HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/28/2006 - Regular
March 28, 2006
209
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
March 28, 2006
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of March, 2006.
IN RE:
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Wray called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call was
taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Michael A. Wray, Vice-Chairman Joseph P.
McNamara, Supervisors Michael W. Altizer, Joseph B.
"Butch" Church, Richard C. Flora
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; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board; Teresa
Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer
IN RE:
OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by Dr. Maurita J. Wiggins, Valley Community
Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
210
March 28, 2006
IN RE:
PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
.1: Recoanition of Gary Huffman. Fire Marshal of Roanoke County.
for receivina the 2005 Governor's Award for Excellence in Virainia
Fire & Life Safety Education
Chairman Wray presented the proclamation to Captain Huffman. Also
present were Rick Burch, Chief of Fire and Rescue, and the following members of the
Roanoke County Fire Marshal's Department: Randy Spence, Brian Simmons, and Beth
Dalton.
IN RE:
NEW BUSINESS
.1: Reauest to approve fiscal year 2006-2007 budaet for the Roanoke
Reaional Airport Commission. (Diane D. Hvatt. Chief Financial
Officer: Jacaueline Shuck. Executive Director. Roanoke Reaional
Airport)
R-032806-1
Ms. Hyatt advised that each year, the Roanoke Regional Airport
Commission (RRAC) is required to submit their budget to the County of Roanoke and
City of Roanoke for approval before it is adopted. She indicated that the budget reflects
revenues of $7.6 million, expenditures of $7.4 million, and capital expenditures of $5.3
million. Ms. Hyatt stated that there are no County funds required as part of the adoption
of their budget and at the conclusion of the comments made by Ms. Shuck, she is
recommending that the Board approve the RRAC budget.
March 28, 2006
211
Ms. Shuck stated that she would like to speak about Allegiant Air, a low
cost carrier that today announced service from Roanoke to Orlando beginning on May
24. The introductory fares are $59 one-way; however, regular fares will still be less than
$200 round-trip. She indicated that if this new service is supported, it is hoped that
Allegiant Air will expand their service beyond the current two flights per week. She
stated that this will be good for the Roanoke Regional Airport and she hopes the
community will support the service. Ms. Shuck stated that she would answer any
questions related to the budget.
Supervisor Altizer encouraged partnering with Allegiant Air and developing
a reciprocal arrangement that would provide similar flights from Orlando to Roanoke.
He indicated that this could involve a partnership with Roanoke Valley businesses in an
effort to bring tourists from Orlando to Roanoke. He encouraged residents to take
advantage of this service.
Supervisor Wray voiced support for the addition of this new service and
stated that it will benefit the Roanoke Valley and the economy in the region.
Supervisor Wray moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
212
March 28, 2006
RESOLUTION 032806-1 APPROVING THE ROANOKE REGIONAL
AIRPORT COMMISSION BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007,
UPON CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS
WHEREAS, Section 24.B of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission Act and
Section 17.(a) of the contract between the City of Roanoke, Roanoke County, and the
Roanoke Regional Airport Commission provide that the Commission shall prepare and
submit its operating budget for the forthcoming fiscal year to the Board of Supervisors of
the County and City Council of the City; and
WHEREAS, by report dated March 15, 2006, a copy of which is on file in the
office of the Clerk to the Board, the Executive Director of the Roanoke Regional Airport
Commission has submitted a request that the County approve the FY 2006-2007
budget of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia that the FY 2006-2007 budget and proposed capital expenditures for
the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission as set forth in the March 15, 2006, report of
the Commission Executive Director, a copy of which is incorporated by reference
herein, is hereby APPROVED, and the County Administrator and the Clerk are
authorized to execute and attest, respectively, on behalf of the County, any
documentation, in form approved by the County Attorney, necessary to evidence said
approval.
On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
2. Reauest to adopt the followina tax rates for calendar year 2006:
(Brent Robertson. Director of ManaQement and Budaet)
a. Real estate tax rate of l.1:11 per J1 00 assessed valuation
0-032806-2
Mr. Robertson reported that the real estate tax rate for the 12 month
period beginning January 1, 2006 and ending December 31, 2006 was advertised on
February 28 and March 7,2006, at a rate of $1.12 per $100 assessed valuation. He
advised that the public hearing for citizens' comments was held on March 14. At the
March 28, 2006
213
budget work session held on March 21, the Board advised that they wished to
implement a one cent reduction in the real estate tax rate to $1.11 per $100 assessed
valuation. He stated that based on this direction, the proposed budget development for
fiscal year 2006-2007 is predicated on the reduced real estate tax rate. Staff
recommends that the real estate tax rate be established at a rate of $1 .11 per $100
assessed valuation for the 2006 calendar year.
Supervisor Church stated that it was a consensus of the Board to
recognize the needs of the taxpayers who are paying the bills. He indicated that when
the County is doing well, the Board enjoys returning revenues back to the citizens.
Supervisor Wray concurred with Supervisor Church and stated that when
there are extra revenues, it is time to give back to the citizens.
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the order setting the real estate tax
rate at $1.11 per one hundred dollars assessed valuation. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS:
None
ORDER 032806-2 SETTING THE TAX RATE ON REAL ESTATE
SITUATE IN ROANOKE COUNTY FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2006
BE IT ORDERED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that
the levy for the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 2006, and ending December
31, 2006, be, and hereby is, set for a tax rate of l.1:11 per one hundred dollars of
assessed valuation on all taxable real estate and mobile homes classified by Sections
58.1-3200,58.1-3201, 58.1-3506.A.8, and 58.1-3506.B of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended, situate in Roanoke County.
214
March 28, 2006
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the order, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
b. Personal property tax rate of $3.50 per $100 assessed
valuation
0-032806-3
Mr. Robertson stated that based on the advertised rates and the public
hearing, staff recommends that the personal property tax rate be established at $3.50
per $100 assessed valuation for calendar year 2006. There was no discussion on this
item.
Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the order setting the personal property
tax rate at $3.50 per one hundred dollars assessed valuation. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS:
None
ORDER 0328206-3 SETTING THE TAX LEVY ON PERSONAL
PROPERTY SITUATE IN ROANOKE COUNTY FOR THE CALENDAR
YEAR 2006
BE IT ORDERED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the levy for the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 2006, and
ending December 31, 2006, be, and hereby is, set for a tax rate of $3.50 per one
hundred dollars of assessed valuation on all taxable, tangible personal property,
excluding that class of personal property generally designated as machinery and tools
as set forth in Section 58.1-3507 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and
excluding all those classes of household goods and personal effects as are defined in
Sections 58.1-3504 and 58.1-3505 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, but
March 28, 2006
215
including the property separately classified by Sections 58.1-3500, 58.1-3501, 58.1-
3502, 58.1-3506 in the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, of public service
corporations based upon the assessed value thereof fixed by the State Corporation
Commission and duly certified.
2. That there be, and hereby is, established as a separate class of personal
property in Roanoke County those items of personal property set forth in Section 58.1-
3506 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and adopted by Ordinance No.
121592-11, and generally designated as Motor Vehicles for Disabled Veterans.
3. That the levy for the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 2006, and
ending December 31, 2006, be, and hereby is, set at fifty (500k) percent of the tax rate
established in paragraph 1 for the taxable, tangible personal property as herein
established as a separate classification for tax purposes and as more fully defined by
Section 58.1-3506 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and generally designated
as Motor Vehicles for Disabled Veterans.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the order, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
c. Machinerv and tools tax rate of J3.00 per J100 assessed
valuation
0-032806-4
Mr. Robertson advised that staff recommends that the machinery and
tools tax rate be established at $3.00 per $100 assessed valuation for calendar year
2006. There was no discussion on this item.
Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the order setting the machinery and
tools tax rate at $3.00 per one hundred dollars assessed valuation. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
216
March 28, 2006
AYES:
Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS:
None
ORDER 032806-4 SETTING THE TAX LEVY ON A CLASSIFICATION
OF PERSONAL PROPERTY - MACHINERY AND TOOLS - SITUATE IN
ROANOKE COUNTY FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2006
BE IT ORDERED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That there be, and hereby is, established as a separate class of personal
property in Roanoke County those items of personal property set forth in Section 58.1-
3507 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and generally designated as machinery
and tools.
2. That the levy for the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 2006, and
ending December 31, 2006, be, and hereby is, set for a tax rate of $3.00 per one
hundred dollars of assessed valuation on all taxable, tangible personal property as
herein established as a separate classification for tax purposes and as more fully
defined by Section 58.1-3507 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and generally
designated as machinery and tools.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the order, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
3. ReQuest to adopt! resolution settina the allocation percentaae
for personal property tax relief in Roanoke County for the 2006
tax year. (Diane Hyatt. Chief Financial Officer)
R-032806-5
Ms. Hyatt advised that the Personal Property Tax Relief Act of 1998
established a state-wide program to provide relief to owners of personal use vehicles.
This percentage has been frozen at 70% since 2001. She reported that in 2004 and
2005, the General Assembly adopted additional legislation that changed the manner in
which the personal property tax relief was allocated to a block grant with each locality
March 28, 2006
217
receiving a set amount. The County's share of this personal property relief is
$12,229,857. Ms. Hyatt stated that in December 2005, the Board adopted an ordinance
which amended the County Code specifying how this would be distributed among the
taxpayers. The ordinance established the specific relief method for the County, which
means that each year the County will adopt a percentage showing the reduction on the
tax bills. The County will allocate the relief at a single percentage across the board to
the first $20,000 of each personal value vehicle; in addition, the County will continue to
exempt vehicles valued at $1,000 or less from taxation. Ms. Hyatt advised that the
Treasurer is authorized to balance bill any taxes from 2005 and prior that remain
delinquent at September 1, 2006 or when the state funding for tax relief is depleted.
She indicated that staff has computed the effective tax rate for this year and established
a rate of 65.130/0. The worksheets provided by the state were used to develop these
calculations, and they take into account a five-year average of the growth in personal
property tax. She noted that the surrounding localities are establishing similar
percentages and provided the following data: Vinton is 65.98%>; Franklin County is
64.210/0; and Roanoke City is still in the process of establishing their rate. She indicated
that some northern Virginia localities have lower percentages in the 59% range;
however, this is because they have experienced significant growth in the number of
vehicles as a result of people moving into the area.
218
March 28, 2006
Ms. Hyatt reported that the Board is required to adopt a resolution each
year establishing the percentage, and the resolution being presented would establish a
rate of 65.13% for the 2006 tax year. Staff recommends adoption of the resolution.
Supervisor McNamara stated that this is one scenario in which growth is
not a good thing. He advised that in this situation, it is good that we are experiencing
slow growth.
