential impact of this project upon the entire region is exciting and many agree that a venue is needed in the Roanoke Valley December 20, 2005 1385 that could be a destination point for this region, and Explore Park could provide that attraction. He advised that they are concerned about the environment but are convinced that development of Explore Park can be achieved while preserving the natural beauty and history of the site. He advised that he speaks for the Vinton Town Council when he asks the Board to support the rezoning, and advised that they are in favor of the rezoning as requested by the developer. He thanked the Board for the leadership that they are providing to the community and region. Mark McClain, 9070 Greenbrier Court, advised that he was representing the Roanoke Sierra Club and serves as its chairman. He reported that the Sierra Club's purpose is to explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth, practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's eco system and resources, to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment and to use all lawful means to carry out those objectives. He advised that he agrees with Mr. Hodge that Explore Park is a very special place but this is not a plan for protection, but a plan for substantial and intense development of this property. He advised that the petitioner's representative made that very clear in the comments presented tonight. The Sierra Club believes that the proposed zoning changes open the door for abuse and inappropriate development of this property, and the plan will imperil Explore Park's natural qualities and deprive the public of the use of this land as a refuge from the stress of their everyday life. He advised that for these reasons, he and the Sierra Club would ask the Board to deny this zoning change. He clarified one point 1386 December 20, 2005 that may have been misconstrued about the Sierra Club's position: they are not asking the citizens of Roanoke County to continue to support the amenities of Explore Park at the difficult levels of recent years. This land belongs to all the people of Virginia, and they believe the proposal made by Mr. Rupert Cutler at the Planning Commission meeting to establish a state park on this site should be given careful consideration by the state legislature. He advised that the Sierra Club believes that this would be the most appropriate use of the land and would increase overnight visitation. He advised that they are very concerned about the continuing increased development and while protecting natural areas does not mean the end of growth, the point has been reached where growth must be carefully planned and accomplished in a way that does not imperil the resources that make the County such a wonderful place to live. Annie Krochalis, 9428 Patterson Drive, advised that she is concerned about the change from a rezoning requiring a master plan to a rezoning with a list of uses permitted by right. While she is not opposed to all of the uses permitted by right, she questioned, as did Supervisor McNamara at the Board retreat, why is it so important to Mr. Vander Maten to have a list of permitted uses when he does not know what he wants to do. The master plan offered with this change does not offer details required in the County Code. She advised that Supervisor Altizer expressed concerns about the impact on Rutrough Road and the commercial access road. She also has these concerns and advised that if the access is developed in Bedford County, will the economic development spin-off go there and she questioned how the non-contiguous December 20, 2005 1387 parcels will be developed. She reported that Supervisor Church expressed his concerns about continuing the funding for Explore Park once this development moves forward. She questioned if the Board has sufficient information to rezone this property along the BRP, which is a last-chance landscape, to what essential is a C-2 commercial use. She asked that each supervisor answer the questions that they expressed at the retreat during their comments in the discussion and she would to know how the questions were resolved. She advised that the staff report cited an exciting and challenging change in the direction of Explore Park and she asked what is that direction. She asked the Board to consider the precedent being set of a large commercial development affecting public land in the neighborhood but approved in a kind of secrecy and without public information. She advised that she reserved the rest of her comments for the second public hearing. Steve Noble, 5376 Canter Drive, advised that he attended the three Planning Commission work sessions and every time he raised questions, the next time he attended a meeting, the concept had changed. He advised that he spoke at the Planning Commission for nine minutes and put his concerns on the record. He advised that he supports economic development in Roanoke County and believes that Explore Park can be developed to the benefit of the owner which is the state, the citizens, the neighbors and users, and Roanoke County. However, this is a special ordinance that applies to only one property; but while the Commission voted four to one for approval of both actions, there were negative votes from different people which means that others 1388 December 20, 2005 have concerns. He recommenced that the Board return the ordinance to the Planning Commission to work out those issues since the ordinance is to be used only once and they should be in 100% agreement on policy. The Board should have full confidence in the plan and the process; and to approve an ordinance that members of the Planning Commission have concerns about is not good policy. He asked that the ordinance be returned to the Planning Commission to consider the two changes requested by the VLH at the meeting tonight. Tom Brock, 5434 Peregrine Crest Circle, President of the River Foundation, advised that Roanoke County and the River Foundation for the past five years have provided the funds that basically have kept Explore Park in operation. He advised that he and Mr. Lanford had many of the concerns expressed tonight and at the Planning Commission, they were the two primary people negotiating with Mr. Vander Maten and VLH about the lease. He advised that he received unanimous support from the River Foundation to ask the Board to approve these actions and advised that the 1,100 acres were not purchased to be a wildlife preserve or a natural area. He advised that $6 million has been invested in the property as follows: $4 million from the County, $13 million from private individuals or businesses, over $16 million from the state, and $13 million which was primarily an investment in the connector road from the BRP by the federal government. This property was bought collectively and specifically to be a destination location and to provide economic development for this region. He also advised that Bedford County is very excited about this project and if they were not only December 20, 2005 1389 talking about Roanoke County's land of 774 acres, members of the Bedford County Board of Supervisors would probably also be at this meeting. He feels the 1,100 acres is going to be used in compliance with the original intent for which the land was purchased. Mr. Brock advised that Explore Park has been starved for capital, and this has been the problem since day one, and the original vision had estimates from anywhere from $180 million to almost $300 million to develop it to its full potential. They are now talking about having a million plus people visit Explore Park and not just 60,000. If you are going to have a destination location where people are staying overnight, which is going to positively impact the economic, you cannot think the way we have thought in the past. He appealed to the Board to support the original intent of why this money was invested and the petition. IN RE: RECESS Chairman Altizer declared a recess at 8:20 p.m. The Board returned to open session at 8:31 p.m. 5. Second readinQ of an ordinance amendinQ Section 30-71. EP Explore Park District. and related sections 30-29. Use Types Generally. and 30-80 throuQh 30-88. Use and DesiQn Standards. of the Roanoke County ZoninQ Ordinance. upon the petition of the Roanoke County PlanninQ Commission. (Elmer C. HodQe. County Administrator: David Holladay. Senior Planner) 1390 December 20, 2005 Supervisor Altizer asked Mr. Holladay to explain traditional zoning for the benefit of the citizens. Mr. Holladay