HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/25/2006 - Regular
April 25, 2006
305
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
April 25, 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 April, 2006.
IN RE:
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Wray called the meeting to order at 3:06 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; Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk to the Board;
Teresa Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer
IN RE:
OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County
Administrator. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
306
April 25, 2006
IN RE:
REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. Mahoney requested the addition of a closed meeting pursuant to the
Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (3) to discuss or consider the acquisition of real
property for public purposes.
Supervisor McNamara inquired if it would be appropriate to go into closed
meeting for a staff update on the large economic development prospect mentioned in
the newspaper. Mr. Hodge advised that this subject was considered for a closed
meeting. He advised that it does not qualify for a closed meeting because an
announcement of the economic development prospect has already been made. Mr.
Hodge advised that he will provide an update on this prospect by memorandum.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1:. Recoanition of visitina students from the Frederick Chopin
Reaional Music School in Opole. Poland. and presentation of
Certificates of Honorary Citizenship, (Elmer Hodae. County
Administrator)
Mr. Hodge advised that a student delegation from the Frederick Chopin
Regional Music School in Opole, Poland, is visiting the County from April 20, through
May 9, 2006, as part of the Sister City Program. He stated that Dr. Kristina
Slowikowski, organizer of the program, and Chair of the Opole Sister City of the
Roanoke Valley Sister Cities International, will introduce the students. Mr. Hodge
April 25, 2006
307
advised that the students will hold several musical performances during their visit, both
here in the Roanoke Valley and in Washington, DC. The students will be performing for
and visiting Roanoke County's high school music programs and in addition to
performing, they will have the opportunity to tour the capital and local area attractions.
He advised that the County is co-sponsoring the delegation's concert on Sunday, April
30, at 3:00 p.m. in Roanoke College's Olin Hall, and a reception will follow.
Chairman Wray presented a certificate of honorary citizenship and a gift to
Anna Rozek, chaperone, and the following students: Mateusz Rozek, Oliwia
Grabowska, and Piotr Kosarga. Ms. Rozek presented a letter of appreciation and gift to
Chairman Wray on behalf of the President of Opole. She also presented letters of
appreciation and gifts from the Director of the Frederick Chopin Regional Music School
to the Roanoke Valley Sister Cities International which were accepted by Mr. Hodge
and Mr. O'Donnell, and Ms. Slowikowski. Mr. Piotr Kosarga performed a violin solo.
IN RE:
NEW BUSINESS
1:. Reauest to amend the bv-Iaws of the Lenath of Service Awards
Proaram (LOSAP) and appoint Rebecca Owens as the Finance
Department representative. (John M. Chambliss. Assistant
County Administrator)
A-042506-1
Mr. Chambliss advised that the Length of Service Awards Program
(LOSAP) was started in 1989 to provide a retirement benefit to public safety volunteers
308
April 25, 2006
who are vested with five years of service and will reward them for up to twenty years of
service. The program, used to promote recruitment and retention of the volunteers, is
managed by the Roanoke County Public Safety Volunteer Benefits Board of Trustees
(LOSAP Board of Trustees) which is comprised of the chair of the Fire Chiefs Board, the
chair of the Rescue Chiefs Board, the Roanoke County Risk Manager, a volunteer fire
representative, a volunteer rescue representative, and two volunteer representatives at
large. Mr. Chambliss advised that during budget deliberations with the Board of
Supervisors, the LOSAP Board advised that the annual contribution of $200,000
allocated to the program was insufficient and suggested that the program be capped
effective December 31, 2005, and a new benefit program be established in 2006.
Mr. Chambliss advised that the changes to the by-laws relate to the
LOSAP Board of Trustees and are being requested in order for the Board of
Supervisors to re-appoint these members. He requested that the Board approve the
following changes to the constitution and by-laws which have been endorsed by the
Volunteer Fire Chiefs Board, the Volunteer Rescue Chiefs Board, and the LOSAP
Board of Trustees: (1) Article II, Section 1: Adds the phrase "a member of Roanoke
County Finance Department" which will allow this person to sit on the Board of
Trustees. (2) Article II, Section 9: Removes the phrase "with no more than two
consecutive terms" which will allow the re-appointment of the members who have
served two terms already. This re-appointment of members will allow them to assist in
transitioning from the LOSAP retirement program to a new reward program. Any
April 25, 2006
309
appointment to the LOSAP Board of Trustees will continue to be brought to the Board of
Supervisors for approval but there will no longer be a two-term limit. (3) Article II,
Section 10: Adds the phrase "the member of the Roanoke County Finance Department"
to the list of the members previously exempted from term limits because their
appointment is based on other status such as chair of the Fire Chiefs Board, etc. (4)
Mr. Chambliss advised that information about the last change was inadvertently left out
of the Board report for this item. Article III, Section 3: Adds the sentence "In the event
of a tie, the chairperson will serve as the tie breaking vote." With the addition of the
member of the Roanoke County Finance Department to the Board, there will now be an
even number of members and this change gives the chairperson the ability to vote in
the event of a tie.
Mr. Chambliss advised that staff recommends approval of the changes to
the LOSAP by-laws so that the re-appointments may be made and that Rebecca
Owens, Director of the Finance Department, be appointed as the Finance
representative. He advised that once the new program has been developed, a request
for approval and funding will be brought back at the May 23 or June 13 meeting.
Supervisor Church advised that he feels this is a good program which
strives to reward the long-term service of volunteers. He advised that he approves of
the changes in the by-laws and would like to move approval of the request at the
appropriate time. However, he questioned whether the changes would support the
immediate elimination of the term expirations because without the continuity of the
310
April 25, 2006
current members, he felt the program would be unable to function properly. Mr.
Chambliss advised that it was decided that the current members with their history and
background of the program could best deal with the transition issues and establish the
criteria and point system. He advised that those persons named in the Board report to
be re-appointed have been contacted and are willing to continue to serve through the
transition period. Supervisor Church expressed appreciation to the volunteers for the
many years they have served the County.
Supervisor Altizer advised that he would support the staff
recommendation; that the appointment of Ms. Owens will complete the management
team for this program; and he is pleased that the by-laws are being changed so the
program can move forward.