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the resolution which establishes
the percentage reduction for personal property tax relief at 65.130/0 for Roanoke County
for the 2006 tax year. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS:
None
RESOLUTION 032806-5 SETTING THE ALLOCATION PERCENTAGE
FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX RELIEF IN ROANOKE COUNTY
FOR THE 2006 TAX YEAR
WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 58.1-3524
(C) (2) and Section 58.1-3912 (E) of the Code of Virginia, as amended by Chapter 1 of
the Acts of Assembly and as set forth in item 503.E (Personal Property Tax Relief
Program or "PPTRA") of Chapter 951 of the 2005 Acts of Assembly and qualifying
vehicle with a taxable situs within the County commencing January 1, 2006, shall
receive personal property tax relief; and,
WHEREAS, this Resolution is adopted pursuant to Ordinance 122005-10
adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 20, 2005.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows:
1. That tax relief shall be allocated so as to eliminate personal property taxation
for qualifying personal use vehicles valued at $1,000 or less.
2. That qualifying personal use vehicles valued at $1,001-$20,000 will be eligible
for 65.13% tax relief.
3. That qualifying personal use vehicles valued at $20,001 or more shall only
receive 65.130/0 tax relief on the first $20,000 of value; and
March 28,2006
219
4. That all other vehicles which do not meet the definition of "qualifying" (for
example, including but not limited to, business use vehicles, farm use vehicles, motor
homes, etc.) will not be eligible for any form of tax relief under this program.
5. That the percentages applied to the categories of qualifying personal use
vehicles are estimated fully to use all available PPTRA funds allocated to Roanoke
County by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
6. That entitlement to personal property tax relief for qualifying vehicles for tax
year 2005 and all prior tax years shall expire on September 1, 2006, or when the state
funding for tax relief is exhausted or depleted. Supplemental assessments for tax years
2005 and prior that are made on or after September 1, 2006 shall be deemed 'non-
qualifying' for purposes of state tax relief and the local share due from the taxpayer shall
represent 100% of the assessed personal property tax.
7. That this Resolution shall be effective from and after the date of its
adoption.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
4. ReQuest to appropriate funds in the amount of J18.950 for the
June 13. 2006 Primary. (Judith Stokes. General Reoistrar)
A-032806-6
Ms. Stokes advised that the State Board of Elections has issued an order
for a state-wide primary to be held on June 13, 2006. A democratic primary has been
called for the office of U. S. Senator and a republican primary has been called for the
office of U. S. Senator and U. S. Representative for the Sixth Congressional District. As
of this date, no one in the Republican Party has announced they will challenge the
incumbent; therefore, it is likely that this will only be a democratic primary. Ms. Stokes
stated that on behalf of the Roanoke County Electoral Board, she is requesting an
appropriation of $18,950 to cover the cost of this primary. She noted that no
reimbursement of costs will be made by the state.
220
March 28, 2006
There was no discussion on this item.
Supervisor Wray moved to approve the staff recommendation (appropriate
$18,950 from the Board Contingency for the June 13, 2006 Primary). The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
N RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the first readings and set the
second readings and public hearings for April 25, 2006. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
1. First readino of an ordinance to obtain! special use permit for
the operation of ! used automobile sales business located at 7400
Sunnybrook Drive. Suite ~ Hollins MaQisterial District. upon the
petition of Kevin and Jennifer Cook.
2. First readinQ of an ordinance to obtain! special use permit on
1.101 acres for the operation of ! fast food restaurant with drive-
in located at 4504 and 4510 ChallenQer Avenue. Hollins
Maaisterial District. upon the petition of Sonic Restaurants. Inc.
March 28, 2006
221
IN RE:
3. First readino of an ordinance to rezone .92 acres from C-1. Office
District. to C-2. General Commercial District. in order to construct
! Dersonal imDrovement service (personal trainer) located in the
4600 block of Brambleton Avenue. Windsor Hills Maaisterial
District. upon the petition of Che Torrv.
FIRST READINGS OF ORDINANCES
.1: First readina of an ordinance amendinQ the Roanoke County
Code !rl amendina Section 21-73. General Prereauisites to Grant
of Division 3. Exemption for Elderly and Disabled Persons of
Chapter 21. Taxation to increase the income limit and the total
combined net worth provisions for real estate tax exemption for
the elderly and disabled. and extendino the application deadline
for the current tax year. (Paul M. Mahoney. County Attorney)
0-032806-7
Mr. Mahoney advised that at the budget work session held on March 21,
the Board indicated that it wished to consider adoption of an ordinance that would
expand the tax relief program for elderly and disabled citizens in Roanoke County. He
stated that this ordinance implements the direction of the Board and accomplishes the
following: (1) The ordinance increases the total combined income limit. He indicated
that currently, the total combined income limit under the County Code is $50,000. The
State Code sets forth several alternatives for establishing the total combined income
222
March 28, 2006
limit, one of which is a $50,000 limit. He outlined the following two alternatives: (a) This
method is based on calculations derived from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development in order to secure federal housing assistance. He stated that when staff
attempted to calculate this number, it appeared that the income limit would be
approximately $37,000 to $41,000. (b) This alternative is based on the median adjusted
gross income for married residents based on income tax returns. He stated that the
Weldon-Cooper Center at the University of Virginia calculates this figure, and the State
Code provides that localities must secure this data from the Weldon Cooper Center.
Mr. Mahoney stated that based on the best data available as of December 2005, which
is for the 2003 tax year, this calculates an income limit of $56,566. He advised that the
Board could increase the income limit from $50,000 to $56,566. (2) The second change
in the ordinance would be to increase the total combined net worth amount from
$100,000 to a maximum of $200,000, as allowed by State Code. He stated that at the
direction of the Board, it is being recommended that this amount be increased from
$100,000 to $125,000.
Mr. Mahoney noted that the ordinance does not address one other issue
mentioned in the State Code. He indicated that for purposes of calculating the total
combined net worth, the State Code allows individuals to exempt the value of the
dwelling and up to 10 acres of land; however, the County ordinance exempts the
dwelling and only one acre of land. He advised that staff is recommending no change
to this aspect of the ordinance.
March 28, 2006
223
Mr. Mahoney indicated that there are some logistical issues that will need
to be addressed in order to implement these changes for the current tax year; therefore,
staff is recommending that the Board consider adopting the ordinance as an emergency
measure. He indicated that normally the Board will hold two readings of an ordinance
and the second reading for this matter would be held on April 11. Mr. Mahoney stated
that as indicated in the staff report, this presents a problem because the Treasurer is
facing time limits for the printing and distribution of the tax bills. He indicated that if the
ordinance is to be made effective for the current tax year, the second reading of the
ordinance should be waived. He noted that to waive the second reading and adopt the
ordinance as an emergency measure requires a four-fifths (4/5) vote. In addition, he
advised that the current County Code limits the period of time during which an eligible
person can apply for the exemption. He reported that this period of time ends March
31. Staff is recommending that the application period be extended until the end of April
for the current tax year only to allow applicants who become available for the exemption
under the new guidelines to apply. Mr. Mahoney advised that he has spoken with
Nancy Horn, Commissioner of the Revenue, and that she has indicated that her staff
would be able to process any additional applicants during this 30 day extension period.
Mr. Mahoney further reported that the current County budget allocates
approximately $600,000 to address the fiscal impact of this real estate exemption
program. Mr. Mahoney stated that at the budget work session held on March 21, Mr.
Robertson, Director of Management and Budget, advised that this full amount is not
224
March 28, 2006
being used under the current exemption program. Staff anticipates that the $600,000 is
sufficient to handle the expanded income and combined net worth provisions under the
amended ordinance without any additional appropriation being required in the 2006-
2007 budget. Mr. Mahoney advised that Kevin Hutchins, Treasurer, was present to
answer any questions with respect to printing of the tax bills.
Supervisor Church noted that in documents that were previously
presented to the Board in work session, the acreage exclusion was listed as 10 acres.
Mr. Mahoney advised that the confusion may have resulted because the State Code
allows an exclusion of up to 10 acres; however, the current Roanoke County Code only
allows one acre to be excluded.
Supervisor Church stated that the best part of this change is that it does
not include the dwelling in the net worth calculation. He requested clarification
regarding the amount of income allowable for individuals living in the home with an
applicant for tax relief. Mr. Mahoney stated that the General Assembly and the State
Code recognize that in many instances, particularly with elderly or disabled citizens,
there may be a relative living with that individual and the relative may not meet the
statutory guidelines for tax relief. They are acting in the capacity of care givers. Mr.
Mahoney stated that the State Code and the Roanoke County ordinance allow an
exclusion of up to $10,000 of income for each relative who is not the spouse of an
eligible owner but is living in the dwelling. He noted that this is an additional means of
expanding the eligibility of persons and not penalizing them for having relatives living in
March 28, 2006
225
the household with them. Supervisor Church stated that this indicates that Roanoke
County recognizes that there is a need for tax relief because our median income does
not meet the income limit threshold of $56,566. He noted that this is a modest increase,
but it will provide assistance to citizens. He referenced the aging population in Roanoke
County and stated that inflation is having an impact on their finances.
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance as an emergency
measure; waive the second reading; and extend the application deadline for 2006 until
April 30.
Supervisor Altizer stated that as he indicated at the work session held on
March 21, the Board has tried to do something for everyone in Roanoke County during
this budget year. He noted that some citizens have indicated that they do not see the
tax reduction as meaningful; however, it is meaningful to lower income, elderly, or
disabled citizens. He stated that giving them the value of a tax reduction, plus being
able to add raise the net worth calculation, may be significant for senior citizens who
may be in assisted living situations. He stated that when the County can put $25,000
back in the pockets of senior citizens, it is a good thing.
Supervisor Wray inquired if there were any problems with extending the
application deadline to April 30. Mr. Hudgins advised that the April 30 deadline is a
filing deadline with the Commissioner of the Revenue's Office, and there will be no
impact on the Treasurer's Office or the billing process.
226
March 28, 2006
Supervisor Church's motion to approve the first reading, waive the second
reading and adopt the ordinance as an emergency measure, and extend the application
deadline for 2006 until April 30 carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Wray
NAYS: Supervisor Flora
Supervisor Flora advised that he knows that it would be politically correct
to support this action; however, there are many citizens in Roanoke County who do not
earn $56,000 per year and they are 30, 40, or 50 years old. He further stated that these
individuals do not have $125,000 in their savings account, and they have to pay
mortgages, raise families, etc. and they are not receiving a tax break. He indicated that
they are picking up the burden for individuals who have $125,000 in savings and make
$56,000 per year. He advised that he was not able to support this action because there
is an entire segment of the population that is in a worse condition than those who will
receive the benefit of this tax relief.