explained that traditional zoning is similar to the other zoning districts such as C-2, Industrial, or Residential, and they have a purpose statement with a list of permitted uses and design standards with some overlap. He explained that the difference between that and what is currently in place with Explore Park is a master plan type of development and zoning district where the petitioner presents their full plans and the Board accepts that document as a complete set of proffered statements and that document and acceptance, once approved, becomes a unique zoning district. What they are proposing to change to is a new Explore Park zoning district that is more in line with the existing zoning districts with a list of permitted uses. This approach parallels some of the research they conducted in looking at other localities that have destination, tourist and amusement type districts. Some of them were traditional, industrial and commercial zoning districts such as Busch Gardens and Kings Dominion which are in commercial and industrial districts respectively. They started the process and found a reference to Arlington, Texas which has a very similar structure to what they are proposing and has similarities in the overall zoning district. However, there are some differences since Arlington has an urban downtown festival district and has a greater commercial intent and includes Six Flags over Texas and the Dallas Cowboys stadium. Supervisor Altizer advised that what Roanoke County is proposing is not a unique ordinance as compared to other localities regarding how they are handling December 20, 2005 1391 destination attractions. Supervisor Altizer advised that not all C-2 zoning permitted uses are incorporated in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Holladay advised that the C-2 list is a much longer list of permitted uses, especially commercial uses. Mr. Holladay advised that what is contained in this ordinance are commercial recreational uses, retail, restaurant, museum, studios, support functions such as gasoline stations, and drive-thru and convenience stores. Supervisor Altizer advised that the building height of 125 feet was mentioned as a concern but approved by the Planning Commission. He inquired if he was correct that with 75 foot buffers in the actual rezoning, to get to 125 feet you only have 145 foot height beginning at the 75 foot buffer. Mr. Holladay advised that this was correct. Supervisor Altizer advised that to get to 125, you would have to go two for one back which in theory is another 160 feet, so the buffer yard then becomes 235 feet instead and not 75 feet. Mr. Holladay advised that he trusted Supervisor Altizer's math. Supervisor McNamara inquired about the maximum size of a retail establishment in the Clearbrook overlay area. Mr. Holladay advised that it is 50,000 square feet and anything over that requires a special use permit. Supervisor McNamara advised that the intent in Clearbrook was to keep out the big box retailers but allow reasonable development. He advised that 10,000 square feet was very small and he would recommend putting 50,000 square feet back in the ordinance. Supervisor McNamara advised that he wanted to address the auto rental requested change. He inquired if a hotel with 100 rooms wanted to have a national car rental in the lobby with 18 cars parked behind the hotel, would that be permitted by this 1392 December 20, 2005 ordinance. Mr. Holladay advised that he did not think that would be permitted by the ordinance as it is written. Supervisor McNamara advised that the last couple of hotels in vacation places he visited had rental cars agencies in the lobby and he believes this is very common. He suggested that the wording of the ordinance could be changed to allow some provision for auto leasing which is connected to a leisure establishment. Supervisor Flora advised that he would support changing the 10,000 square feet to 50,000 because he feels that would be overly restrictive. He would not have a problem with restoring the rental car provision because everyone does not drive a car on vacation and the provision could be limited to the hotel and a specific number of automobiles and vendors on site. He advised that this provision would have minimal impact in the overall scheme of the development. Supervisor Church advised that he agreed with Supervisor Flora's comments about the rental car situation. He advised that in all reality if this type of request came to the Board for rezoning in the past with unanswered questions, unformulated plans and uncertainty about the potential success, the Board would probably turn away quickly. This request involved a large and very beautiful piece of property which has been in the public's sight for many years. The park is starved for capital and Roanoke County has committed well in excess of $4 million. He recalls that two citizens came before the Board some time ago and chastised the Board for putting money into a bottomless pit. Supervisor Church advised that he agrees that it is a reality that Roanoke County cannot keep supporting Explore Park. He advised that the December 20, 2005 1393 County is at a crossroads and they can continue to go down the same road, which is dark and uncertain, or change directions which still involves uncertainty but which it is hoped will lead to potential success. He advised that if the Board approves this request, it will be setting a precedent and the Board needs to treat everyone equal. He advised that this is not an easy decision but if approved by the Board, they need to give it every opportunity to succeed. Supervisor Wray inquired what would happen to the property after 25 years if VLH decided to leave. Mr. Brock advised that the property belongs to the state and would still be owned by the state since VLH only has a lease on the property. Mr. Lanford advised that the lease specifically addresses what will occur if something happens to VLH and if the lease goes on for 50 years or if VLH leaves in 25 years, everything on the property will revert back to the VRFA as owner of the property. At that time, the VRFA would try to find someone else to operate it or if there are mortgages on the property, it could be operated by others to repay the mortgages. This is a high incentive for VLH to operate it until they can succeed. Supervisor Wray inquired about the status of Brugh's Tavern. Debbie Pitts, Executive Director of Explore Park, advised that the Tavern is currently operating under a three-year lease with the VRFA and the lease will probably expire about the time that the lease with VLH is activated. At that time, the operators of the Tavern could work with VLH to renegotiate further terms, and they have indicated that they would like to do this. 1394 December 20, 2005 Supervisor Altizer advised that the Roanoke Valley can no longer take care of Explore Park and it can only survive by creating a destination place that will not only draw from the Valley, but attract people from many hours away creating a stop-off for visitors to the Parkway. This can only be created by investment and the creation of a synergy of critical mass and what it draws people to is a family destination. Through the current budget year, Roanoke County will have invested $4.48 million in taxpayers; funds, and this does not include in-kind contributions. Three years ago, several citizens spoke to the Board and advised that they would no longer support funding Explore Park, and he replied that the Board's first obligation is to protect the investment and not to put it in a predicament of being thrown away. Supervisor Altizer advised that we have heard some citizens who have talked about Explore Park becoming a state park, and he has talked to some legislators to get their opinion about whether the state would agree. The Governor put $200,000 in the budget for the next fiscal year for Explore Park but in the 2006 state budget, they allocated $26.9 million to state parks. They only had additional funding for 29 for the current 34 state parks. He advised that transportation and education will be the focus of our state legislators and comments of the Speaker of the House and Senate commended the Governor's budget in that it was a budget mainly conceived of one-time expenses not recurring expenses. During the 2004-2005 fiscal year, Explore Park had operating expenses of $811,357 and revenues generated by the park of $133,800, which is a deficit of $677,000 to be made up by County taxpayers, River Foundation, fund raising efforts, and