Supervisor Wray advised that he agreed with Supervisor Church that this
is a good program and the County cannot operate without volunteers. He advised that
the program was established to ensure that a volunteer base would be available. He
advised that he felt the Board should continue to provide funding and that the
appointment of a financial representative was appropriate.
Supervisor Church moved to approve the staff recommendation (approve
the changes to the LOSAP by-laws and appoint Rebecca Owens as the Finance
Department representative). The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
April 25, 2006
311
2. Reauest to adoDt resolution of SUDDort for! arant aDDlication to
the Virainia DeDartment of Conservation and Recreation for!
Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant to helD finance
imDrovements to WhisDerina Pines Park. (Pete HaisliD. Director.
Parks. Recreation & Tourism)
A-042506-1
Mark Courtright, Assistant Director of Parks, advised that the Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) has announced the availability of
grant funds from the land and Water Conservation Fund, a federal grant program
administered by their department. He advised that the Parks, Recreation and Tourism
Department wishes to apply for these funds for a variety of improvements at Whispering
Pines Park including new construction and/or renovation of sports fields, restrooms,
trails, parking areas, and picnic shelters etc. These grant funds would allow the County
to expand the planned improvements at the park which include replacing the existing
playground, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements, additional trails, and
improving the landscaping and parking. They would also like to add a water and sewer
system so that restrooms can be provided. It is estimated that an additional $100,000
will be necessary to complete the improvements and the County's share of the required
match, up to $100,000, is available in the Parks, Recreation and Tourism capital
maintenance budget and through in-kind construction services that will be provided by
parks and recreation staff.
312
April 25, 2006
Mr. Courtright advised that Whispering Pines Park is heavily used by the
youth and adult leagues as well as the general public. He advised that staff
recommends that the Board adopt a resolution of support for a grant application to the
Virginia DCR to help finance improvements to Whispering Pines Park.
Supervisor McNamara inquired if the County has received any federal
grants for parks in the past. Mr. Courtright advised that through their newly hired
landscape architect, they are aggressively seeking grants that may be available. The
County has secured some federal grants in the past, and they hope this will be a
positive and successful application.
Supervisor Church expressed appreciation to Mr. Courtright on behalf of
the citizens of the Catawba District and advised that Whispering Pines Park is located in
a beautiful setting. He advised that the park is used by many citizens and they have
been very patient while waiting for these improvements. He voiced support for pursuing
all grants that may be available to help make improvements.
Supervisor Wray advised that he agreed that Whispering Pines Park is in
a very beautiful setting, and it is good to see that funds may be secured to make the
necessary improvements.
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
April 25, 2006
313
RESOLUTION 042506-2 OF SUPPORT FOR A GRANT APPLICATION
TO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND
RECREATION FOR PARK IMPROVEMENTS AT WHISPERING PINES
PARK (CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT)
WHEREAS, the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), provides
funds to assist political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia in acquiring and
developing open space and park lands; and
WHEREAS, there are urgent needs within Roanoke County to develop park land;
and
WHEREAS, this area is deemed a development priority by the Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors and shall be referred to as Whispering Pines Park; and
WHEREAS, in order to obtain funding assistance from DCR, it is necessary that
the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors guarantee that a proportionate share of the
cost thereof is available.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors that the County Administrator is hereby authorized to cause such
information or materials as may be necessary to be provided to the Department of
Conservation and Recreation (DCR) and to enter into such agreements as may be
necessary to permit the formulation, approval and funding of the Whispering Pines Park
Project.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
give its assurances that the funds needed as the proportionate share of the cost of the
approved program will be provided, up to $100,000.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors gives assurances that the General Provisions of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act (L&WCF) and the Virginia Outdoor Fund Fiscal Procedures will
be complied with in the administration of this project.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors will operate and maintain the public recreation facility in good condition and
will provide permanent project acknowledgement signs of the participating funding
agencies and that this signage will clearly state that the said facility is a "public"
recreational facility.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors shall dedicate the metes and bounds of the Whispering Pines Park
properties, in perpetuity, for public outdoor recreational purposes in accordance with the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (L&WCF) Act.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors gives its assurance that all other applicable federal and state regulations
governing such expenditure of funds will be complied with in the administration,
development, and subsequent operation of Whispering Pines Park.
314
April 25, 2006
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Department of Conservation and
Recreation is respectfully requested to assist in approval and funding of the Whispering
Pines Park Project in order to enhance the standard of public recreational enjoyment for
all our citizenry.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
IN RE:
REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
Supervisor Wray moved to approve the first readings and set the second
readings and public hearings for May 23, 2006. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS:
None
1:. First readina of !!.!l ordinance to rezone 4.75 acres from R-3C.
Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District with conditions.
to R3. Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District for the
construction of .! townhouse-condominium residential
develoDment. located on Route 419 !!..!!! its intersection with
Stoneybrook Drive and Bridle Lane. Windsor Hills Maaisterial
District. uDon the Detition of Cherney DeveloDment COmDany. Inc.
April 25, 2006
315
2. First readina of !!l ordinance to obtain ! SDecial Use Permit for
the oDeration of ! religious assemblv. located at 6430 Kellev
Street. Catawba Maaisterial District. UDon the Detition of Bethel
Assemblv of God.
3. First readina of an ordinance to rezone 4.8 acres from C-2C.
General Commercial District with conditions. to C2. General
Commercial District and obtain ! sDecial use Dermit for the
oDeration of ! reliaious assemblv. located at 7342 Plantation
Road. Hollins Maaisterial District. UDon the Detition of Beacon
BaDtist Church.
4. First readina of !!l ordinance to rezone .241 acres from R-1. Low
Densitv Residential District to C-2 General Commercial District.
and to rezone .44 acres from C-2C. General Commercial District
with conditions to C2. General Commercial District for the
construction of! Darkina lot. located at 3604 Brambleton Avenue.
Cave SDrina Maaisterial District. UDon the Detition of Lawrence A.
Goldstein.
316
April 25, 2006
FIRST READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1: Ordinance authorizina and aoorovina execution of ! renewal
lease aareement with Cisco Systems. Inc.. for office soace in the
Salem Bank & Trust Buildina at 200 East Main Street. Salem.