Supervisor McNamara advised that he will support the resolution but for a
slightly different reason than the rest of the Board. He presented a scenario of a young
working couple with children who may not earn $56,000 per year and advised that the
Board is shifting the tax burden and stated that he does not think this should occur. He
stated that he intends to support the action because the majority of the Board is
supporting the tax relief and since it is an emergency measure, it would only complicate
matters if it is delayed until a second reading. He advised that he does not want to
March 28, 2006
227
make government work slowly and less efficiently when it is apparent that this action will
be approved at the second reading.
Supervisor Church stated that we are talking about elderly citizens who
have reached and passed their earning capacity. He indicated that when each of us
reaches that age, we will realize the limitations placed on the elderly and there should
be a value to reaching this limit.
ORDINANCE 032806-7 AMENDING THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE
BY AMENDING SECTION 21-73, GENERAL PREREQUISITES TO
GRANT OF DIVISION 3. EXEMPTION FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED
PERSONS OF CHAPTER 21. TAXATION TO INCREASE THE INCOME
LIMIT AND THE TOTAL COMBINED NET WORTH PROVISIONS FOR
REAL ESTATE TAX EXEMPTION FOR THE ELDERLY AND
DISABLED, AND EXTENDING THE APPLICATION DEADLINE FOR
THE CURRENT TAX YEAR
WHEREAS, Section 21-73 of the Roanoke County Code currently establishes a
limitation on the total combined income, during the immediately preceding calendar
year, from all sources, of the owner of the dwelling and his relatives living therein of
$50,000; and
WHEREAS, the total combined income limitation is complicated by alternative
methods providing for a different limitations such as: (i) income limits based upon family
size for the respective metropolitan statistical area published by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development for qualifying for Federal housing assistance; and (ii)
the County's median adjusted gross income of its married residents based upon
individual income tax returns as published by the Weldon Cooper Center for Public
Service of the University of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the latest data from the Weldon Cooper Center indicates that the
median adjusted gross income amount for Roanoke County is $56,566; therefore, it
appears that the County limit of $50,000 is less than the limit established for this
alternative; and
WHEREAS, Section 21-73 of the Roanoke County Code currently establishes a
limitation on the total combined net worth of the owner and his or her spouse of
$100,000 during the immediately preceding calendar year; and
WHEREAS, the State Code limits the "net combined financial worth" to $200,000
and that the locality may annually increase this limit by the Consumer Price Index; and
228
March 28, 2006
WHEREAS, Section 21-74 of the Roanoke County Code provides that a person
seeking an exemption under these provisions shall file an application for exemption
between February 1 and March 31 of the year for which the exemption is claimed; and
WHEREAS, this application for exemption deadline should be extended only for
the current tax year to allow eligible citizens to avail themselves of these amendments;
and
WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held on March 28, 2006; and
the second reading has been dispensed with, upon an affirmative vote of 4/5ths of the
members of the Board, this being deemed to be an emergency measure pursuant to
Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That Section 21-73, General prereauisites to arant of Division 3.
Exemption for elderlv and disabled persons of Chapter 21, Taxation be amended to
read and provide as follows:
CHAPTER 21. TAXATION
ARTICLE II. REAL ESTATE TAXES
DIVISION 3. EXEMPTION FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS*
Sec. 21-73. General prerequisites to grant.
Exemptions provided for in this division shall be granted only if the following
conditions are met:
(1) That the total combined income, during the immediately preceding calendar
year, from all sources, of the owner of the dwelling and his relatives living therein did not
exceed fifty thousand dollare ($50,000.00) fifty six thousand five hundred sixty-six
dollars ($56.566); provided, however, that the first ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) of
income of each relative, other than the spouse of the owner, who is living in the dwelling
shall not be included in such total.
(2) That the owner and his spouse did not have a total combined net worth,
including all equitable interests, exceeding onc hundrcd thoueand dollare ($100,000.00)
one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars ($125.000) as of December 31 of the
immediately preceding calendar year. The amount of net worth specified herein shall
not include the value of the sole dwelling house and up to one (1) acre of land.
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above if a person qualifies for an exemption
and if that person can prove by clear and convincing evidence that his or her physical or
mental health has deteriorated to the point that the only alternative to permanently
residing in a hospital, nursing home, convalescent home or other facility or physical or
mental care is to have a relative move in and provide care for that person, and if a
relative does then move in for that purpose, then none of the income of the relative or of
the relatives spouse shall be counted towards the income limit, provided the owner of
the residence has not transferred assets in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00)
without adequate consideration within a three year period prior to or after the relative
moves into such residence.
March 28, 2006
229
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
adoption and it shall become effective for the 2006 real estate tax year. Further, that
the deadline for filing an application for exemption under section 21-74 shall be
extended from March 31 to April 30 for the 2006 tax year.
On motion of Supervisor Church to approve the first reading, waive the second
reading and adopt the ordinance as an emergency measure carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Wray
NAYS: Supervisor Flora
IN RE
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
.1: Second readina of an ordinance to accept the donation of ! 2.28
acre parcel of land located at the intersection of West River Road
and West Main Street from the Virainia Recreational Facilities
Authority (VRFA) to the County of Roanoke. Catawba MaQisterial
District. (Pete Haislip. Director of Parks. Recreation. and
Tourism)
0-032806-8
Mr. Haislip advised that this is the second reading of an ordinance
authorizing the acceptance of a donation of a 2.28 acre tract of land on the Roanoke
River from the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority (VRFA) to the County of
Roanoke. He stated that this property will support the Camp Roanoke program, as well
as future greenways. Mr. Haislip indicated that there have been no changes since the
first reading.
There was no discussion on this item.
230
March 28, 2006
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS:
None
ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT THE DONATION OF A 2.28 ACRE PARCEL
OF LAND (TAX MAP NO. 72.02-02-01 ) LOCATED AT THE
INTERSECTION OF WEST RIVER ROAD AND WEST MAIN STREET
FROM THE VIRGINIA RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY
(VRFA) TO THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority (VRFA) has determined
that it has no further need for a 2.28 acre parcel of land located at the intersection of
West River Road and West Main Street further described as Tax Map No. 72.02-02-01;
and
WHEREAS, the VRFA has declared said parcel to be surplus property and has
requested that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County accept the donation of this
parcel of real estate for public park purposes and future greenway development; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the
acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the
first reading of this ordinance will be held on March 14, 2006, and the second reading
will be held on March 28, 2006.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the donation from the VRFA to the County of Roanoke of an
approximate 2.28 acre parcel of real estate located at the intersection of West River
Road and West Main Street and further described as Tax Map No. 72.02-02-01, is
hereby authorized and approved.
2. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrator are
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of
Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of this
real estate, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
March 28, 2006
231
IN RE:
APPOINTMENTS
.1: Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission
The Board asked the Clerk to contact Charles A. Blankenship to
determine if he is willing to serve an additional three-year term that will expire on April 8,
2009.
IN RE:
CONSENT AGENDA
R-032806-9; R-032806-9.b
Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS:
None
RESOLUTION 032806-9 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 March
28, 2006, 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 3, inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes - March 6 and March 14, 2006
2. Request from the schools to appropriate dual enrollment funds in the amount
of $100
3. Request to adopt a resolution authorizing Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare
to act as its own fiscal agent
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:
232
March 28, 2006
AYES:
NAYS:
Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
None
RESOLUTION 032806-9.b AUTHORIZING BLUE RIDGE BEHAVIORAL
HEAL THCARE TO ACT AS ITS OWN FISCAL AGENT
WHEREAS, Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare is the operating community
service board established by and supplying services to the political jurisdictions of
Botetourt County, Craig County, and the City of Roanoke, Roanoke County, and the
City of Salem; and
WHEREAS, Section 37.2-504A.18. of the Code of Virginia authorizes Blue Ridge
Behavioral Healthcare to act as its own fiscal agent for receipt of state and federal funds
directly from the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance
Abuse Services when authorized to do so by the governing body of each city or county
that established it; and
WHEREAS, Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare has requested authorization to act
as its own fiscal agent effective July 1, 2006.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County that Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare is approved and authorized as provided
in Section 37.2-504A.18 of the Code of Virginia, effective July 1, 2006, to act as its own
fiscal agent to receive state and federal funds directly from the Department of Mental
Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
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, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS:
None
.1: General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board ContinQency
March 28, 2006
233
4. Future Capital Proiects
5. Accounts Paid = Februarv 2006
6. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for
the month ended Februarv 28. 2006
7. Public Safety Center Buildina Proiect Budaet Report
8. Public Safety Center Buildina Proiect Chanae Order Report
9. Report from the Virainia Department of Transportation (VDOT) of
chanoes to the secondary road system in Januarv 2006
WORK SESSIONS (Training Room - 4th floor)
.1: Work session to discuss fiscal year 2006-2007 budaet
development. (Brent Robertson. Director of Manaaement and
Budoet)
f!l (Parks. Recreation. and Tourism Department
The work session was held from 4:12 p.m. until 4:42 p.m. The following
representatives from the Parks, Recreation, and Tourism (PR&T) Department were
present: Pete Haislip, Director; Mark Courtright, Assistant Director of Parks; Greg
Martin, Camp Roanoke Manager; Lon Williams, Landscape Architect; Gray Craig,
Recreation Marketing Specialist; and Marcia Dougherty, Youth Services Supervisor.
Mr. Haislip advised that PR&T maintains 94 sites covering more than 600
maintained acres in Roanoke County. These sites include 31 parks, 3 greenways, 17
school facilities, 21 public buildings, 11 County entrance medians, 2 economic
IN RE:
234
March 28, 2006
development parcels, and 7 miscellaneous sites. The department serves 625 youth
through recreational sports teams. There are 57 baseball/softball fields serving 248
teams; 44 soccer fields serving 166 teams; 5 football fields serving 27 teams; and
indoor basketball has 184 teams. In addition to athletics, there are 18 picnic shelters
with over 600 rentals per year; 150 special use permits were issued for parks; and staff
maintains 17 park playgrounds. Mr. Haislip stated that the department also maintains
street signs and last year, the staff constructed and installed 2,053 signs across
Roanoke County. The department also handles over 9,500 program registrations
annually. In the area of sports marketing and special events, Roanoke County
supported over 30 sports tournaments and major special events.
With respect to the capital maintenance program, Mr. Haislip stated that
more than 66 infrastructure projects were originally identified with a total cost in excess
of $1 million. He outlined a list of the priority projects and identified the ones which
have been completed to date. He advised that this list is reviewed and updated
annually. He noted that the following projects are scheduled for 2006-2007: Brookside
Park - new parking lot and bridge; Stonebridge Park - parking lot paving; Shell Park -
new shelter construction; Starkey Park - new shelter construction; Whispering Pines -
playground replacement; equipment storage at maintenance shops; park entrance
upgrades and new park signage; and continuation of the barrier program at a rate of
approximately 1 mile per year.