the $200,000 received from the December 20, 2005 1395 state last year. The total operating expenses this year are projected to be at a deficit of $699,800, down 14% in revenue generated by the park only, and running a 3% higher deficit than operating revenues. The County should try to do its best to protect the investments already made and he does not believe the state will make this a state park. The ultimate alternative is to padlock it and he does not think anyone wants to see that but something has to be done. Supervisor Altizer advised that a speaker referenced his comments at the retreat about traffic on Rutrough Road and he tried to mitigate the situation to only allow commercial traffic by vendors using the park. He had a concern about patrons being able to come out of the park and use Rutrough Road, and that issue has been addressed in that there will be crossovers to take those people to the other side if it is so developed. He has tried to think of everything, but it is his belief that this park will be successful and at some point in time, another access will come in from the Town of Vinton side. They looked at Mayflower Hills and through the proffers, Roanoke County controls what is going to happen to that park. If the value of that park no longer exists, then it will be up to the VLH to find another location for the park and rebuild it at their own expense. He advised that this is about survival and he displayed the original plans for Explore Park. Many of the things in this ordinance were planned for and envisioned 18 years ago in the original concept plan. In this document, it specifically states that when built-out, the millions of dollars it will generate in payroll, hundreds of jobs generated for people in the valley, profits returned to the state, and revenues to Roanoke County, so he could not say that money is not an aspect of this 1396 December 20, 2005 project. He has worked very closely with this project and once the discussion IS completed, he will offer a motion. Supervisor Church advised that people say it is not the money but the principle; but when you take away the money, the principle runs away also. He thanked each of the Planning Commission members for working so many hours on this project and for the excellent job that they do. He wanted to let the viewers know that sometime the Planning Commission approved projects five to zero, and then the Board denies it. He advised that neither decision was wrong but there could be a different set of information, figures, proffers, or compromises entering into the decision. Recently the Roanoke Times mentioned that there was going to be $20 million plus potentially invested. He advised that if this is approved, he would wish Mr. Vander Maten every success. Supervisor Church advised that the speaker who asked about his statements at the retreat that he stands behind that statement that the citizens he represents have told him that they do not want any more County money invested in Explore Park, and he agrees that it is time for the County to step away and make a decision that hopefully will turn this location into a viable product. Supervisor Wray advised that he does not think that the BRP is going to enter into a situation until they have thoroughly investigated it. He admires the parkway and respects their show of support through Mr. Johnson tonight. He does agree with Supervisor Church that if you put your own money into a situation, you are responsible and are going to believe more in what you are doing. He has gotten that indication of December 20, 2005 1397 belief and commitment from Mr. Vander Maten who has made concessions when concerns were expressed. He has also been told by the citizens he represents that the County can no longer support Explore Park and he believes it is time to move ahead. Supervisor Altizer advised that he would like to clarify that he attended the Planning Commission meeting and he agrees that 10,000 square feet is not enough for a retail business. He thanked the Planning Commission members for their hard work and diligence. Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the ordinance with the following amendment and addition: (1) amend Sec. 30-85-24.5. Retail Sales: A special use permit shall be required for any single retail establishment retail sales use, building or structure that exceeds ten thousand (10,000) fifty thousand (50,000) square feet of gross floor area; and (2) addition of Sec. 30-85-4.5. Automobile Rental/Leasing: In the EP district shall be permitted only with a special use permit. Supervisor Church advised that he had concerns about the auto rental and he does not want to see it look like an airport; however, he does not think that was Supervisor Altizer's intention. He advised that there could be some negotiations to narrow it down to what it will or will not be. He advised that judging from experience, there should not be a rental car agency on every block and he wanted to be sure that this Board is going to be very strict on whether to accept a wholesale car rental agency. Ms. Goodlatte advised that they were mindful of the Board's position about not having a wholesale car rental agency but they would request that a threshold for 1398 December 20, 2005 cars be established and above that number, a special use permit would have to be approved. They would suggest that a car rental agency be allowed with no more than 25 vehicles on site and if there were more than 25, they would have to come back to the Board for the special use permit. They appreciate very much the Chairman's change in language on the square foot issue and she wanted to be sure of the intent. She advised that a special use permit will be required for any retail sales uses or structures that exceed 50,000 feet of gross sales space. She understands that the language would cap at 50,000 square feet retail space within any building or structure, and it would not preclude retail space within a larger, mixed use building such as a hotel, except to limit the retail space to 50,000 within that building. This would also not cap all retail space within the park at 50,000 feet but just the retail space within the building or structure. She wanted to make sure that she understood the intent. Mr. Mahoney advised that the only difference in the language from the Chairman is the gross floor area and if he understands counsel's questions and the intent of the Chairman's motion, it would restrict a structure or building to 50,000 square feet. If the applicant wanted to construct a building larger than 50,000 square feet, they would have to come back to the Board and seek the special use permit. But it does not limit the applicant to only one building of 49,000 square feet. The applicant could build several buildings but none could exceed 50,000 square feet subject to coming back to the Board for the special use permit. Ms. Goodlatte advised that she appreciated the clarification and it would apply only to retail uses. December 20, 2005 1399 Supervisor Altizer advised that he understood why they would want a parameter on the rental cars but he would like to see that come through the Planning Commission. Supervisor Church advised that a solution could be to call someone to come and pick you up. He does not think this is a major stumbling point. Ms. Goodlatte advised that Mr. Vander Maten was indicating during the discussion that he was agreeable to the Board's position on the rental car issue. Supervisor McNamara advised that the larger four-star hotels have rental car capability and the Board does not have all the answers even in a traditional C-2 zoning. However, the Board wants this to be successful and to give Mr. Vander Maten and VLH as many tools as possible but if they have to come back for a special use permit with the public hearing and expenses, that makes it a little more difficult. It is not a deal killer but if you have a hotel that has 400 parking places and the first 20 are Avis or National and there is a counter inside the hotel, he does not see much risk in this arrangement. It is his opinion that they should allow the rental cars without special use permit certainly in the smaller scenarios. Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the ordinance with the following amendment and addition: (1) amend Sec. 30-85-24.5. Retail Sales: A special use permit shall be required for any single retail establishment retail sales use, building or structure that exceeds ten thousand (10,000) fifty thousand (50,000) square feet of gross floor area; and (2) addition of Sec. 30-85-4.5. Automobile Rental/Leasing: In the 1400 December 20, 2005 EP district shall be permitted only with a special use permit. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ORDINANCE 122005-11 AMENDING SECTION 30-71, EP EXPLORE PARK DISTRICT, AND RELATED SECTIONS 30-29, USE TYPES GENERALLY, AND 30-80 THROUGH 30-88, USE AND DESIGN STANDARDS OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE WHEREAS, Section 30-71 of the Roanoke County Code establishes certain regulations under the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance applicable to the Explore Park to ensure that it be operated as an historical family destination resort, and these regulations ensure that areas surrounding Explore Park are afforded protections necessitated by the Park's development and operation, and that public facilities and services are planned and are adequate to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the Park with a minimum of impact on the surrounding neighborhood and the larger community; and, WHEREAS, Section 30-29, Definitions, and Sections 30-80 through 30-88, Use and Design Standards, require amendments in order to conform with the amendments to Section 30-71; and, WHEREAS, the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority (VRFA) and Virginia Living Histories, Inc. (VLH) have requested the County to consider amending these regulations in order to expedite development of this property as a family destination resort; and, WHEREAS, these regulations have been reviewed by the Roanoke County Planning Commission and it has recommended to the Board on December 6, 2005, that it is necessary and convenient to amend said regulations as requested by the VRF A and VLH. WHEREAS, public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice may require consideration of amendments to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance which currently apply to the Explore Park; and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke as follows: 1. That Section 30-71, EP Explore Park District of the Roanoke County Code be amended to read and provide as follows: December 20, 2005 1401 EXPLORE PARK SEC. 30-71. EP EXPLORE PARK DISTRICT. Sec. 30-71 -1. Purpose. (A) The purpose of this district is to establish an area within the county that is designated and reserved solely for activities associated with the Explore Park, (hereafter referred to as the Park). These district regulations are designed to permit current Park uses while facilitating, through adequate public review, the development of the Park as a family destination resort which incorporates significant natural areas within its boundaries. They are also designed to ensure that the facilities and services are adequate to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the Park with a minimum of impact on the surrounding neighborhood and the larger community. Sec. 30-71 -2. Applicability. (A) These regulations shall only apply to land in the County of Roanoke owned or leased by the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority (VRFA), Virginia Living Histories, Inc., and to any facilities, andlor operations on such land. Sec. 30-71 -3. Permitted Uses. (A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards are listed in Article IV, Use and Design Standards, for those specific uses. 1. Aqricultural and Forestry Uses Agriculture Stables, Commercial * 2. Civic Uses Administrative Services Camps* Cultural Services Post Office Public Assembly Public Parks and Recreational Areas * Safety Services Utility Services, Minor 1402 December 20, 2005 3. Commercial Uses Antique Shops Campgrounds Commercial Indoor Amusement Commercial Indoor Entertainment Commercial Indoor Sports and Recreation Commercial Outdoor Entertainment Commercial Outdoor Sports and Recreation Communication Services Golf Course* HotellMotellMotor Lodge RestauranUFamily RestauranUGeneral RestauranUDrive-in or Fast Food* Retail Sales* Studio, Fine Arts (B) The following uses are permitted by right, subject to all other applicable requirements contained in this ordinance. These uses are recognized as necessary and appropriate accessory uses within Explore Park. The character and scale of these uses, however, must be subordinate and incidental to the permitted uses set forth in (A) above. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards are listed in Article IV, Use and Design Standards, for those specific uses. 1. Civic Uses Religious Assembly* Public Maintenance and Service Facilities * 2. Office Uses Financial Institutions* General Office 3. Commercial Uses Automobile RentallLeasing, with a special use permit * Automobile Repair Services, Minor* Business Support Services* Convenience Store * Gasoline Station * 4. Industrial Uses Transportation Terminal * December 20, 2005 1403 (C) Within the Park, there shall be limits on developed areas in order to ensure that at least 30% of the acreage of the Park, within the jurisdiction of the County of Roanoke, consists of open space, forested space, trails, buffers or natural areas. To achieve that objective, those uses which are identified in subsection (A) and (B) above as permitted uses shall not exceed 70% of the Park's acreage in the County of Roanoke. 1. Calculation of Developed Area ratio a. Buildings and other structures, streets and other paving, utilities, filling, grading, and excavating shall be included in the calculation of developed area. b. Any pasture, crop land, forested areas, trails, ponds other than stormwater detention areas, recreated natural features, buffers and similar open or yard areas shall not be calculated as developed areas. c. During site development review, the limits of disturbance for each development shall be identified in order to calculate developed areas. In addition, the identification and calculation of open space, forested space, trails, buffers and natural areas shall be provided on an ongoing basis in order to confirm compliance with the 70%/30% ratio. d. So long as the 70%/30% ratio is maintained, the location of open space, forested space, trails, buffers or natural areas may be shifted as development proceeds. Sec. 30-71 -4. Rezoning Application Process. (A) Prior to submitting an application for review and approval under these provisions, the applicant and the county staff shall confer to discuss the requirements of this section. The purpose of the meeting is to obtain a mutual understanding of the application requirements and process. (B) Any application to rezone land to the EP designation shall constitute an amendment to the zoning ordinance pursuant to Section 30-14. Once the board of supervisors has approved the master plan described below, all submitted and accepted proffers shall constitute conditions pursuant to the provisions of this 1404 December 20, 2005 ordinance. Development shall occur in substantial conformity with the specifics set out in the master plan. (C) To initiate an amendment, the applicant shall complete a rezoning application packet. This information shall be accompanied by graphic and written information which shall constitute a master plan. All information submitted shall be of sufficient clarity, detail, and scale to clearly and accurately identify the location, nature and character of the proposed district. The information shall include: 1. A legal description of the proposed site. This may be a metes and bounds description and plat, or a tabular summary of all tax map parcels proposed for rezoning. If tax parcels are used, a composite plan shall be submitted, showing the limits of the proposed district and the location of each parcel within the district. Should surveyor title work disclose that any parcel or portions thereof were erroneously included in the rezoning application, then the applicant may remove said parcels from the application without invalidating the rezoning of the other submitted parcels 2. Current information on the existing zoning and land use of each parcel proposed for the Park. 3. A topographical survey of the proposed site including information on flood plains and natural water courses. 4. Minimum buffers between the Park and its neighbors and general details on the landscaping within such buffers. 5. Information on open space, including how such space might be utilized for hiking, biking and riding trails or other park uses. 6. Generalized statements pertaining to architectural and community design guidelines. 