Virainia. owned !rl the Board of Suoervisors of Roanoke County.
Virainia. (Joe Obenshain. Senior Assistant County Attorney)
Ms. Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services, advised that Cisco
Systems, Inc., a California corporation which is a major supplier of network equipment
and management for the internet, has leased 1,400 square feet of office space in the
Salem Bank & Trust Building since March 2002. Their lease allows Cisco to install and
use both a WHIP antenna and a small satellite dish on the building's roof. The original
lease term was for two years with an option to renew for the same period which Cisco
Systems exercised. Following negotiations that began in fall 2005, Cisco Systems has
agreed to renew their lease for an additional two years at a rate that is four percent
above their current lease rate. The current rental is $1,400 per month and will be
increased to $1,485 per month for the term of the lease. Cisco has requested the
option to terminate this lease after the first year upon sixty (60) days notice in writing to
the County.
IN RE:
Ms. Green advised that Cisco has been a fine tenant, and she requested
that the Board approve the renewal lease with Cisco Systems Inc., for their currently
occupied space at Salem Bank & Trust at the negotiated increased rental.
April 25, 2006
317
There was no discussion on this item.
Supervisor Wray moved to approve the first reading, and set the second
reading for May 9,2006. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
.L Blue Ridae Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors
Chairman Wray advised that the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board
voted unanimously to nominate Daniel E. Karnes to complete the three-year term of
John Hudgins, Member-at-Large, who has resigned. Mr. Karnes is being appointed to
complete the remainder of the unexpired term as well as a three-year term. His
appointment will expire on December 31,2009. Chairman Wray noted that member at-
large appointments must be ratified by the County, the City of Roanoke, and the City of
Salem. He advised that ratification of Mr. Karnes' appointment has been placed on the
consent agenda.
2. Lenath of Service Awards Proaram CLOSAP) for Fire and Rescue
Chairman Wray advised that the following four-year terms expired on
January 1, 2006: (1) Leon Martin, Volunteer Member at Large; (2) Mike Gee, Volunteer
Fire; (3) Craig Sheets, Volunteer Rescue Squad; and (4) Brian Garber, Volunteer
Member at Large. The Volunteer Fire and Rescue Chiefs Board has recommended that
each of these representatives be re-appointed for an additional four-year term that will
318
April 25, 2006
expire on January 1, 2010. He stated that confirmation of these appointments has been
placed on the consent agenda.
3. Total Action Aaainst Poverty (TAP) Board of Directors
Supervisor Flora requested that the Clerk contact Ms. Elizabeth Stokes to
determine if she would be willing to serve an additional two-year term. He advised that
if Ms. Stokes does wish to serve another term, confirmation of her appointment should
be placed on the May 9 consent agenda.
IN RE:
CONSENT AGENDA
R-042506-3; R-042506-3.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 042506-3 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 April
25, 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 6, inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes - April 11, 2006
2. Ratification and confirmation of appointments to the Blue Ridge Behavioral
Healthcare Board of Directors and the Length of Service Awards Program
(LOSAP) for Fire and Rescue
April 25, 2006
319
3. Request to adopt resolution amending and readopting guidelines for the
implementation of the Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure
Act of 2002
4. Request from the schools to accept and appropriate funds totaling $20,000
for grant funds and contributions
5. Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate funds in the
amount of $4,500 from two Division of Motor Vehicle mini-grants
6. Request from the Information Technology Department to receive and
appropriate reimbursement in the amount of $6,657.60 for time/resources
committed as part of the 800M Hz Rebanding project
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 resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 042506-3.b AMENDING AND READOPTING
GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PUBLlC-
PRIVATE EDUCATION FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
ACT OF 2002
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County determined that it is in
the best interest of the County to adopt procedures for the implementation of the Public-
Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 pursuant to the provisions of
Section 56-575.16.4 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2003, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County
adopted Resolution 051303-4 which adopted procedures for the implementation of the
Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that it is in the best interests of the
County to amend these previously adopted procedures to incorporate recent
amendments to the Code of Virginia.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, hereby adopts the following Guidelines for the Implementation of the
Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 as amended.
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
320
April 25, 2006
Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure
Act of 2002
County of Roanoke
Guidelines
April 2003 (rev. April 2006)
Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002
Roanoke County Procedures
Table of Contents
I. Introduction................................................................................................... p. 1
II. General Provisions.............................. ..... ............................... ........ ...... ....... .p. 2
A. Proposal Submission............... ....... ....... ........... ............. ........................... p. 2
B. Affected Jurisdictions. ......... ....... ...... ........... ................ ....... ...... ............... p. 3
C. Proposal Review Fee........................... ..... .............. ....... ....................... ...p. 3
D. Virginia Freedom of Information Act ....................................................p. 4
E. Applicability of Other Laws...... ...... .......... ................... ..... ...................... p. 5
III. Solicited Proposals.................................... ..... ................... ....... ................. .... p. 5
IV. Unsolicited Proposals.................................... .................... ...... ..................... p. 6
A. Decision to Accept and Consider Unsolicited Proposal; Notice..............p. 6
B. Initial Review by the Responsible Public Entity......................................p. 7
V. Review of Solicited and Unsolicited Proposals.........................................p. 8
VI. Proposal Preparation and Submission.....................................................p. 8
Format for Submissions at the Conceptual Stage.. .................................p. 8
(a) Format for Submissions at the Detailed Stage......................... ............ p. 13
VI. Proposal Evaluation and Selection Criteria..............................................p. 15
A. Qualifications and Experience........ ............. ...... ..... ...... ........ ........ ......... p. 15
B. Project Characteristics......................... ..... ............................................. p. 15
C. Project Financing.......................................................................... ....... ..p. 16
D. Public Benefit and Compatibility..........................................................p. 16
VII. Comprehensive Agreement.... ............... ..... ........ ........ .................. .... ........... p. 17
April 25, 2006
321
VIII. Appendix. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... p. 20
I. Introduction
The Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002, as amended, (the
"PPEA") allows responsible public entities to create public-private partnerships for development
of a wide range of projects for public use if the public entities determine there is a need for the
project and that private involvement may provide the project to the public in a timely and cost-
effective fashion. For purposes of the PPEA, the County of Roanoke is a "responsible public
entity" that "has the power to develop or operate the applicable qualifying project." Individually
negotiated comprehensive agreements between a private entity and the County will define the
respective rights and obligations of the parties. This document sets forth the procedures to guide
the private partner( s) and the County in the application of PPEA. The approval of the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County is required for the County to enter into a comprehensive
agreement pursuant to the PPEA.