March 28, 2006
235
Mr. Haislip reported that the following areas have been identified as issues
of importance by both the CIP Review Committee and the respondents who attended
public input meetings for the Master Plan update: additional park land; Garst Mill Park
stream bank erosion; sports field lighting replacements/upgrades; and Camp Roanoke
swimming pool.
Mr. Haislip provided an update on the status of the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan review, and advised that a random survey of households is currently
underway. It is expected that the survey will be completed within five to six weeks, and
the preliminary results indicate the following: (1) citizens want more greenways and
trails; (2) more indoor recreation space is needed; (3) expansion of programs to under-
served districts of the County is desired; and (4) facilities to support sports marketing as
an economic driver are desired. He outlined the following short-term challenges being
faced by the department: (1) increased fuel costs to support maintenance of indoor and
outdoor facilities; (2) increased utility costs; (3) replacement of maintenance equipment
and specialized rolling stock to continue current levels of service; (4) funding to support
the sports marketing mission of the department; (5) overtime for staff support during
events; and (6) competitive facilities to retain existing events, as well as to attract new
events to the County. Mr. Haislip advised that the long-term strategic issues of the
department include funding for publicly supported Master Plan initiatives; expansion of
indoor recreation to under-served districts in the County; land banking and open space
preservation; and greenways development and continued maintenance.
236
March 28, 2006
Mr. Haislip requested direction from the Board regarding the installation of
artificial turf at several County school sites. He advised that the County's share of the
cost could be approximately $450,000. The Board indicated that no decision has been
made regarding this issue.
!Ill Board recommendations for contributions
The work session was held from 4:42 p.m. until 5:00 p.m.
Mr. Robertson reviewed the Board's recommendations for contributions to
health and human service and cultural agencies. He advised that the contribution
allocated to each agency is calculated by removing the high and low recommendations,
averaging the remaining three recommendations, and rounding up to the nearest $100.
He stated that the current year adopted budget for contributions to health and human
service agencies is $152,500 and the proposed budget for fiscal year 2007 is $155,700,
an increase of approximately $3,200.
There was discussion regarding Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare
(BRBH) whose request for funding was $142,609 and is based on the estimated cost of
services for Roanoke County residents. Mr. Robertson advised that the County
currently provides funding in the amount of $119,600. He indicated that funding for this
agency is split between the state and local governments: 900/0 by the state, 10% by the
locality. There was general discussion regarding the possibility that the state could
theoretically withhold funds that were not matched by the locality. Mr. Robertson
requested direction from the Board with respect to this contribution. Mr. O'Donnell,
March 28, 2006
237
Assistant County Administrator and member of the Board of Directors of BRBH, advised
that there is a 90/10 ratio for the non-client paid portion of the BRBH budget. The other
portion is comprised of state and local funding. The state formula is for 10% of non-fee
revenue to come from local governments and in the past, the County has not met that
level of funding. The Board voiced support for this process of computing the amount of
funding, and noted that it is a consistent approach.
With respect to cultural, tourism and other agencies, Mr. Robertson stated
that the adopted budget in fiscal year 2006 was $201,300 and the proposed budget for
fiscal year 2007 is $196,600, a reduction of $4,700. This is due primarily to funding for
the Julian Stanley Wise Foundation which was reduced from $11,700 in 2006 to $1,000
in fiscal year 2007. It was noted that this agency is in the process of relocating and they
did not submit a request for funding.
There was general discussion regarding the agencies which are funded on
a per capita basis, and it was the consensus of the Board to have staff alter the funding
allocations to comply with any contractual obligations.
With respect to the Greenway Commission, it was noted that this agency
was originally funded at a level of approximately $10,000 to $11,000. Mr. Robertson
reported that there is a significant increase in the funding request for 2007. Liz Belcher,
Greenway Coordinator, stated that for many years the Greenway Commission received
state funding that comprised half of their budget; however, this is no longer the case.
She indicated that this is the first year that localities are being asked to fund the budget
238
March 28, 2006
entirely. She stated that the City of Salem, City of Roanoke, and Town of Vinton are
providing the requested level of funding for the Greenway Commission. The County's
per capita share of the budget is $29,600. There was a consensus of the Board to
support the Greenway Commission at the requested level of funding.
2. Work session to discuss SOO MHz re-bandino plannino
aareement. (Joe Obenshain. Senior Assistant County Attorney:
Bill Hunter. Technical Services Manaaer)
The work session was held from 5:01 p.m. until 5:28 p.m.
Mr. Obenshain reported that the County had to participate in mediation
regarding the re-banding agreement, and he advised that the County prevailed on most
issues. Mr. Hunter stated that this process has highlighted the differing views regarding
communications between cell phone carriers and public safety radio networks. He
indicated that the County is in the process of moving the radio frequencies on the public
safety network and the current planning phase only involves two of these frequencies.
He advised that there is a good team in place that includes CBA Communications in
Lynchburg, Miller & Van Eton in Washington, D.C., and County staff. Representatives
from these agencies participated in the negotiations and between now and June 2006,
they will be planning to move the two frequencies and secure an agreement with
SprintlNextel to do so.
Mr. Mahoney voiced concern that if mediation was required to receive
funding for the planning phase, he anticipates that the County may have even greater
March 28, 2006
239
difficulty once the plan is developed and funding is needed to actually move the
frequencies. He noted that this process will be costly and there will likely be a need to
undergo an additional round of mediation. Mr. Hunter concurred, and he advised that
the first round of mediation proved there is a difference between the needs of cellular
carriers and those of public safety needs. He stated that many of the things the County
is requesting are to ensure service for public safety needs.
Elaine Carver, Director of Information Technology, provided an update on
the conversion to digital technology. She stated that when the County began looking at
the prospect of relocating to the new public safety building (PSB), one component was
moving the 800 MHz system to digital technology. This was not included as part of the
PSB costs because the County partners with Roanoke City and other agencies and the
impact on them needed to be evaluated. She advised that it has been agreed that a
Public Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 (PPEA) process would
be the most appropriate approach to ensure that the best decision is made. She
indicated that the County's portion of this project cost is estimated at approximately $10
million to $15 million, with the remaining half to be funded by Roanoke City. She noted
that the Board has included $5 million for this purpose in the fiscal year 2007-2008
budget. Within the next few weeks, staff would like to issue an unsolicited PPEA
proposal that will be advertised to ensure that interested parties can discuss this with
the partners and submit a proposal to meet the needs of all parties. It is anticipated that
this will be a 12-month process, and the engineering and planning work will begin in
240
March 28, 2006
fiscal year 2007. Ms. Carver stated that 2009 is the end date for the existing analog
controllers and staff would like to have the public safety portion transitioned to digital by
this time.
There was general discussion regarding the merits of funding this project
through the County's capital improvement program or as a lease purchase. Mr.
O'Donnell noted that part of the reason for utilizing the PPEA process is that vendors
provide different financing options. Supervisor McNamara stated that the purpose of
the CIP funding mechanism is to avoid financing costs.
Following discussion regarding possible methods for balancing the budget
and addressing County capital needs, there was a consensus that the Board would
further discuss the level at which to fund Explore Park. There was also a consensus of
the Board to not defer hiring of the six additional police officers until mid-year. Mr.
Hodge advised that the additional $500,000 for revenue sharing is being taken from the
year-end anticipated surplus. There was discussion regarding possibly reducing the
amount of funding for revenue sharing by $150,000 to cover the cost of hiring the
additional police officers. Supervisor Altizer indicated that the County should not ignore
the fact that eventually, secondary roads are going to be the responsibility of the
counties. He stated that VDOT will be primarily focused on interstate and primary
highways in the future and the County still needs to focus on our transportation needs.
Mr. O'Donnell advised that Mr. Mahoney is in the process of updating the
County's PPEA guidelines and they will be brought to the Board in April 2006 for
March 28, 2006
241
approval. The purpose of the update is to ensure that the County's guidelines match
the current state guidelines.
3. Work session to provide an update reoardinQ 1-81 Tier ! Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. (Anthony Ford. Transportation
Enaineerina Manaoer)
The work session was held from 5:28 p.m. until 5:51 p.m.
Mr. Ford advised that the Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) does the following: (1) identifies needs; (2) develops solutions; (3) evaluates
potential impacts along the 1-81 corridor and specific rail lines; and (4) is a fact-based
analyses that supports informed decision making on corridor-length issues. He advised
that a community input meeting is being held on April 11 at the Wyndham Hotel to
receive comments. The Tier 1 study examined the entire 325 mile 1-81 corridor and
generally extended 500 feet on either side of the pavement. Mr. Ford outlined the
following concerns related to capacity and safety: (1) Capacity: 2004 traffic volumes
are expected to nearly double by 2035; truck traffic is projected to grow at a faster rate
than general traffic; over 90% of 1-81 is projected to operate below level of service
(LOS) standard in 2035. In the Roanoke/Salem area, a LOS of E-F is anticipated by
2035 if no improvements are made. (2) Safetv: 24 northbound miles and 21
southbound miles have crash rates greater than 25% above the state average; trucks
are involved in 29% of all crashes and 30% of all fatal crashes. One of the contributing
factors to safety problems is geometric conditions. In addition, road sections are more
242
March 28, 2006
than 40 years old and do not meet current American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards.
Mr. Ford reported that the following improvement concepts for 1-81 are
being considered: no build; transportation system management (TSM); rail concepts;
roadway concepts; combination concepts; and separated lane concepts. He stated that
the conclusions that have been reached indicate that the no-build option and the TSM
and rail concepts, as stand-alone projects, do not satisfy the concerns. It is noted that
rail improvements do not eliminate the need for road improvements, and no single
corridor-length concept meets the needs without providing excess capacity in some
areas. No concept with two additional separated lanes in each direction meets the
needs without providing excess capacity in some areas. Based on varying traffic
demands, a concept with a variable number of lanes would most efficiently address
capacity needs.
Mr. Ford reported that by 2035, 370/0 of the 1-81 corridor in our area will
need one additional lane in each direction. Most of the remaining sections, including all
of Roanoke County, need more than one lane in each direction in 2035. With respect to
tolls, he stated that the study was conducted to determine the effects of tolls on the 1-81
corridor and the effects of traffic diversion to other facilities; it was not conducted to
establish toll rates. It was noted that tolls would have the following impacts: (1)
diversion rates varied from 30/0 to 250/0 depending on who is tolled and how much; (2)
impact of tolls on traffic operations of local roadways would not be substantial; (3) there
March 28, 2006
243
are no anticipated large volume increases at any location on Route 11 as a result of
diversion. A key issue that was noted was that the County disagrees with tolling on
local traffic.