7. Description of transportation objectives, identifying current and proposed connections with state maintained roads with maintenance responsibility for non-state maintained roads identified. Include connections to intermodal transportation systems as shown in the Community Plan. 8. Information on proposed plans for public utilities. December 20, 2005 1405 9. Inventory of historic resources. (D) The completed rezoning application and supporting master plan shall be submitted to the planning commission for review and analysis. The commission shall review this information and make a report of its findings to the board of supervisors. The commission shall as part of its review hold a public hearing pursuant to section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. (E) The commission shall make a report of its findings to the board of supervisors within 90 days of the receipt of the materials, unless the applicant requests, or agrees to an extension of this time frame. The commission's report shall recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval of the master plan for the Park. Failure of the commission to make a report of its findings to the board of supervisors within this period shall constitute a commission recommendation of approval. (F) If the commission recommends denial of the master plan or approval with modifications, the applicant shall, upon its request, have up to sixty (60) days to make any modifications. If the applicant desires to make any modifications to the master plan, the board of supervisors' review and action shall be delayed until such changes are made and submitted for review. (G) The board of supervisors shall review the master plan and act to approve or deny the plan within ninety (90) days from the date of the planning commission's action unless the applicant requests or agrees to an extension of this time frame. The plan approved by the board of supervisors shall constitute the approved master plan for the Park. Once approved by the board of supervisors, the administrator shall authorize the revisions to the official zoning map to indicate the establishment of the EP district. (H) Should major changes to the master plan be desired, the applicant has the right to amend the master plan by following the process detailed in sections D through G above. (I) Following the approval of the master plan (which approval signifies that the proposed site is rezoned to the EP district), the applicant shall be required to submit preliminary and final site development plans prior to construction for approval. Final site development plans for any phase or component of the Park that involves the construction of structures or facilities shall be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit and the commencement of construction. 1406 December 20, 2005 SEC. 30-80. USE AND DESIGN STANDARDS SEC. 30-83. CIVIC USES Sec. 30-83-7.5. Public Maintenance and Service Facilities. (A) In the EP district, these facilities shall be used to service and maintain only EP district properties andlor access thereto. SEC. 30-85. COMMERCIAL USES Sec. 30-85-4.5. Automobile Rental/Leasing. (A) In the EP district: 1. Shall be permitted only with a special use permit. Sec. 30-85-6. Automobile Repair Services, Minor. (C) Additional standards in the EP district: 1. There shall be a maximum of four service bays, one of which may be oversized to permit a bus or recreational vehicle to pull though for service. 2. Where adjoining a residential or civic use type, a minimum 100 foot setback shall be required. 3. No independent advertising through local media shall call attention to the Explore Park location of the business. Sec. 30-85-8.5. Business Support Services. (A) In the EP district, the following shall apply: 1. No independent advertising through local media shall call attention to the Explore Park location of the business. Sec. 30-85-9. Campground. (A) General standards in the AG3 and AG1 districts: (The campground standards are unchanged, but would now only apply to the AG3 and AG1 district, and not EP) Sec. 30-85-13. Convenience Store. December 20, 2005 1407 (D) Additional standards in the EP district: 1. No convenience store shall exceed three thousand (3,000) square feet of gross floor area. 2. Where adjoining a residential or civic use type, a minimum 100 foot setback shall be required. 3. No independent advertising through local media shall call attention to the Explore Park location of the business. Sec. 30-85-16. Gasoline Station. (C) Additional standards in the EP district: 1. No more than four (4) stations designed for dispensing fuel shall be located on site. 2. Where adjoining a residential or civic use type, a minimum 100 foot setback shall be required. 3. No independent advertising through local media shall call attention to the Explore Park location of the business. Sec. 30-85-24. Restaurant, Drive-In or Fast Food (A) In the EP District: 1. A special use permit shall be required for any drive though facilities. Sec. 30-85-24.5. Retail Sales. (B) In the EP District: 1. A special use permit shall be required for any retail sales use, building or structure that exceeds fifty thousand (50,000) square feet of gross floor area. SEC. 30-86. INDUSTRIAL USES. Sec. 30-86-11. Transportation Terminal. (A) In the EP district the following standards shall apply: 1. This use is provided to allow various visitor transportation access options to be constructed within the Park. 1408 December 20, 2005 2. Typical uses include train depot, marina, bus loading and unloading areas, and visitor shuttle services. SEC. 30-29. USE TYPES; GENERALLY Sec. 30-29-5. Commercial Use Types. Marina: A facility situated on a river which provides launching and secure moorings for water-borne craft and may also provide watercraft rental, supplies, fuel and marine . . repair services. Sec. 30-29-6. Industrial Use Types. Transportation Terminal: A facility for loading, unloading and interchange of passengers, baggage and incidental freight or package express between modes of ground or water transportation, including bus terminals, railroad stations, marinas and public transit facilities. 3. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance with the following amendment and addition: (1) amend Sec. 30-85-24.5. Retail Sales: A special use permit shall be required for any single retail establishment retail sales use, building or structure that exceeds ten thousand (10,000) fifty thousand (50,000) square feet of gross floor area; and (2) addition of Sec. 30-85-4.5. Automobile Rental/Leasing: In the EP district shall be permitted only with a special use permit. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 6. Second readinQ of an ordinance to rezone 774+ acres from EP. Explore Park District with existinQ master plan and existinQ proffered conditions. to EP. Explore Park District with new master plan and new proffered conditions. Vinton MaQisterial District. upon the petition of VirQinia LivinQ Histories. Inc. and the VirQinia December 20, 2005 1409 Recreational Facilities Authority. (Elmer C. HodQe. County Administrator: David Holladay. Senior Planner) 0-122005-12 Mr. Holladay advised that VLH requests on behalf of the VRF A to rezone 774 plus or minus acres from EP, Explore Park District with the existing master plan and proffered conditions, to the newly created EP, Explore Park District, with a new master plan and proffered conditions. The proposed rezoning will include the list of proffered conditions addressing issues such as relationships with the BRP, access, structure height, and buffer yards. The park and surrounding area are designated rural preserve and rural village in the 2005 Roanoke County Community Plan. Portions of the park on the northeast side of the Roanoke River are designed transition. Parks and outdoor recreational facilities are encouraged land use types in the Rural Preserve and Rural Village areas. The areas between Hardy Road and the Roanoke River were designated Transition in the 2005 update of the Community Plan. Mr. Holladay advised that the Transition designation encourages orderly development of highway frontage parcels. This designation was applied to the areas near the Vinton Business Center, and Virginia Mountain Country, and includes the adjacent Explore Park land. Future revisions of the Roanoke County Community Plan will need to take into consideration the effects of development at Explore Park on the surrounding transportation system as well as the surrounding community. Public water and sanitary sewer systems are planned for Explore Park. Extensions of