In order for a project to be considered under the PPEA, it must meet the definition of a
"qualifying project." The PPEA contains a broad definition of "qualifying project" that includes
public buildings and facilities of all types; for example:
(i) An education facility, including, but not limited to, a school building, any
functionally-related and subordinate facility and land to a school building
(including a stadium or other facility primarily used for school events), and any
depreciable property provided for use in a school facility that is operated as part
of the public school system or as an institution of higher education;
(ii) Any building or facility that meets a public purpose and is developed or operated
by or for any public entity;
(iii) Improvements, together with equipment, necessary to enhance public safety and
security of buildings to be principally used by a public entity;
(iv) Utility, telecommunications and other communications infrastructure;
(v) Technology infrastructure, including, but not limited to, telecommunications,
automated data processing, word processing and management information
systems, and related information, equipment, goods and services
(vi) Any improvements necessary or desirable to any unimproved County owned real
estate; or
(vii) A recreational facility; and
322
April 25, 2006
(viii) Certain service contracts.
The PPEA establishes requirements that the County shall adhere to when considering
proposals received pursuant to the PPEA. The County Administrator may receive and consider
proposals in strict accord with the procedures specified in this document. In addition, the PPEA
specifies the criteria that must be used to select a proposal and the contents of the comprehensive
agreement detailing the relationship between the County and the private entity.
II. General Provisions
A. Proposal Submission
A proposal may be either solicited by the County or delivered by a private entity on an
unsolicited basis. Private entity proposers will be required to follow a two-part proposal
submission process consisting of an initial conceptual phase (Part 1) and a detailed phase (Part
2). The initial phase of the proposal should contain specified information on proposer
qualifications and experience, project characteristics, project financing, anticipated public
support or opposition, or both, and project benefit and compatibility. The Part 2 detailed
proposal must contain specified deliverables.
The PPEA allows private entities to include innovative financing methods, such as the
imposition of user fees or service payments, in a proposal. Such financing arrangements may
include the issuance of debt instruments, equity or other securities or obligations, including, if
applicable, the portion of the tax-exempt private activity bond limitation amount to be allocated
annually to the Commonwealth of Virginia pursuant to the federal Economic Growth and Tax
Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 for the development of education facilities using public-
private partnerships, and to provide for carryovers of any unused limitation amount.
Proposals should be prepared simply and economically, providing a concise description
of the proposer's capabilities to complete the proposed qualifying project and the benefits to be
derived from the project by the public. Project benefits to be considered are those occurring
during the construction, renovation, expansion or improvement phase and during the life cycle of
the project. Proposals also should include a scope of work and a financial plan for the project,
which contains enough detail to allow an analysis by the County of the financial feasibility of the
proposed project. For specific applications, the County may request, in writing, clarification to
the submission.
The PPEA is intended to encourage proposals from the private sector that offer the
provision of private financing in support of the proposed public project and the assumption of
commensurate risk by the private entity, but also benefits to the private entity through innovative
approaches to project financing, development and use. However, while substantial private sector
April 25, 2006
323
involvement is encouraged, qualifying facilities will still be devoted primarily to public use and
typically involve facilities critical to the public health, safety and welfare. Accordingly, the
County shall continue to exercise full and proper due diligence in the evaluation and selection of
operators for these projects. In this regard, the qualifications, capabilities, resources and other
attributes of a prospective operator and its whole team should be carefully examined for every
project. In addition, private entities proposing projects shall be held strictly accountable for
representations or other information provided regarding their qualifications, experience or other
contents of their proposals, including all specific aspects of proposed plans to be performed by
the operator.
B. Affected Local Jurisdictions
Any private entity requesting approval from, or submitting a conceptual or detailed
proposal to, the County must provide other affected units of local government with a copy of the
private entity's request or proposal by certified mail, express delivery or hand delivery, after the
County determines whether to accept such proposal. Affected local jurisdictions shall have 60
days from the receipt of the request or proposal to submit written comments to the County at
either or both the conceptual and detailed phases. Comments received within the 60-day period
shall be considered in evaluating the request or proposal; however no negative inference shall be
drawn from the absence of comment by an affected local jurisdiction.
c. Proposal Review Fee
No fee will be charged by the County to process, review or evaluate any solicited
proposal submitted under the PPEA, other than what are considered reasonable and incidental
permit, utility, and related fees during the construction stage of the project. The County shall
receive an analysis of the proposal from County staff or outside advisors or consultants with
relevant experience in determining whether to enter into an agreement with the private entity.
The County shall charge a fee of one-half of one percent (0.5%), not to exceed $50,000,
of the estimated present value cost to the County of the proposal, but not less than $5,000, to
cover the costs of processing, reviewing, and evaluating any unsolicited, Part 1 proposal or
competing unsolicited Part I proposal submitted under the PPEA, including a fee to cover the
costs of outside attorneys, consultants and financial advisors. This fee shall not be greater than
the direct costs associated with evaluating the proposed qualifying project. "Direct costs"
include (i) the cost of staff time required to process, evaluate, review, and respond to the
proposal, and (ii) the out-of-pocket costs of attorneys, consultants, and financial advisors. For
purposes of initial processing of the proposal, the County shall accept the $5,000 minimum fee
with the balance due and payable prior to the proposals proceeding beyond the initial review
stage. Such sums shall be paid with certified funds, and shall be deposited with the Treasurer of
Roanoke County in a special fund known as the PPEA Fund. The fund shall be established for
324
April 25, 2006
such purpose, and deposits to the fund shall be apportioned to defray the direct cost of proposal
review(s).
· If the cost of reviewing the proposal is less than the established proposal fee, the
County may refund to the proposer the excess fee.