With respect to Route 11, Mr. Ford stated that the DEIS indicated that
traffic volumes on this road are expected to double between 2005 and 2035 without
tolls. Roadway improvements are likely necessary regardless of whether improvements
are made to 1-81 and regardless of tolls. Further, expanding 1-81 without tolls would
generally improve conditions on Route 11 and other local roads by diverting traffic to
interstate. He noted that environmental impacts on Route 11 and other roads are not
anticipated to be substantial. In response to an inquiry from Mr. Hodge, Mr. Ford
reported that the widening of Route 11 is proceeding and right-of-way (ROW) access
will begin in 2007. A public hearing is scheduled at Glenvar High School on April 24.
Mr. Ford stated that upon completion of Tier 1, the Commonwealth
Transportation Board (CTB) will make decisions on improvement concepts,
advancement of 1-81 as a toll pilot, locations of termini to be studied in Tier 2, types of
Tier 2 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents, location of the corridor for
studying in Tier 2; and possible purchase of certain ROW parcels. The CTB will then
make a decision regarding which, if any, concepts are to be advanced based on the Tier
1 EIS. If an improvement concept is advanced, VDOT and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHW) will prepare a Tier 1 Final EIS and FHWA will issue a Tier 1
244
March 28, 2006
Record of Decision (ROD). The Tier 2 studies will focus on more detailed and site
specific issues and upon completion of Tier 2, the design work and tolls can begin.
Mr. Ford requested input from the Board regarding comments to be
submitted at the upcoming public hearing. He advised that he will draft a letter with the
County's comments to be signed by the Chairman. The following recommendations
were submitted for inclusion in the County's comments: encourage variable lane
widths; oppose local toll options; support separated lanes for segments of the 1-81
corridor (urban and high traffic areas); and state that improvements to Route 11 should
precede any improvements to 1-81. Mr. Ford will submit a draft of the comments for
review by the Board.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
.1: Resolution of conaratulations to William Byrd Hiah School
Cheerleadina Competition Team for winnino the Group AA State
Cheerleadino Championship
R-032806-10
Chairman Wray presented the resolution to Jessica Wheeler, Head
Coach. Also present were Allen Journell, Assistant Superintendent; Richard Turner,
William Byrd High School Principal; and Assistant Coaches Monica West and Marcia
Patterson. Certificates of recognition were presented to members of the team.
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
March 28, 2006
245
AYES:
Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS:
None
RESOLUTION 032806-10 OF CONGRATULATIONS TO WILLIAM BYRD HIGH
SCHOOL CHEERLEADING COMPETITION TEAM FOR WINNING THE
GROUP AA STATE CHEERLEADING CHAMPIONSHIP
WHEREAS, team sports are an important part of the curriculum at schools in
Roanoke County teaching cooperation, sportsmanship and athletic skill; and
WHEREAS, the William Byrd High School Cheerleading Competition Team is
comprised of members of both the Junior Varsity and Varsity squads who are judged
and selected for membership on the competition team; and
WHEREAS, the competition team won the Group AA state cheerleading
championship, defeating 16 other schools at the state tournament which was held in
Richmond; and
WHEREAS, the team also won the Blue Ridge District Competition, the Region
III Championship, and the Cougar Classic Grand Championship; and
WHEREAS, the team is coached by Head Coach Jessica Wheeler and Assistant
Coaches Monica West and Marcia Patterson; and
WHEREAS, teamwork is essential in the sport of cheerleading with each member
contributing to the success of the team.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby extend its sincere congratulations to the
members of the WILLIAM BYRD HIGH SCHOOL CHEERLEADING COMPETITION
TEAM: Hannah Angel, Courtney Canterbury, Kristin Dyer, Rachel Greenway,
Samantha Hayden, Megan Hicks, Amber Hylton, Catherine Lyon, Meghan Morris,
Jordan Mullen, Amy Neas, Morgan Nicely, Sam Nolen, Pamella Palmer, Alisha Penton,
Ashli Semones, Ashley Simmons, Kayla Smith, Laken Smith, Alisha Smith, Stephanie
Thomas, Taylor Tran, Kara Turner, Holly Walker, and Jordyn Webb for their athletic
ability, their team spirit, and their commitment to each other; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors extends its best
wishes to the members of the team, the coaches, and the school in their future
endeavors.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
246
March 28, 2006
IN RE:
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
.1: Continued until April 25. 2006. at the reauest of the petitioner.
Second readino of an ordinance to rezone .369 acres from R-1.
Low Density Residential District. to C-1. Office District. for the
operation of ! beauty salon located at 3722 Colonial Avenue.
Cave Sprina Maoisterial District. upon the petition of Judy Taylor
Waaner. (Janet Scheid. Chief Planner)
Chairman Wray advised that this item has been continued until April 25,
2006 at the request of the petitioner.
2. Continued until April 25. 2006. at the reauest of the Plannina
Commission. Second readino of an ordinance to rezone 94.229
acres from AG-3. Aoricultural Preserve District. to PRD. Planned
Residential District. with ! maximum density of 0.33 houses per
acre located at 3672 and 3804 Sterlino Road. Vinton MaQisterial
District. upon the petition of Loblolly Mill. LLC. (Janet Scheid.
Chief Planner)
Chairman Wray advised that this item has been continued until April 25,
2006 at the request of the Planning Commission.
3. Second readina 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
March 28, 2006
247
construction of ! townhouse development located at 7656
Williamson Road. Hollins Maaisterial District. upon the petition of
Eric Eanes and Todd Conner. (Janet Scheid. Chief Planner)
0-032806-11
Ms. Scheid advised that this is an unconditional request to rezone 8.92
acres of a 9.84 acre tract from C-2, Commercial with a special use permit, to R-3, Multi-
Family Residential. She indicated that the property is situated on the north side of
Williamson Road approximately 0.2 miles east of its intersection with Plantation Road.
She stated that the petition is for the purpose of developing a townhouse project at a
proposed density of 5.71 units per acre or approximately 51 townhouses, and 0.92
acres of the overall subject parcel with approximately 140 feet of frontage on Williamson
Road will remain C-2 Commercial. Ms. Scheid stated that the requested zoning change
consists of 8.92 acres which formerly contained motel buildings for Howard Johnson's
and the Budget Motor Lodge. Purchase of the site by the petitioners is contingent on
the outcome of this rezoning request. The proposed 51 unit townhouse development
would be served by two 50-foot wide public roads, one directly accessing Williamson
Road. She indicated that the parcel is surrounded by R-1 Residential, and C-2
Commercial zoned parcels on the east, undeveloped industrial zoned property to the
north, the existing C-2 zoned Hollins Manor Apartments and an R-3 zoned single-family
home on the west.
248
March 28, 2006
Ms. Scheid advised that the Roanoke County Economic Development
Department objects to the proposed rezoning for the following reasons: (1) the
commercial acreage needed for the County's economic growth is in short supply; (2)
this is prime commercial property situated within a future growth area near the
intersections of Williamson Road and Plantation Road, and Williamson Road and Peters
Creek Road, with close proximity to Interstate 81; (3) the proposed property is the most
logical access from Williamson Road to 60-plus acres of adjacent undeveloped land
(Huffman property) to the north which is zoned industrial; (4) the site is one of several
contiguous properties located northeast of Plantation and Williamson Roads currently
available for sale, and assembling these properties would create a commercial site of
approximately 40 acres; (5) the proposed rezoning does not comply with the recently
adopted community plan. Ms. Scheid stated that the 2005 Community Plan has
designated the majority of this parcel as principal industrial, and most of the remaining
0.92 acre, which is the frontage on Williamson Road, as core. Principal industrial
delineates areas for existing and planned regional employment centers distributed
throughout the County, convenient to major residential areas, and suitable highway
access. The Community Plan does not include residential land use types within the
principal industrial category. Ms. Scheid reported that on March 7, 2006, the Planning
Commission heard this petition and raised concerns that the proposal does not conform
with the Community Plan and to the economic development policies of the County. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of the petition on a vote of 3-2 with the
March 28, 2006
249
following proffered conditions: (1) the developer proffers substantial compliance with
the Master Plan titled "Williamson Road Subdivision", prepared by Balzer and
Associates, Inc., revised on March 1, 2006; and (2) the developer proffers that no
more than 51 units will be constructed.
Supervisor Altizer noted that the petition was modified at the March 7
meeting and he noted that in the summary, the revised plan indicates 50 versus 51
townhouse units. He questioned which number of units is correct. Ms. Scheid advised
that the proffered concept plan with a revised date of March 1, 2006, shows 50
townhouse units and this is the correct version. In response to a further inquiry from
Supervisor Altizer, Ms. Scheid indicated that it could end up with either 50 or 51 units.
She indicated that she spoke with the staff person who prepared the report and they
advised that the proffer states "substantial conformity" with the concept plan; therefore,
Ms. Scheid indicated that an increase from 50 units to 51 units would probably still be
within substantial conformity.
Sean Horne, Balzer and Associates, advised that the petitioners have this
property under contract in order to purchase it and sell off the rear portion to be
developed as residential. This allows the front portion to be retained for commercial
uses, and it will be combined with several adjacent parcels that will allow for
development on the main road frontage. He indicated that the reason for the
development is to secure a good variety of housing in the area and at the same time
retain the front portion for commercial use. He noted that the County's prior Community
250
March 28, 2006
Plan designated this parcel as mixed use and the townhouse development would have
fit with this use; the designation was recently changed to industrial use with the adoption
of the new Community Plan. Mr. Horne stated that even though this site is classified in
future land use as industrial, the petitioner feels that this project fits with the many mixed
use areas that surround it. He presented a map that showed the land use designations
of the surrounding parcels. With respect to access, Mr. Horne presented a map and
indicated the area highlighted in yellow, which is zoned industrial, and he noted that
there is a private road that accesses the property from Plantation Road which would
provide good access. Further, he stated that someone would have to combine all the
tracts and put together a deal to make the plan work. He stated that with this proposal,
there would be a right-of-way that would allow access to the property. Mr. Horne
advised that this plan conforms to the Hollins Community area with a mix of commercial
and residential uses, and he noted that there has been no opposition to the project from
the neighbors.
Supervisor Flora inquired about the size of the units. Mr. Horne advised
that they will be one and one-half story units with approximately 1,400 to 1,900 square
feet.
Supervisor Altizer referenced the traffic study and stated that VDOT
normally uses a count of 10 trips per day per unit. He stated that the traffic study
indicates 362 trips per day and he noted that there are 50 units which would translate to
approximately 500 trips per day. He inquired about the difference in these estimates.