these systems 1410 December 20, 2005 to Explore Park will require review for conformance with the Community Plan, per section 15.2- 2232 of the Code of Virginia. Extension of public services through areas currently designated as rural would bring substantial change to those rural areas, depending upon the route of construction. Throughout its history, Explore Park has provided excellent visitor services in a unique outdoor recreation setting but the park operates under constrained finances, and needs to continue to grow in order to thrive. The VRF A, through its lease agreement with VLH has seized an opportunity to see the Park thrive. The amendments just approved to the EP zoning district, and the proposed approval of the rezoning of the Park property, represent an exciting and challenging change in direction for Explore Park. Supervisor Wray inquired about Proffer #11 and how the extension of the greenway system into a non-fee area will be made up. Mr. Holladay advised that there will be fees collected at the park and this would be an area outside of that. He advised that during negotiations about this proffer, VLH acknowledged the benefit of connection with the greenway system and welcomes foot travel to the park and into assessable areas for foot travel but does not want to have a public greenway system going into an area where they may charge admissions without first collecting the fee. Supervisor Wray inquired as to how that area would be separated. Mr. Holladay advised that at this point, this is unknown and it is a matter of design and where the fee area is placed. Supervisor Altizer advised that VLH is committed to accommodating the greenways but he understands the process of not being able to designate that at this December 20, 2005 1411 time since no one knows the exact footprint of the project. He advised that this is a work in progress. Mr. Hodge advised that he did not think that anyone could design the greenway at this time but one solution might be Mr. Holladay's suggestion that if the greenway reaches that point along the Roanoke River, it could come up along the parkway and enter from the Roanoke River Parkway. That property belongs to VDOT and to the Landfill which would be outside of the fee area. This is one solution that could be investigated further at the proper time. Ms. Goodlatte advised that the proffers were worked on for a very long time and they appreciated the efforts of Mr. Hodge, Mr. Holladay, Ms. Scheid, and Mr. Johnson in the process. The proffers are the same as presented to the Planning Commission except that more proffers have been added; specifically, Proffer #4 which was important to the BRP to protect the views along the parkway. Ms. Goodlatte advised that Mr. Vander Maten is also very concerned that all the stakeholders be taken care of and was glad to add the proffer. 1412 December 20, 2005 Mr. Mahoney clarified that the proffers before the Board at this time which were distributed at this meeting contain some revisions received this morning at 9:30 a.m. which were signed by Mr. Vander Maten. These revised proffers reflect a modification and improvement to the language of Proffer #4 to reflect the BRP concerns. He wanted to verify for the purposes of the record that the Board is reviewing a slightly different set of proffers other than what was in the printed agenda and materials distributed to the Board last Friday. Supervisor Wray advised that for the citizens who did not see the revision, he wanted to mention a portion of Proffer #4 that states that unless waived by the BRP, no structures visible on June 30 of any year from the center line of the BRP shall be constructed on the Mayflower Hills parcels or the parcels along Highland Road. This is the protection that we received and the BRP is overseeing this type of protection. Chairman Altizer advised that some of the citizens who spoke on the prevIous agenda item had requested to speak on this item. The following citizens advised Chairman Altizer that they waived the opportunity to speak: Mr. Lanford, Mayor Grose, Mr. Noble, and Mr. Brock. The following citizens spoke regarding this item: Mark McClain, 9070 Greenbrier Court, advised that he did not envy the Board this difficult decision. He recognized that they want to protect the investment in Explore Park but there is a need to protect the natural environment. He believes that although there is a percentage being kept in the natural state, they are laying plans for December 20, 2005 1413 intense development when you are permitting some retail buildings up to 50,000 square feet, golf course, service station, auto repair and a million visitors. He is very disappointed in the loss of the natural land and although some of the amenities will be desirable, as a whole, this will be a loss that will be regretted. Annie Krochalis, 9428 Patterson Drive, advised that she realized that Explore Park is a business venture in its proposed third reincarnation and there are many ways that people think its investment should be protected. She understand that some people want to stop the funding but she does support the continuation of funding for Explore Park. She thinks that it was bought to be a destination location but they wanted to keep the historical and educational areas and she is afraid that this will not happen and that this will be a commercial city on the side of the parkway. They were assured at the Explore Park meeting that this would not based on an amusement park but tonight it has been stated publicly that it was based on Six Flags over Texas. There are some specifics that she is concerned about and they are the responsibilities of zoning and not about VLH or Mr. Vander Maten. There are things about referencing a traffic study that the County's traffic engineer cited was based on the 1980's and not on the anticipated use; the assurance of public utilities does not say in writing who pays for it, she does not know how the proffers were rewritten since they were not on the website. Another concern is that this was done in secret and not in an open process. She is concerned about the greenway, the buffer zone of 75 feet, and that the development does not match the Community Plan. She is concerned about the Visitor's 1414 December 20, 2005 Center and that it be mandated that the developer pay for the relocation of things that the citizens have asked to be protected including the historic buildings. There should be some written requirements to the intent of the VRFA original purpose and legislation since it is not in writing but says, we will consider or think about it. She would like to see the project slowdown and more public discussion about the proffers. Ms. Krochalis advised that when VLH completes the feasibility study, the study and site plan should be subject to public review by this Board and the Planning Commission. Grace Terry, 4718 Wembley Place, advised that she sent the Board members an email today and stated that the lease granted by the VRFA fails to protect the historic buildings. In Section 14.(VII) it says that if the Tenant (VLH) decides not to use an historic structure, he must provide 30 days notice after which the Landlord (VRFA) has 150 days to remove it and clean up at the Landlord's expense. If this is not done within the time limit, the lease states that "Landlord may proceed to remove or demolish the historic structure as Tenant sees fit." Ms. Terry advised that no requirement is made of the Tenant to relocate the structures to another part of the park, and no requirement is made to carefully dismantle them in a condition whereby they could be returned to the original donor or even donated to another taxpayer-sponsored park that has an historic mission. The tenant can simply get a bulldozer and knock them down. Just like the lease, the new Explore Park District rezoning that VLH has asked Roanoke County to grant provides no protection for the existing recreated historic area of the park. The families from the Roanoke Valley who donated those buildings and the December 20, 2005 1415 volunteers who spent hours helping to reconstruct them did so believing that they were helping to create an educational site that would preserve our area's history. She stated that there are two functions guaranteed in the Virginia constitution; one is education and the other is the protection of Virginia's natural resources. Currently, school children are the largest percentage of paid admissions to the park, and if the site is replaced with 50,000 square foot building, there