· If during the initial review the County decides not to proceed to publication and
conceptual-phase review of an unsolicited proposal, the proposal fee, less any direct
(itemized) costs of the initial review, shall be refunded to the private entity.
· If the County chooses to proceed with evaluation of proposal(s) under the PPEA, it
shall not do so until the entire, non-refundable proposal fee has been paid to the
County in full.
D. Freedom of Information Act
Generally, proposal documents submitted by private entities are subject to the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). In accordance with S 2.2-3705.6 of the Code, such
documents may be released if requested, except to the extent that they relate to (i) confidential
proprietary information submitted to the County under a promise of confidentiality or (ii)
memoranda, working papers or other records related to proposals if making public such records
would adversely affect the financial interest of the Commonwealth or the private entity or the
bargaining position of either party.
Subsection 56-575.4 G of the PPEA imposes an obligation on the County to protect
confidential proprietary information submitted by a private entity or operator. When the private
entity requests that the County not disclose information, the private entity must (i) invoke the
exclusion when the data or materials are submitted to the County or before such submission, (ii)
identify the data and materials for which protection from disclosure is sought, and (iii) state why
the exclusion from disclosure is necessary. A private entity may request and receive a
determination from the County as to the anticipated scope of protection prior to submitting the
proposal. The County is authorized and obligated to protect only confidential proprietary
information, and thus will not protect any portion of a proposal from disclosure if the entire
proposal has been designated confidential by the proposer without reasonably differentiating
between the proprietary and non-proprietary information contained therein.
Upon receipt of a request that designated portions of a proposal be protected from
disclosure as confidential and proprietary, the County shall determine whether such protection is
appropriate under applicable law and, if appropriate, the scope of such appropriate protection,
and shall communicate its determination to the proposer. If the determination regarding
protection or the scope thereof differs from the proposer's request, then the County will accord
the proposer a reasonable opportunity to clarify and justify its request. Upon a final
determination by the County to accord less protection than requested by the proposer, the
proposer will be accorded an opportunity to withdraw its proposal. A proposal so withdrawn
April 25, 2006
325
should be treated in the same manner as a proposal not accepted for publication and conceptual-
phase consideration as provided in section IV.A.2 below.
E. ADDlicabilitv of Other Laws
The applicability of the Virginia Public Procurement Act (the "VPP A") is as set forth in
the PPEA. In soliciting or entertaining proposals under the PPEA, the County shall also comply
with all applicable federal laws and applicable state and local laws not in conflict with the PPEA.
Likewise, in submitting proposals and in developing, executing or operating facilities under the
PPEA, private entities shall comply will all applicable federal laws and applicable state and
local laws. Such laws may include, but not necessarily be limited to, contractual obligations
which require Workers Compensation insurance coverage, performance bonds or payment bonds
from approved sureties, compliance with the Virginia Prompt Payment Act, compliance with the
Ethics in Public Contracting Act and compliance with environmental laws, workplace safety
laws, and state or local laws governing contractor or trade licensing, building codes and building
permit requirements.
Expenditure of County funds in support of a comprehensive agreement requires an
appropriation in the County budget or other appropriation(s).
The PPEA process should not be used to create County-supported debt. Comprehensive
agreements involving any form of County-supported debt, require specific, project-level
approval by the Board of Supervisors.
III. Solicited Proposals
With the written authorization of the County Administrator a Request for Proposals
(RFPs) or an invitation for competitive sealed bids may be issued, inviting proposals from
private entities to develop or operate qualifying projects or to design or equip projects so
constructed, improved renovated, expanded, maintained or operated. The County shall use a two-
part proposal process consisting of an initial conceptual phase (Part 1) and a detailed phase (Part
2). The RFP shall invite proposers to submit proposals on individual projects identified by the
County. In such a case the County shall set forth in the RFP the format and supporting
information that is required to be submitted, consistent with the provisions of the PPEA.
The RFP should specify, but not necessarily be limited to, information and documents
that must accompany each proposal and the factors that will be used in evaluating the submitted
proposals. The RFP shall be posted on the County's electronic procurement website. Notices
shall also be published in the Roanoke Times and World News, a newspaper of general
circulation. Pre-proposal conferences may be held as deemed appropriate by the County. Any
proposal submitted pursuant to the PPEA that is not received in response to a RFP or invitation
for sealed bids shall be an Unsolicited Proposal under these procedures, including but not limited
326
April 25, 2006
to (a) proposals received in response to a notice of the prior receipt of another Unsolicited
Proposal, and (b) proposals received in response to publicity by the County concerning particular
needs when the County has not issued RFP or invitation for sealed bids, even if the County has
encouraged the submission of proposals.
IV. Unsolicited Proposals
The PPEA permits the County to receive, evaluate and select for negotiations unsolicited
proposals from private entities to develop or operate a qualifying project.
From time to time the County may publicize its needs and may encourage interested
parties to submit unsolicited proposals subject to the terms and conditions of the PPEA. When
such proposals are received without issuance of an RFP, the proposal shall be treated as an
unsolicited proposal. Unsolicited proposals should be submitted to the County Administrator by
delivering six complete copies, together with the required review fee. A working group may be
designated by the County Administrator to review and evaluate all unsolicited proposals.
A. Decision to Accent and Consider Unsolicited Pronosal: Notice
1. The County reserves the right to reject any and all proposals at any time.
2. Upon receipt of any unsolicited proposal, or group of proposals, and payment of
the required fee by the proposer or proposers, the County should determine
whether to accept the unsolicited proposal for publication and conceptual-phase
consideration. If the County determines not to accept the proposal, it shall return
the proposal, together with all fees and accompanying documentation, to the
proposer.