March 28, 2006
251
Mr. Horne stated that the estimate of 10 trips per day per unit is used for single family
housing, and he noted that townhouses generate less traffic than single family housing.
Supervisor Wray requested clarification with respect to the buffering. Mr.
Horne advised that the petitioner is proposing a Type A 15' buffer, which includes a 6'
fence along the R-1 portion of the property; a 30' buffer along the C-2 portion of the
property; a 20' buffer along the R-3 portion of the property; and a 35' buffer along the
industrial portion. He stated that the intent was to protect the existing residents, as well
as to add green space and protect the future residents of the development from the
surrounding commercial industrial areas. Supervisor Wray questioned what type of
plantings will be used. Mr. Horne advised that the plantings will be the standard type
required by Roanoke County which includes a mix of evergreens, deciduous trees and
shrubs. He noted that the plantings vary depending upon the buffer type.
Supervisor Wray questioned if the front portion of the property will remain
commercial. Mr. Horne responded in the affirmative and advised that if the petition is
approved, it will be combined with two or three smaller, adjacent tracts to form a larger
commercial tract. Supervisor Wray inquired if the development will be contained and
requested confirmation that there will not be any streets that will connect with this
development. Mr. Horne advised that the development will be contained and that there
will be no connecting streets.
There were no citizens present to speak on this item.
252
March 28, 2006
Supervisor Flora noted that the proposed project is consistent with the
vision of the major stakeholders in the North County area, particularly Hollins University
which is concerned about development along Williamson Road. He advised that small
businesses are the types of development that they would typically prefer to see, rather
than industrial type uses. He stated that he supports the project and feels it would be
good for North County. He indicated that it will set the standard for the revitalization of
Williamson Road.
Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS:
None
ORDINANCE 032806-11 TO REZONE 8.92 ACRES FROM C-2 S,
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 (PART OF TAX MAP NO. 27.11-1-25),
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT UPON THE APPLICATION OF
ERIC EANES & TODD CONNER
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 20, 2005,
and the second reading and public hearing were held on March 28, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on March 7, 2006; 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
8.92 acres, as described herein, and located at 7656 Williamson Road (Part of Tax Map
Number 27.11-1-25) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the
March 28, 2006
253
zoning classification of C-2 S, General Commercial District with Special Use Permit, to
the zoning classification of R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of Eric Eanes & Todd
Conner.
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) The developer hereby proffers substantial compliance with the
master plan titled "Williamson Road Subdivision" prepared by Balzer &
Associates dated 11/23/2006 and last revised 3/1/2006.
(2) The developer hereby proffers that no more than 51 units will be
constructed.
4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the easterly side of Coopers Lane, 275 feet northerly
from the northerly side of U. S. Highway No. 11, thence along the easterly side of
Cooper's Lane, N. 200 50' W. 287.0' to a point, thence N. 200 00' W. 647.7 feet to
a point; thence N. 770 20' E. 436.4 feet to a point; thence S. 170 35' E. 584.6 feet
to a point; thence N. 680 55' E. 50.09 ' to a point; thence S. 170 35' E. 288.64
feet, more or less; thence S. 690 00' W. 442.79 feet, more or less, to the point of
beginning and containing 8.92 acres, more or less.
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 Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
4. Second readina of an ordinance to obtain! special use permit on
15.63 acres for the operation of! drive-thru coffee shop located at
Route 419 n!!r its intersection with KeaQY Road. Windsor Hills
Maoisterial District. upon the petition of WG Indian Trail. LLC.
Warehouses. Inc. (John Murphy. Zonina Administrator)
254
March 28, 2006
0-032806-12
Mr. Murphy advised that this petition is the request of WG Indian Trail,
LLC, Warehouses, Inc. to obtain a special use permit (SUP) for a fast food restaurant
with a drive-thru window. He stated that in June 2004, the Keagy Village site located at
the intersection of Keagy Road and Electric Road was rezoned for an office/retail
complex. He advised that there are a significant number of proffered conditions that
apply to the site. During the discussion of the 2004 rezoning, there was talk of the
potential for a specialty fast food restaurant. At the time the traffic study was conducted
for the preliminary site, it did not include a fast food restaurant; therefore, a revised
traffic study has been conducted to examine this proposal. Mr. Murphy stated that
flexibility is needed in adjusting square footages for office and retail space, and he
noted that these factors affect the traffic data. He indicated that a complete, revised
traffic study has not been done for the entire site. He reported that the Planning
Commission heard this request for a 1,750 restaurant with six stacking spaces and a
bypass lane, which he indicated conforms to the County's zoning ordinance. Mr.
Murphy stated that the neighbors have voiced concerns regarding adequate parking
and stacking spaces; however, the Zoning Office reviews these types of plans on a
regular basis and he indicated that staff has reviewed the proposal to ensure that it
complies with the County's zoning ordinance and they have advised that it is in
conformance.
March 28, 2006
255
Mr. Murphy indicated that a community meeting was held regarding this
matter on February 15, and the following concerns were raised: stormwater
management issues, traffic on Keagy Road, lighting issues, and Keagy Road
construction timing and sequencing. He advised that these are the types of issues that
are addressed in site plan review and he noted that the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the petition.
Supervisor Wray inquired about the traffic volume that would be generated
by this restaurant. Mr. Murphy advised that during the AM peak from 7:15 to 8:15 a.m.,
the traffic count rose from 526 to 687 with the addition of the fast food restaurant;
however during the PM peak from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m., the vehicle count dropped from
700 to 683. Supervisor Wray inquired about the number of stacking lanes from Route
419. Mr. Murphy stated that the stacking is internal to the site and he noted that there is
an entrance only off Electric Road and two access point on Keagy Road that allow entry
and exit onto Keagy Road. He advised that the stacking for the ordering window circles
around the building and does not stack into arterial traffic.
Supervisor Altizer inquired if the SUP is for both the restaurant and the
drive-thru window or for the restaurant only. Mr. Murphy advised that both the fast food
restaurant and the drive-thru require a special use permit, and both are being
addressed with one SUP. Supervisor Altizer inquired if there is a breakdown available
for the additional traffic volume that will be generated by the drive-thru itself. Mr.
Murphy advised that the traffic data is broken out into different categories such as office,
256
March 28, 2006
retail, and restaurants, and he indicated that this type of use has been examined.
Supervisor Altizer referenced Table I which shows the number of trips generated for a
coffee/sandwich shop as 320; however, there is no breakdown relative to the additional
traffic generated by a drive-thru. Anthony Ford, Roanoke County Traffic Engineering
Manager, advised that Starbucks is a newer phenomenon, and the IT Trip Generation
Manual does not address some of these newer land uses. He stated that data is
available for coffee/specialty shops; however the only way to obtain information specific
to the drive-thru would be to conduct a site visit to a similar size Starbucks in a similar
setting and conduct actual turning movement counts. Mr. Ford indicated that the data
that is provided in the IT Trip Generation Manual is a standard and accurate manner for
calculating traffic estimates. In response to a further inquiry from Supervisor Altizer, Mr.
Ford responded that a fast food restaurant generates more trips than a sit down
restaurant. He noted that there will be an increase in trips based with a drive-thru.
MaryEllen Goodlatte, counsel for the petitioner, stated that Starbucks will
be a tenant in Keagy Village and, as is the case with their new suburban locations, they
require a drive-thru as part of their leased premises. She advised that Starbucks will be
leasing space in the building closest to Route 419 just north of the intersection with
Keagy Road. Ms. Goodlatte advised that the store will be 1,750 square feet, and she
displayed a circulation plan and reviewed the proposed access to the site and the
location of the Starbucks Restaurant. She referenced Supervisor Wray's comments
regarding stacking and noted that all stacking is internal or on-site. She indicated that
March 28, 2006
257
County staff has reviewed the concept plan and advised that it meets the County's
requirements for stacking and circulation. Ms. Goodlatte advised that the drive-thru
window will be screened so that passing traffic can not view the window. She stated
that a drive-thru window that faces the street is one of the proffers to which the
development is subject, requiring screening. She advised that the screening is
accomplished by screening, fencing, and grade, and that there will be a significant
difference in elevation between the existing grade of the property and the finished
grade. She stated that cross-sections have been prepared to assist in visualizing this
difference and to show that the drive-thru window will not be visible from the street. Ms.
Goodlatte noted that these cross-sections were presented at the community meeting
and she highlighted the change in grade on the renderings. She advised that currently,
you look down into the site and it is hard to visualize that it will be at or above the Route
419 grade upon completion. She indicated that the grading itself assists in screening
the drive-thru window; additionally, there is a 6' solid screening fence, landscaping, and
berming that will screen the drive-thru window.
Ms. Goodlatte reported that in addition to design and circulation issues,
traffic impacts were also examined. She advised that the development of Keagy Village
at this corner required that improvements be made to Keagy Road and Route 419.
These improvements were dictated by VDOT as a result of the original traffic impact
study. She noted that Kahn Development updated that study to take into account the
effects of a Starbucks drive-thru on traffic. The updated analysis shows that the road
258
March 28, 2006
improvements planned for the center should not change as a result of adding the
Starbucks; however, before final plans are approved, VDOT and the County will require
an additional update to the traffic analysis to take into account the final configuration of
the center. She stated that the road improvements will include the following: (1) adding
two lanes to Keagy Road to increase it from 3 lanes at its intersection with Route 419 to
5 lanes; (2) adding tapers and a turn lane to Route 419; and (3) smoothing down the
hump on Keagy Road. Ms. Goodlatte advised that Kahn Development's engineers will
be working with VDOT and the County's engineers to ensure that this work proceeds
with as little disruption as possible to traveling motorists. She indicated that Kahn
Development is ready to move forward and expects that the grading and infrastructure
work will begin in the spring, with the center being completed and opening in 2007. She
stated that Kahn Development believes that Starbucks will be a good fit for Keagy
Village, as does Starbucks. The possibility of a specialty food restaurant locating in
Keagy Village and requiring a drive-thru was noted when the rezoning was sought, and
that possibility was addressed in one of the proffers which affects the property. Ms.
Goodlatte indicated that the following individuals were present to address any
questions: Bobby Temple, Kahn Development; Craig Balzer and Jack Swao, Balzer
and Associates; John Neel, Gay and Neel; and Ann Booker, Hayes, Seay, Mattern &
Mattern .
Supervisor Church questioned if a study has been done to determine the
number of vehicles that could be stacked to a point where it would obstruct traffic on a
March 28, 2006
259
public road. Mr. Murphy advised that the circulation pattern for the Starbucks is such
that it would require dozens and dozens of vehicles, and even then these would be
stacked within the site. Ms. Goodlatte noted that in addition to meeting County
requirements for stacking, there will be a tremendous amount of internal stacking.