is no comparable educational site within a 50 to 75 mile radio of Roanoke. In addition, if 70% of the natural areas can be graded and replaced with pavement or buildings, she questioned how the existing environmental programs will continue. Supervisor Altizer advised that a speaker mentioned that Explore Park might be developed similar to Six Flags over Texas and he wanted to clarify that the comment about that location referred to the type of rezoning process they used and is not indicative of what Explore Park might become. Supervisor Altizer stated that the original buffer was 75 feet which was mainly a side buffer to existing houses; but with the revised proffer, the buffer includes the road frontage along Rutrough Road. He asked Mr. Holladay if he was correct in stating that you have to be back 75 feet before you can build the first building, and you have to go 235 feet back from the buffer line before you can start the construction of a 125 foot structure. Mr. Holladay replied in the affirmative. Supervisor Wray advised that he also had a problem with the original buffer, and he did not feel that 75 feet was sufficient but he understand it now. He 1416 December 20, 2005 inquired if any new road access to the park would require a special use permit. Mr. Holladay advised that additional changes or a new access would require coming back to the Board for approval of an amendment and not a special use permit. Supervisor Wray advised Ms. Terry that not only did the Board get her email but there was a paper copy furnished to each member. Supervisor Wray asked Mr. Vander Maten for a response about protection for the buildings at Explore Park. Mr. Vander Maten advised that the subject of the buildings was covered in great depth and addressed in the lease that was negotiated because it was a concern for everyone. He would be glad to assist Ms. Terry in reviewing the lease. He stated that he is a history buff and is interest in preserving the buildings, but if they had to be moved at some point, there are provisions for this in the lease. He advised that he gives his personal commitment to try to preserve, keep them intact, maintain and restore the buildings. Mr. Brock advised that the River Foundation spent a great deal of time discussion Ms. Terry's concerns about the buildings because they raised money to maintain and install the structures. The lease provisions did not relieve all of the concerns but the River Foundation believes that they are doing the right thing because Explore Park cannot continue the way it is now. He understands that there is a limited tolerance in the County to continue funding for the park, but he would encourage the continuation of funding because if you discontinue funding, no good will come to the buildings. The reality is that there is less assurance for maintenance if they continue the December 20, 2005 1417 way it is now than they will be with VLH. The educational component in the lease is the best situation they could agree upon, and they agree that Explore Park is important to the school children of this area. The River Foundation has discussed continuing to raise money to fund education for children compatible with the park and in a historic nature. Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the ordinance with the revised proffered conditions submitted on December 20, 2005. Supervisor Altizer thanked all of the citizens who attended the meeting and the staff for the many hours devoted to this project. He thanked Mr. Vander Maten and Mr. Wilkinson for their efforts and willingness to work with all parties. He thanked Mr. Johnson for his efforts and support. Mr. Vander Maten advised that he applauded the Board for taking a necessary and important step to realize the potential of Explore Park. He was contacted about a year and a half ago by Mr. Wilkinson, whom he has known for 16 years, to look at Explore Park, and he thanked him for involving him in the project. Mr. Vander Maten advised that he has done development work in a half dozen states where the current values might be several hundreds of thousands of dollars. He advised that he discovered during the past year that of all the places he has worked with, the business leaders, organizations, community, staff, County, and Board in this area have the process that works the best and does the best job of representing the public while still moving the community forward. He advised that people fail to realize that change is inevitable and growth is an option. He advised that Mr. Wilkinson has been of great 1418 December 20, 2005 assistance as the liaison to the parties involved. He stated that although he may miss some names, he wanted to thank the following individuals for their time and efforts: the River Foundation, Tom Brock, Stan Lanford, VRFA, business leaders, planning staff, Elmer Hodge, Paul Mahoney, and David Holladay. He thanked Chairman Altizer for his help in making suggestions which helped to bring the project to fruition and thanked the members of the Vinton Town Council. He advised that this is the first step on a long journey and he can now move forward to fulfill his commitment to maximize the potential of Explore Park. Mr. Wilkinson advised that he appreciated the Board's vote of confidence. He advised that he was blessed to have his family here today sitting through the three hours of this meeting; blessed to have neighbors and friends who have vision; blessed to live in an environment with the beauty of the mountains, rivers and trees; blessed for the leadership from Chairman Altizer, Mr. Hodge, Vinton Town Council, VRFA, and River Foundation; and blessed to have people willing to express their opinions about the stewardship of the land. He advised that if market conditions warrant, he believes that they will have a project that all can be thankful for in the Roanoke Valley, and he is also blessed to have a partner such as Mr. Vander Maten, who has the desire, passion and ability to make a big contribution to the Roanoke Valley. December 20, 2005 1419 Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the ordinance with the revised proffered conditions submitted on December 20, 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ORDINANCE 122005-12 TO REZONE 774+1- ACRES FROM EP, EXPLORE PARK DISTRICT WITH EXISTING MASTER PLAN AND EXISTING PROFFERED CONDITIONS, TO EP, EXPLORE PARK DISTRICT WITH NEW MASTER PLAN AND NEW PROFFERED CONDITIONS, VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON PETITION OF VIRGINIA LIVING HISTORIES, INC. AND THE VIRGINIA RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 15, 2005, and the second reading and public hearing were held December 20, 2005; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on December 6, 2005; 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 zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 774 acres, more or less, in the Vinton Magisterial District and as described herein by tax map number, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of EP, Explore Park District with new master plan and existing proffered conditions, to the zoning classification of EP, Explore Park District with new master plan and proffered conditions. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Virginia Living Histories, Inc. and the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority. 