3. a. If the County chooses to accept an unsolicited proposal for conceptual-phase
consideration, it shall post a notice on the County's electronic procurement
website, and in such other public area(s) as may be regularly used for posting
of public notices, for a period of not less than 45 days. The County shall also
publish, at least once, the same notice in the Roanoke Times and Wodd News,
a newspaper of general circulation in the County, providing notice of pending
or potential action in not less than 45 days. In addition the notice shall also be
advertised in Virginia Business Opportunities and on the Commonwealth's
electronic procurement website. At least one copy of the proposals shall be
made available for public inspection. The County may provide for more than
45 days in situations where the scope or complexity of the original proposal
warrants additional time for potential competitors to prepare proposals.
b. The notice shall state that the County (i) has received and accepted an
unsolicited proposal under the PPEA, (ii) intends to evaluate the proposal, (iii)
April 25, 2006
327
may negotiate a comprehensive agreement with the proposer based on the
proposal, and (iv) will accept for simultaneous consideration any competing
proposals that comply with the procedures adopted by the County and the
provisions of the PPEA. The notice will summarize the proposed qualifying
project or projects, and identify their proposed locations. Copies of
unsolicited proposals shall be available upon request, subject to the provisions
of FOIA and S 56-575.4 G of the PPEA.
c. Prior to posting of the notices provided for in this subsection the County shall
receive from the private partner or partners the balance due, if any, of the
required project proposal review fee.
d. In addition to the posting requirements in sub-section a., for thirty (30) days
prior to entering into a comprehensive agreement, the County shall provide an
opportunity for public comment on the proposals. This public comment
period may include a public hearing in the sole discretion of the Board of
Supervisors. At the end of the public comment period, no additional posting
shall be required.
B. Initial Review bv the County at the Concentual Sta!!e (Part 1)
After reviewing the original proposal, and any competing proposals submitted during the
notice period, the County Administrator may recommend to the Board of Supervisors:
(i) not to proceed further with any proposal,
(ii) to proceed to the detailed (Part 2) phase of review with the original proposal,
(iii) to proceed to the detailed (Part 2) phase with a competing proposal, or
(iv) to proceed to the detailed (Part 2) phase with multiple proposals.
In the event that more than one proposal will be considered in the detailed (Part 2) phase
of review, the County Administrator shall recommend to the Board of Supervisors whether the
unsuccessful private entity, or entities, shall be reimbursed, in whole or in part, for costs incurred
in the detailed phase of review. In such case reasonable costs may be assessed to the successful
proposer as part of any ensuing comprehensive agreement.
v. Review of Solicited and Unsolicited Proposals
1. Only proposals complying with the requirements of the PPEA that contain sufficient
information for a meaningful evaluation and that are provided in an appropriate format will be
328
April 25, 2006
considered by the County for further review at the conceptual stage. Formatting suggestions for
proposals at the conceptual stage are found at Section VI A.
2. The Board of Supervisors will determine at the initial reVIew stage whether it will
proceed using:
a. Standard procurement procedures consistent with the VPP A; or
b. Procedures developed that are consistent with procurement of "other than
professional services" through "competitive negotiation" as the term is defined in
S 2.2-430 I of the Code of Virginia (competitive negotiation). The Board of
Supervisors may proceed using such procedures only if it makes a written
determination that doing so is likely to be advantageous to the County and the
public based upon either (i) the probable scope, complexity or priority of project,
or (ii) the risk sharing including guaranteed cost or completion guarantees, added
value or debt or equity investments proposed by the private entity; or (iii) increase
in funding, dedicated revenue source or other economic benefit from the project
that would otherwise not be available.
When the County elects to use competitive negotiations, its written determination
should consider factors such as risk sharing, added value and/or economic
benefits from the project that would not be available without competitive
negotiation. In addition, the written determination should explain how the scope,
complexity, and/or priority of the project are such that competitive negotiation is
determined necessary.
The Board of Supervisors has determined that the analysis of a request by a
private entity for approval of a qualifying project shall be performed by County
employees. The Board reserves the right to engage the services of qualified
professionals to provide it with an independent analysis of any proposal. The
costs of such analysis shall be recovered from the Proposal Review Fee, Section II
C.
VI. ProDosal Preuaration and Submission
A. Format for Submissions at ConceDtual Stae:e (Part 1)
The County requires that proposals at the conceptual stage contain information in the
following areas: (i) qualifications and experience, (ii) project characteristics, (iii) project
financing, (iv) anticipated public support or opposition, or both, (v) project benefit and
compatibility and (vi) such additional information as may seem prudent which is not inconsistent
April 25, 2006
329
with the requirements of the PPEA. Suggestions for formatting information to be included in
proposals at the Conceptual Stage include:
1. Oualification and Experience
a. Identify the legal structure of the firm or consortium of firms making the proposal.
Identify the organizational structure for the project, the management approach and
how each partner and major subcontractor ($100,000 or more) in the structure fits into
the overall team. All members of the private entity/offeror's team, including major
subcontractors known to the proposer must be identified at the time a proposal is
submitted for the Conceptual Stage. Identified team members, including major
subcontractors (over $500,000), may not be substituted or replaced once a project is
approved and comprehensive agreement entered into, without the written approval of
the County. Include the status of the Virginia license of each partner, proposer,
contractor, and major subcontractor.
b. Describe the experience of the firm or consortium of firms making the proposal and
the key principals involved in the proposed project including experience with projects
of comparable size and complexity. Describe the length of time in business, business
experience, public sector experience and other engagements of the firm or consortium
of firms. Describe the past safety performance record and current safety capabilities
of the firm or consortium of firms. Describe the past technical performance history
on recent projects of comparable size and complexity, including disclosure of any
legal claims and litigation, of the firm or consortium of firms. Include the identity of
any firms that will provide design, construction and completion guarantees and
warranties and a description of such guarantees and warranties.
c. For each firm or major subcontractor ($100,000 or more) that will be utilized in the
project, provide a statement listing all of the firm's prior projects and clients for the
past 3 years and contact information for same (names/addresses /telephone numbers).
If a firm has worked on more than ten (10) projects during this period, it may limit its
prior project list to ten (10), but shall first include all projects similar in scope and
size to the proposed project and, second, it shall include as many of its most recent
projects as possible. Each firm or major subcontractor shall be required to submit all
performance evaluation reports or other documents which are in its possession
evaluating the firm's performance during the preceding three years in terms of cost,
quality, schedule maintenance, safety and other matters relevant to the successful
project development, operation, and completion.
d. Provide the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of persons within the firm or
consortium of firms who may be contacted for further information.