The following citizens spoke regarding this item:
Cynthia Petzold. 4576 Keagy Road, stated that in 2004 she and her
daughter shared photos of the traffic on Keagy Road with the Board. She indicated that
at that time, they expressed concerns about the traffic flow on Keagy Road and that the
proposed widening was only to five lanes, leaving the rest of Keagy Road and Sugar
Loaf Road unchanged. She stated that as the revised trip projections are examined, it
should be noted that the total number of morning trips increases by 31 % from 526 trips
to 687 trips, while the total number of afternoon trips remains essentially the same. She
stated that Keagy Road is still a winding, two-land road with no shoulders; there is still
school bus and neighborhood traffic; plus there will now be traffic generated by the
development of the center. She asked the Board to consider the safety of the children
and families.
Marlene Perrott, 5911 Lakemont Drive, referenced comments made at the
initial rezoning of Keagy Village where the phrase "upscale lifestyle center" was
mentioned. She stated that a Starbucks drive-thru window is not upscale in her opinion.
She advised that there are 231 Starbucks locations in Virginia, and that the main issue
is honor: the Board should make Kahn accountable to deliver what they promised.
260
March 28, 2006
Frank Porter, 6529 Fairway Forest Drive, stated that it is a quality of life
issue: people want places to sit and eat lunch. He indicated that honor comes with
honesty and clarity and he noted that the original proffers state that during the
comprehensive site plan review, it was the intent to encourage pedestrian activity
between all uses and parking areas. He advised that the County zoning ordinance
states that stacking spaces and drive-thru lanes shall not impede on and off-site traffic
movements, and they shall not cross or pass through street parking areas. He indicated
that when Kahn Development submitted their application to the Planning Commission,
nothing was checked off or signed indicating that it had been reviewed. He stated that
in the recent Bojangles petition, they were required to submit a plan showing how their
stacking and drive-thru traffic would be handled. He indicated that we have not heard
what the morning and evening peak traffic delays will be with this restaurant, and he
requested written assurances regarding what is being discussed with respect to this
project. He noted concerns regarding traffic backing up on Route 419 attempting to turn
onto Keagy Road due to the fact that the left turn lane is only built to accommodate four
or five cars. He noted that there were 506 spaces on the Keagy Village concept plan,
and he requested that the project be downsized as additional restaurants are added.
He stated that all issues must be considered including a VDOT traffic study to address
concerns, as well as requiring Kahn Development to submit a plan for what will occur on
the site.
March 28, 2006
261
Viroinia Burns, 5614 Valley Drive, stated that when she first came to
Roanoke, Williamson Road was what Route 419 is now becoming. She noted that the
tax base was increasing; however with the growth of business, the quality of life for
residents in the area was diminishing. She cited concerns such as the cutting down of
trees, water issues, and traffic. She indicated that people then began avoiding
Williamson Road in order to circumvent the many signal lights and traffic in the area.
Since that time, undesirable businesses have taken over as desirable businesses have
left the area and the crime rate has increased. The trees are gone and asphalt and
concrete cover the ground, creating impossible water problems. She stated that she is
pleading with the Board to hear the concerns of the residents and the problems they will
face: traffic congestion, possible need to re-route school buses, and unimaginable
water problems.
Helen Sublette, 5577 Valley Drive, stated that Kahn Development is
asking for a special use permit even though it has not submitted a site plan. In addition,
the stormwater management code restrictions and VDOT studies have not been
completed for this development. She advised that the concept plan submitted by Kahn
Development, proffered condition #11, stated that "non-specialty, drive-in fast food
restaurants and gasoline stations shall not be permitted. Establishments primarily
serving specialty foods, coffee, baked goods, and drive-thru windows are not included
with this prohibition but would require a special use permit in accordance with
requirements of the Roanoke County Zoning Board." She stated that it has just been
262
March 28, 2006
stated that this is a fast food drive-thru. She voiced concerns about the traffic that will
be generated by the drive-thru and questioned whether the County really wants a drive-
thru fast food chain taxing an already overburdened intersection. She noted that Kahn
Development promised an upscale development; she urged the Board to hold them to
this promise. She stated that there are too many unanswered questions with respect to
this project.
Beverlv Porter, 6529 Fairway Forest Drive, stated that the land located at
the intersection of Keagy Road and Route 419 was initially zoned for office buildings
and residents assumed it would eventually be developed for that purpose. She stated
that more than 800 neighbors signed petitions asking that this land not be rezoned due
to increased traffic on Keagy Road, and that residents also voiced concerns about
flooding in the neighborhood. She advised that the residents are still opposed to the
rezoning and that Kahn Development now wants something even less desirable; they
want the County to approve a drive-thru restaurant that will generate approximately 60%
more traffic, as stated in a Roanoke Times news article. She questioned what had
happened to the grocery store and walking trails promised by Kahn. She asked that the
County hold Kahn Development to the promises they made.
Lowell Inhorn, 4576 Keagy Road, stated that he did not necessarily feel
that Starbucks was a bad thing; however, it will compete with locally owned coffee
shops. He indicated that the drive-thru does not make a lot of sense because the
original concept of this development was to be a community center with pedestrian
March 28, 2006
263
traffic. He noted that people who come to the center for a drive-thru coffee house will
never get out of their car to visit the center. He stated that the Starbucks is not to be
visible from Route 419, but questioned whether they would place a sign on the building
that would, in fact, be visible from the road. He indicated that he thinks the idea is ill
conceived and is not consistent with the initial aim of this project.
Supervisor McNamara inquired if a SUP is approved and Starbucks or a
similar type of company wanted to locate in the center, would a site plan have to be
submitted. Mr. Murphy advised that the application for a rezoning or SUP requires the
submission of a concept plan, which is general in nature. The site plan is more specific
with respect to the exact dimensions of parking spaces; sidewalks; landscaping - trees,
species, and types; building square footages; number of tables and chairs, topographic
details for stormwater management, etc. He indicated when a petition to rezone or
obtain a SUP is submitted, a general site layout showing access, general parking and
building placement is all that is required. Supervisor McNamara questioned if the site
plan precedes or follows the SUP application. Mr. Murphy advised that the site plan
follows the SUP application. Supervisor McNamara questioned if staff evaluates
stormwater management as part of the site plan review process. Mr. Murphy advised
that stormwater management access is reviewed by the following staff/agencies:
Roanoke County engineering staff, Roanoke County planning and zoning staff,
Roanoke County Fire Marshal, Western Virginia Water Authority, Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT), Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and the
264
March 28, 2006
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). Supervisor McNamara
questioned if a complete evaluation of stormwater management is conducted before
construction can begin. Mr. Murphy responded in the affirmative.
Supervisor McNamara questioned if there was at concept plan submitted
for Keagy Village at the time the rezoning was approved. Mr. Murphy stated that a
general concept plan was submitted that allowed some flexibility to shift square
footages of office and retail space, depending on the needs and site plan requirements
of the County. Supervisor McNamara inquired if a site plan wats submitted at that point.
Mr. Murphy responded in the negative and advised that a concept plan only, not a site
plan, was submitted. Supervisor McNamara questioned if this was the typical order of
events. Mr. Murphy responded in the affirmative. Supervisor McNamara inquired if the
pending petition for a coffee shop concept is in general conformity with the original
concept plan that was submitted. Mr. Murphy stated that it is not shown on the concept
plan, and noted that there was discussion within the narrative~ that Kahn Development
would consider a specialty fast food restaurant, which this is considered to be;
therefore, it is within the boundaries of the concept plan. Supervisor McNamara
requested clarification regarding whether this petition is within the originally submitted
concept plan. Mr. Murphy advised that it is within the original concept plan. Supervisor
McNamara inquired if there was specific language with regard to a drive-thru in the
concept plan and the proffers that were submitted. Mr. Murphy responded in the
affirmative and stated that it specifically stated that should a specialty drive-thru fast
March 28, 2006
265
food restaurant be proposed, a special use permit review would be required.
Supervisor McNamara questioned why, in Mr. Murphy's opinion, it would say "specialty
fast food" drive-thru as opposed to fast food drive-thru. Mr. Murphy stated that they
were trying to narrow it down to the scope of the entire complex, and noted that the
lifestyle center is more upscale and slightly different from a typical fast food restaurant.
Supervisor Altizer referenced the concept plan and requested information
regarding the distance from the entrance on Keagy Road to the Starbucks drive-thru.
Mr. Murphy advised that this distance is approximately 800 feet.
Supervisor Wray requested information regarding the screening and
signage. Mr. Murphy advised that screening is required as part of one of the proffered
conditions from the original rezoning. He noted that the intent was that vehicles on
Electric Road and Keagy Road would not be able to see the drive-thru window. He
advised that the proposal submitted illustrates that the profile from the vehicle vantage
point shows that the drive-thru window will not be visible due to the landscaping and
screening fence. With respect to signage, there is a maximum height for any
freestanding or monument sign of no greater than ten feet. He advised that an
identification sign is permitted at the intersection of Keagy Road and Electric Road,
which will be the main identification sign for the entire complex and could potentially
include the names of the companies located on the site. Mr. Murphy advised that if a
freestanding sign of no greater than 10 feet was used, it would not be visible due to the
trees and fence.
266
March 28, 2006
Supervisor Wray inquired about the number of parking spaces and
whether they were adequate for the use being proposed, as well as possible future
restaurants. Mr. Murphy advised that this is the level of detaill that is examined in the
site plan review process and he noted that each type of LIse requires a minimum
number of spaces. He indicated that each phase of the development is evaluated and a
running tally is kept to ensure that the building space does not exceed the available
parking.
Supervisor Wray referenced the "phasing" of the construction, and he
questioned what phase this particular concept is in. Ms. Goodlatte stated that the first
phase is to get approval to proceed with a lease with Starbucks; however, Kahn expects
to have the project complete and ready for occupancy in 2007. She advised that the
next step is submittal of the erosion and sediment control plan for approval by the
County prior to beginning grading and infrastructure work. She indicated that each
phase will be reviewed and approved by the County, and she noted that Bonefish Grill
and Starbucks will be two of the first tenants. She advised that the project will proceed
in a fairly rapid fashion since the entire center is projected to be constructed and
occupied by the end of 2007.
Supervisor Wray requested clarification regarding the 161 additional
vehicle trips. Mr. Murphy advised that there is an increase in the AM traffic estimate
and a decrease in the PM traffic estimate. He stated that this change is due to the fact
that the original concept plan was based on a specific amount of office and retail space.
March 28, 2006
267
The fast food drive-thru traffic was not calculated in the original June 2004 estimates,
and this contributed to the increase in the AM vehicle trip estimate.