3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts: (1) All prior zoning conditions and proffers associated with Explore Park are removed. (2) As shown on the Master Plan prepared by Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern dated November 30, 2005, ("Master Plan"), the primary access for visitors to Explore Park shall continue to be the Roanoke River Parkway. VLH shall work with the Blue Ridge Parkway to determine the specifics of that usage, including road 1420 December 20, 2005 maintenance responsibilities. Except as permitted in proffer #3 below, Rutrough Road shall be used only for construction traffic, commercial deliveries to Explore Park, internal transportation by Explore Park personnel, and for emergency vehicle access. This will not preclude, however, the connection of internal Explore Park roads over and across Rutrough Road, as generally indicated on the Master Plan. Those crossings shall be designed to prevent their use as independent points of public access to Explore Park. Use of Rutrough Road for Explore Park road crossing purposes will require the administrative review and approval of Roanoke County and VDOT. (3) The Mayflower Hills parcels (Roanoke County Tax Map Nos. 80.00- 2-32, 80.00-2-33, 80.00-2-34, and 80.00-2-35) currently use Rutrough Road as their access. Notwithstanding the limitation on the use of Rutrough Road imposed by proffer #2 above, Rutrough Road may be used for general public access to the Mayflower Hills parcels. A portion of the Mayflower Hills parcels currently serves as a neighborhood park pursuant to the terms of a lease agreement. Should VLH's development of the Mayflower Hills parcels diminish the value of the park to the neighbors, which determination shall be made solely by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, then, at its expense, VLH shall find an alternate location for the neighborhood park. (4) In an effort to meet the objectives of the Blue Ridge Parkway to protect Parkway viewsheds which could be impacted when the Mayflower Hills parcels and the parcels along Highland Road are developed, VLH agrees that, unless waived by the Blue Ridge Parkway, no structures visible on June 30 of any year (to recognize the impact of seasonality on views) from the center line of the Blue Ridge Parkway between milepost marker 114 % and 117 shall be constructed on the Mayflower Hills parcels (identified in paragraph 3 above) or the parcels along Highland Road (having Roanoke County tax map parcel numbers 71.03-1-10, 71.03-1-11, 80.00-1-34.2, 80.00- 1-34.3 and 80.00-1-35), so long as the Blue Ridge Parkway will permit VLH to landscape on Parkway property to shield views of structures to be constructed on said parcels if a Parkway location provides the most effective means for screening a structure. (5) For improvements visible from the Blue Ridge Parkway, at such points as determined by the Blue Ridge Parkway and VLH, VLH shall comply with Blue Ridge Parkway design standards. (6) All signs visible from a public right of way shall be no higher than 25 feet and shall have a consistent design treatment. This shall not preclude, however, the use of different sign designs in different sections of Explore Park to enhance the theme of the section within which the sign in placed. (7) When Explore Park development adjoins a Residential or Civic land use, or a public street right of way for Rutrough Road, Lemon Lane, Highland Road or Hogan Road, a Type E, Option 1 buffer yard (i.e. 75 feet) with Type E, Option 1 landscaping, or equivalent natural vegetation, shall be provided per Section 30-92 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, except that, for development adjacent to Tax Map No. 80.00-5-14 (Mayflower Hills Baptist Church), the buffer yard shall be 100 feet. December 20, 2005 1421 (8) Maximum structure height shall be 45 feet for structures located at the minimum buffer line. The maximum height may be increased 1 foot for each additional 2 feet of buffer yard provided, up to a maximum height of 125 feet. (9) VLH may wish to relocate the Blue Ridge Parkway Visitor Center now located within Explore Park. Any new Visitor Center must consist of a building of comparable size to the current Visitor Center, must be accessible to Blue Ridge Parkway travelers and cannot impose a charge for customary public use. Before the Visitor Center can move from its current location, VLH shall provide Roanoke County and the Blue Ridge Parkway with notice of its desire to relocate the Visitor Center including the proposed new location. Within 90 days of the date it receives notice from VLH of its desire to relocate the Visitor's Center, Roanoke County and the Blue Ridge Parkway shall have the exclusive right to provide an alternate location for the Visitor Center on property contiguous to Explore Park, so long as the parcel is accessible to Blue Ridge Parkway travelers, will be ready for on-site grading and have all necessary governmental approvals to commence construction (except for building plans required to be provided by VLH) within 6 months, and the off-site location has been approved by VRFA. Failure of Roanoke County and the Blue Ridge Parkway to designate an alternate location for a new Visitors Center within the 90 day period set out above will allow VLH to proceed with its plans. Any new Visitors Center must be constructed in its entirety before any demolition of the current Visitor's Center. (10) Utilities providing service to Explore Park shall be underground. (11) VLH agrees to cooperate with Roanoke County so as to allow a future extension of the Greenway system into the non-fee area of the Park on terms acceptable to Roanoke County and VLH. (12) Recognizing that internal Explore Park roads will be private, VLH agrees that such roads shall be designed to allow access by emergency vehicles. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Tax Map Nos. 71.03-1-15 (18.78 ac.); 71.03-1-10 (24.16 ac.); 71.03-1-11 (3.75 ac.): 80.00-1-35 (21.96 ac.); 80.00-1-34.03 (0.07 ac.); 80.00-1-34.02 (3.83 ac.); 80.00-2-36 (0.30 ac.); 80.00-2-35 (5 ac.); 80.00-2-32 (8.67 ac.); 80.00-2-33 (23 ac.); 80.00-2-34 (13.86 ac.); 71.00-1-3 (47.7 ac.); 80.00-5-17 (13.95 ac.); 80.00- 5-24 (488.28 ac.); 80.00-5-34 (1.75 ac.); 80.00-5-31 (2.23 ac.); 80.00-5-30 (1 ac.); 80.00-5-32 (2.23 ac.); 80.00-5-26 (10 ac.); 80.00-5-27 (18.12 ac.); 80.00-5- 29 (22.66 ac.); 71.00-1-12 (9 ac.); 71.00-1-13 (33.05 ac.) containing approximately 774 acres, more or less. 1422 December 20, 2005 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance with revised proffered conditions submitted on 12/20105, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Wray: (1) He thanked everyone for attending the meeting and advised that this process was necessary in order for the Board to make their decisions based on information from all sources. (2) He stated that he feels the County has had a good year and many issues have been resolved. (3) He wished everyone a Merry Christmas and safe New Year. Supervisor Flora: (1) He thanked everyone for the roles they played in what was accomplished tonight. He advised that if their vision becomes a reality, the Roanoke Valley will have successfully negotiated a leap forward for the economy. He advised that he knows how frustrating development can be and he appreciated that Mr. Vander Maten thanked the people who worked on this project. (2) He inquired if it was County policy to allow volunteers to take up permanent residence in County facilities without reimbursement and advised that he would provide details of a situation for Mr. Hodge to investigate. (3) He wished everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. December 20, 2005 1423 Supervisor McNamara: (1) He wished everyone the best of luck with Explore Park. He advised that this was one of the easiest rezoning decisions that he had made while on the Board and the question was whether to go forward or backward since standing still was not an option. (2) He thanked the citizens of the County and the Windsor Hills District and wished them happy holidays. (3) He advised that he was honored to serve again next year and advised that he was unable to attend the investiture because he was stranded due to the weather. He advised that he will take the oath of office before 2006 begins. He stated that it was a pleasure to serve and thanked the citizens for another good year. Supervisor Church: (1) He thanked everyone and wished them Merry Christmas. (2) He asked that God bless this region, this country, and the men and women in the armed forces who make the ultimate sacrifice so that meetings like this can be conducted. (3) He asked Mr. Hodge to assist a citizen who had contacted TAP and had not yet received a response. (5) He advised that he has received inquiries from County employees about misunderstandings on the County inclement weather policy and asked Mr. Hodge to provide clarification. (6) He advised that he looks forward to being in touch with the citizens of the Catawba District and thanked them for their continued support. 1424 December 20, 2005 Supervisor Altizer: (1) He wished a Merry Christmas to everyone present at the meeting and County staff. (2) He advised that he was humbled this past year to serve as Chairman and thanked each of the Board members for their support and assistance. He thanked the citizens and local leaders for their support and stated that he believes that the County will be progressive and move forward. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Altizer adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: ~~~ Brenda J. olton, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board ~)(.~ Michael W. Altizer Chairman