330
April 25, 2006
e. Provide a current or most recently audited financial statement of the firm or firms and
each partner with an equity interest of twenty percent or greater.
f. Identify any persons known to the proposer who would be obligated to disqualify
themselves from participation in any transaction arising from or in connection to the
project pursuant to The Virginia State and Local Government Conflict of Interest Act,
Chapter 31 (S 2.2-3100 et seq.) of Title 2.2.
g. Identify proposed plan for obtaining sufficient numbers of qualified workers in all
trades or crafts required for the project.
h. Provide information on any training programs, including but not limited to
apprenticeship programs registered with the U.S. Department of Labor or a State
Apprenticeship Council, in place for employees of the firm and employees of any
member of a consortium of firms.
1. Provide information on the level of commitment by the firm or consortium of firms to
use Department of Minority Business Enterprise firms in developing and
implementing the project.
J. For each firm or major subcontractor that will perform construction and/or design
activities, provide the following information:
(1) A sworn certification by an authorized representative of the firm attesting
to the fact that the firm is not currently debarred or suspended by any federal,
state or local government entity.
(2) A completed qualification statement that reviews all relevant information
regarding technical qualifications and capabilities, firm resources and business
integrity of the firm, including but not limited to, bonding capacities, insurance
coverage and firm equipment. This statement shall also include a mandatory
disclosure by the firm for the past three years any of the following conduct:
(A) bankruptcy filings
(B) liquidated damages
(C) fines, assessments or penalties
(D) judgments or awards in contract disputes
(E) contract defaults, contract terminations
(F) license revocations, suspensions, other disciplinary actions
(G) prior debarments or suspensions by a governmental entity
(H) denials of prequalification, findings of non-responsibility
April 25, 2006
331
(I) safety past performance data, including fatality incidents,
"Experience Modification Rating," "Total Recordable Injury Rate"
and "Total Lost Workday Incidence Rate"
(1) violations of any federal, state or local criminal or civil law
(K) criminal indictments or investigations
(L) legal claims filed by or against the firm
k. Worker Safety Programs: Describe worker safety training programs, job-site safety
programs, accident prevention programs, written safety and health plans, including
incident investigation and reporting procedures.
2. Proiect Characteristics
a. Provide a description of the project, including the conceptual design. Describe the
proposed project in sufficient detail so that type and intent of the project, the location,
and the communities that may be affected are clearly identified.
b. Identify and fully describe any work to be performed by the public entity.
c. Include a list of all federal, state and local permits and approvals required for the
project and a schedule for obtaining such permits and approvals.
d. Identify any anticipated adverse social, economic and environmental impacts of the
project. Specify the strategies or actions to mitigate known impacts of the project.
Indicate if an environmental and archaeological assessment have been completed.
e. Identify the projected positive social, economic and environmental impacts of the
project.
f. Identify the proposed schedule for the work on the project, including the estimated
time for completion.
g. Identify contingency plans for addressing public needs in the event that all or some of
the project is not completed according to projected schedule.
h. Propose allocation of risk and liability for work completed beyond the agreement's
completion date, and assurances for timely completion of the project.
1. State assumptions related to ownership, legal liability, law enforcement and operation
of the project and the existence of any restrictions on the County's use of the project.
332
April 25, 2006
J. Provide information relative to phased or partial openings of the proposed project
prior to completion of the entire work.
3. Proiect Financing
a. Provide a preliminary estimate and estimating methodology of the cost of the work by
phase, segment, or both.
b. Submit a plan for the development, financing and operation of the project showing
the anticipated schedule on which funds will be required. Describe the anticipated
costs of and proposed sources and uses for such funds. Include any supporting due
diligence studies, analyses or reports.
c. Include a list and discussion of assumptions underlying all major elements of the
plan.
d. Identify the proposed risk factors and methods for dealing with these factors.
e. Identify any local, state or federal resources that the proposer contemplates requesting
for the project. Describe the total commitment, if any, expected from governmental
sources and the timing of any anticipated commitment.
4. Proiect Benefit and Compatibility
a. Identify community benefits, including the economic impact the project will have on
the County and local community in terms of amount of tax revenue to be generated
for the Commonwealth and the County, the number jobs generated for Virginia
residents and level of pay and fringe benefits of such jobs, the training opportunities
for apprenticeships and other training programs generated by the project and the
number and value of subcontracts generated for Virginia subcontractors.
b. Identify any anticipated public support or opposition, as well as any anticipated
government support or opposition, for the proj ect;
c. Explain the strategy and plan that will be carried out to involve and inform the
general public, business community, local governments, and governmental agencies
in areas affected by the project;
d. Describe the compatibility of the project with local, regional, and state economic
development efforts.
April 25, 2006
333
e. Describe the compatibility with the County's comprehensive plan, zoning ordinances,
local infrastructure development plans, capital improvements budget and annual
budget.
B. Format for Submissions at Detailed Stae:e (Part 2)
If the County decides to proceed to the detailed phase of review with one or more
proposals, the following information, where applicable, shall be provided by the private entity
unless a waiver of the requirement or requirements is agreed to by the County:
1. A topographical map (1 :2,000 or other appropriate scale) depicting the location of the
proposed qualifying project;
2. Conceptual site plan indicating proposed location and configuration of the project on
the proposed site;
3. Conceptual (single line) plans and elevations depicting the general scope, appearance
and configuration of the proposed project;
4. Detailed description of the proposed participation, use and financial involvement of
the County in the project;
5. A list of public utility facilities, if any, that will be crossed by the qualifying project
and a statement of the plans of the proposer to accommodate such crossings;
6. A statement and strategy setting out the plans for securing all necessary property.
7. A detailed listing of all firms that will provide specific design, construction and
completion guarantees and warranties, and a brief description of such guarantees and
warranties;
8. A total life-cycle cost specifying methodology and assumptions of the project or
projects and the proposed project start date. Include anticipated commitment of all
parties; equity, debt, and other financing mechanisms; and a schedule of project
revenues and project costs. The life-cycle cost analysis should include, but not be
limited to, a detailed analysis of the projected return, rate of return, or both, expected
useful life of facility and estimated annual operating expenses.