Supervisor Church stated that he must do what he feels is the right thing
to do, and he referenced the public hearing held on June 22, 2004 to rezone this
property. He stated that Mr. Azar, member of the Roanoke County Planning
Commission, put it bluntly when he stated that what the neighbors thought they were
getting is not what they are ending up with. Mr. Church advised that he can not support
the SUP request for the reasons stated at the initial rezoning request.
Supervisor Altizer requested clarification regarding access to the drive-
thru. Mr. Murphy illustrated on the map the routes that could be used for this purpose.
Supervisor McNamara inquired if the requirement of a SUP for a drive-thru
is common in this area. Mr. Murphy responded in the affirmative. Supervisor
McNamara noted that Roanoke County requires a SUP for a drive-thru, and he inquired
if other jurisdictions require a SUP for a drive-thru. Mr. Murphy advised that the
requirements vary by locality.
Supervisor McNamara thanked the people who came to speak regarding
this matter and to voice their thoughts to be considered by the Board. He thanked Kahn
Development and stated that from a developer's perspective, they have gone to an
extreme to keep members of the Board informed of their progress with respect to the
project. He noted that for the last two years while Kahn Development has been working
on securing leases, they have left the site untouched in spite of the fact that it might
268
March 28, 2006
have made it possible for potential lessees to better visuallize the site if they had
proceeded with site preparations. He stated that the origina'l concept plan was for a
neighborhood center and that he is not sure that a Starbucks makes this anything other
than a neighborhood center. He indicated that it would be his preference to not have a
drive-thru because he does not picture a drive-thru when he envisions a quaint,
neighborhood center; further, he stated that he is also partial to smaller independent
merchants as opposed to chains. However, he advised that it is not a Board of
Supervisors' decision to determine what type of business will or will not succeed in the
business marketplace. Supervisor McNamara stated that a drive-thru is not out of place
and that it was clear from the proffers that Kahn Development would have an interest in
coming back to the Board at a future date for a SUP for a d1rive-thru. He stated that
Kahn Development has done what they needed to do and the Board can not control the
tenants. He noted that if the other tenants are on a par with Bonefish Grill and
Starbucks, Kahn Development has developed the center in the best manner possible.
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Altizer, Flora,
NAYS: Supervisors Church, Wray
Supervisor Altizer stated that there was discussion regarding stacking of
vehicles; however, any way that you look at the access, there is approximately 180 to
200 feet. He stated that if you took the average length of 12 cars, there is a range of 60
March 28, 2006
269
to 65 cars that can be stacked before any traffic would flow onto the access roads. He
stated that he does not believe stacking will be an issue, and he noted that whether or
not Starbucks is upscale is a matter of perception. He stated that stormwater
management will be reviewed in future phases of the project.
Supervisor Flora stated that to call Starbucks a fast food restaurant is a
stretch. He indicated that he feels McDonalds, Wendy's and Hardees are fast food
restaurants. He advised that in his opinion, Starbucks is upscale and will be a positive
addition to the center. He stated that he does not see that it is inconsistent with the
original concept.
Supervisor Wray stated that he has an issue with the additional traffic that
will be generated by a drive-thru window. He advised that his initial vote was based on
an effort to route traffic onto Route 419 and not back through the neighborhood. He
stated that the citizens have compromised a lot, and he feels like he does not want to
be the one that causes more traffic to be funneled through the neighborhood at a peak
time.
ORDINANCE 032806-12 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR
THE OPERATION OF A DRIVE-THRU COFFEE SHOP ON 15.63
ACRES LOCATED AT ROUTE 419 NEAR ITS INTERSECTION WITH
KEAGY ROAD (TAX MAP NOS. 67.18-2-1, 2, 3, AND 4) WINDSOR
HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON THE PETITION OF WG INDIAN
TRAIL, LLC, WAREHOUSES, INC.
WHEREAS, WG Indian Trail, LLC, Warehouses, Inc. has filed a petition for a
special use permit for the operation of a drive-thru coffee shop to be located on 15.63
acres at the intersection of Route 419 near its intersection with Keagy Road (Tax Map
Nos. 67.18-2-1, 2,3, and 4) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District; and
270
March 28, 2006
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
March 7, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on February 28, 2006; the second reading and public hearing on
this matter was held on March 28, 2006.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to WG Indian
Trail, LLC, Warehouses, Inc. for the operation of a drive-thru coffee shop to be located
on 15.63 acres at the intersection of Route 419 and Keagy Hoad in the Windsor Hills
Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 2000 Community Plan, as
amended, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia,
as amended, and said special use permit is hereby approved with the following
conditions:
(1) The development will be constructed in substantial conformity with the
"Keagy Village Preliminary Site Development Plan," prepared by Gary and Neel,
Inc. and dated January 17, 2006.
2. 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 Zonin~1 Administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zonin~~ classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: Supervisors Church, Wray
5. Second readinQ of an ordinance authorizilGQ. the relocation of the
followina pollina places: !1}107 Bennett Sprinas Precinct: ill 204
Botetourt SprinQs Precinct: and .Q1 503 Cclve SprinQ Precinct and
reauest to appropriate funds in the amount of J2.750. (Judith
Stokes. General Reaistrar)
0-032806-13; A-032806-13.a
Ms. Stokes advised that she is requesting approval to relocate three
polling precincts. She noted that RonKeith Adkins, Chairman of the Electoral Board,
March 28, 2006
271
was present at the meeting. Ms. Stokes stated that the proposed changes are as
follows: (1) Bennett Springs Precinct in the Catawba Magisterial District to be moved
from the Roanoke Moose Lodge to Mountain Pass Baptist Church; (2) Botetourt Springs
Precinct in the Hollins Magisterial District to be moved from the Hollins Fire Station to
Glad Tidings Church; and (3) Cave Spring Precinct in the Cave Spring Magisterial
District to be moved from the Masonic Lodge to the Church of the Holy Spirit. Ms.
Stokes indicated that it is their intention to make it as convenient as possible for citizens
to exercise their right to vote. She advised that these new locations will provide larger
space for setting up voting equipment, increased lighting, more efficient temperature
control for the voters and election officials, additional and more convenient parking, and
greater accessibility and advantages for the disabled. She advised that notice of the
changes will be mailed to all registered voters in the three precincts with a map and
directions to the new polling places.
Supervisor Wray questioned if a map would be included with the mailing to
be sent to voters. Ms. Stokes responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Adkins stated that following these changes, the distribution of the
precincts in Roanoke County will be as follows: 16 in schools, 2 in fire departments, 9 in
churches and 5 in other locations. He advised that the Electoral Board feels these
proposed changes are best for all parties concerned.
Supervisor Wray expressed appreciation to Mr. Adkins for the work that he
does on behalf of Roanoke County and he noted recent improvements such as
272
March 28, 2006
implementation of the touch screen voting. Mr. Adkins advised that in the last election,
all precincts were accounted for within 30 minutes of the polls closing, which can be
directly attributed to the use of the electronic voting machines. He also advised that
when the recount was conducted, the vote count did not change by a single vote and
this reflects the accuracy of the machines. He advised that Roanoke County is the
largest registered locality west of Richmond.
Supervisor Church expressed appreciation to the Electoral Board and
staff, and indicated that it is good to see the churches taking the initiative to serve as
polling precincts. He further advised that if additional funds are required to ensure that
all residents are duly notified of the changes, the Board will see that an appropriation is
made.
There were no citizens present to speak on this item.
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance and appropriate funds in
the amount of $2,750 from the Board Contingency Fund. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
March 28, 2006
273
ORDINANCE 032806-13 AUTHORIZING THE RELOCATION OF THE
FOLLOWING POLLING PLACES: (1) 107 BENNETT SPRINGS
PRECINCT; (2) 204 BOTETOURT SPRINGS PRECINCT; AND (3) 503
CAVE SPRING PRECINCT
WHEREAS, Sections 24.1-306, 24.2-307 and 24.2-310 of the 1950 Code of
Virginia, as amended, authorize the governing body of each county to establish the
polling place for each precinct in that jurisdiction by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Roanoke County will be better served by the
relocation of certain polling places to locations providing more space for voting
equipment, increased lighting, more convenient parking, higher security for voting
equipment and easier accessibility for all voters; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on March 14, 2006; and
the second reading of this ordinance and public hearing were held on March 28, 2006.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the relocation of the following polling places be, and hereby is
approved as follows:
(1) Bennett Springs polling place (107) to be relocated from the
Roanoke Moose Lodge #284, 3233 Catawba Valley Drive, Salem, VA 24153 to
Mountain Pass Baptist Church, 2975 Catawba Valley Drive, Salem, VA 24153
(2) Botetourt Springs polling place (204) to be relocated from the
Hollins Fire Station, 7401 Barrens Road, Roanoke, VA 24019 to Glad Tidings
Church aka Life Church, 7422 Deer Branch Road, Roanoke, VA 24019
(3) Cave Spring polling place (503) to be relocated from the Cave
Spring Masonic Lodge, 5131 Ranchcrest Drive, Roanoke, VA 24018 to the
Church of the Holy Spirit, 6011 Merriman Road, Roanoke, VA 24018
3. That the General Registrar for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, is hereby
authorized to take all measures necessary to comply with Virginia law and regulations
regarding a change in a polling precinct and for reasonable notification to the voters of
the Bennett Springs, Botetourt Springs, and Cave Spring precincts of this change in
their polling location.
4. That the County Administrator and the General Registrar are hereby
authorized and directed to take such others actions as may be necessary to accomplish
the intent of this Ordinance.
5. That this Ordinance shall take effect immediately.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
274
March 28, 2006
IN RE:
REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Altizer: (1) He requested that Chief Lavinder meet with him
regarding the need to implement community policing efforts in the Montgomery Village
subdivision to address issues with motorcycles riding on private property. (2) He
advised that he needed to meet with Arnold Covey, Director of Community
Development, following the meeting.
Supervisor Church: (1) He expressed appreciation to Bill Richardson for
the progress being made on zoning violations. (2) He thanked Mr. Covey for his
response to the Schoonover request.
Supervisor Wrav: He referenced a letter addressed to Mr. Hodge from
VDOT concerning safety improvements on Route 220. He advised that he has met with
VDOT several times, expressed his opinions on some of the improvements which
include crossing closings, and stated that he does not have a problem with some of
them. He outlined his concerns relating to the various crossin~~s and requested that Mr.
Ford address these issues in a written response to VDOT. He stated that the sooner
turn lanes are available, the better it will be.
IN RE:
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Wray adjourned the meeting at 9:14 p.m.
Submitted by:
Approved by:
~J~AtlJ~. Ciltkuil-
Diane S. Childers, CMC
Clerk to the Board
~e~ Q. W~
Chairman