9. A detailed discussion of assumptions about user fees or rates, and usage of the
projects.
334
April 25, 2006
10. Identification of any known government support or opposition, or general public
support or opposition for the project. Government or public support should be
demonstrated through resolution of official bodies, minutes of meetings, letters, or
other official communications.
11. Demonstration of consistency with the County's comprehensive or infrastructure
development plans or indication of the steps required for acceptance into such plans.
12. Explanation of how the proposed project would impact local development plans of
each affected local jurisdiction.
13. Description of an ongoing performance evaluation system or database to track key
performance criteria, including but not limited to, schedule, cash management,
quality, worker safety, change orders, and legal compliance.
14. Identification of any known conflicts of interest or other disabilities that may impact
the County's consideration of the proposal, including the identification of any persons
known to the proposer who would be obligated to disqualify themselves from
participation in any transaction arising from or in connection to the project pursuant
to The Virginia State and Local Government Conflict of Interest Act, Chapter 31 (9
2.2-3100 et seq.) of Title 2.2.
15. Detailed analysis of the financial feasibility of the proposed project, including its
impact on similar facilities operated or planned by the County. Include a detailed
description of any financing plan for the project, a comparison of that plan with
financing alternatives available to the County, and all underlying data supporting any
conclusions reached in the analysis of the selection by the private entity of the
financing plan proposed for the project;
16. Additional material and information as the County may reasonably request.
VII. Proposal Evaluation and Selection Criteria
Some or all of the following items may be considered in the evaluation and selection of
PPEA proposals. In selecting proposals, all relevant information from both the Conceptual
Stage and the Detailed Stage should be considered. The County reserves the right at all times to
reject any proposal at anytime for any reason.
A. Qualifications and Exuerience
Factors to be considered in either phase of an agency or institution's review to determine
April 25, 2006
335
whether the proposer possesses the requisite qualifications and experience may include, but are
not necessarily limited to:
1. Experience, training and preparation with similar projects;
2. Demonstration of ability to perform work;
3. Demonstrated record of successful past performance, including timeliness of project
delivery, compliance with plans and specifications, quality of workmanship, cost-
control, claims and litigation history, and project safety;
4. Demonstrated conformance with applicable laws, codes, standards, regulations, and
agreements on past projects;
5. Leadership structure;
6. Project manager's experience;
7. Management approach;
8. Project staffing plans, the skill levels of the proposed workforce, apprenticeship and
other training programs offered for the project, and the proposed safety plans for the
project;
9. Financial condition; and
10. Project ownership.
B. Proiect Characteristics
Factors to be considered in determining the project characteristics may include, but are
not limited to:
1. Project definition;
2. Proposed project schedule;
3. Operation of the project;
4. Technology, technical feasibility;
5. Conformity to laws, regulations, and standards;
336
April 25, 2006
6. Environmental impacts;
7. Condemnation impacts;
8. State and local permits; and
9. Maintenance of the project.
C. Proiect Financim!
Factors to be considered in determining whether the proposed project financing
allows adequate access to the necessary capital to finance the project may include, but are not
limited to:
1. Cost and cost benefit to the County;
2. Financing and the impact on the debt or debt burden of the County;
3. Financial plan, including overall feasibility and reliability of plan; operator's past
performance with similar plans and similar projects; degree to which operator has
conducted due diligence investigation and analysis of proposed financial plan and
results of any such inquiries or studies.
4. Estimated cost; and
5. Life-cycle cost analysis; and
6. Identity of any third party that will provide financing for the project and the nature
and time of its commitment.
D. Proiect Benefit and COIDuatibilitv
Factors to be considered in determining the proposed project's compatibility with the
County's comprehensive or development plans and zoning ordinance include:
1. Community benefits, including the economic impact the project will have on the
County and local community in terms of amount of tax revenue to be generated for
the Commonwealth and the County, the number jobs generated for Virginia residents
and level of pay and fringe benefits of such jobs, the training opportunities for
April 25, 2006
337
apprenticeships and other training programs generated by the project and the number
and value of subcontracts generated for Virginia subcontractors.
2. Community support or opposition, or both;
3. Public involvement strategy;
4. Compatibility with existing and planned facilities; and
5. Compatibility with local, regional, and state economic development efforts.
E. Other Factors
1 Proposed cost of the qualifying facility;
2. The general reputation, industry experience, and financial capacity of the private entity;
3. The proposed design of the qualifying project;
4. The eligibility of the facility for accelerated selection, review, and documentation;
5. Local citizen and government comments;
6. Benefits to the public;
7. The private entity's compliance with a minority business enterprise participation plan
or good faith effort to comply with the goals of such plan;
8. The private entity's plans to employ local contractors and residents; and
9. Other criteria that the Board of Supervisors deems appropriate.
Section 1.02 VIII. Comprehensive Agreement
The Board of Supervisors shall approve any comprehensive agreement entered into
pursuant to the PPEA between the County and a private entity. The County shall accept no
liability for developing or operating the qualifying project prior to entering into a properly
executed comprehensive agreement. Each comprehensive agreement shall define the rights and
obligations of the responsible public entity and the selected proposer with regard to the project.
The scope of the comprehensive agreement shall include but not be limited to:
338
April 25, 2006
1. The delivery of maintenance, performance and payment bonds or letters of credit in
connection with any acquisition, design, construction, improvement, renovation,
expansion, equipping, maintenance, development or operation of the qualifying
project, in the forms and amounts satisfactory to the County;
2. The review and approval of plans and specifications for the qualifying project by the
County;
3. The rights of the County to inspect the qualifying project to ensure compliance with
the comprehensive agreement;
4. The maintenance of a policy or policies of liability insurance or self-insurance, each
in form and amount satisfactory to the County reasonably sufficient to insure
coverage of the project and the tort liability to the public and employees and to enable
the continued operation of the qualifying project;
5. The monitoring of the practices of the operator by the County to ensure proper
maintenance;
6. The terms under which the private entity will reimburse the County for services
provided;
7. The policy and procedures that will govern the rights and responsibilities of the
County and the operator in the event that the comprehensive agreement is terminated
or there is a material default by the private entity including the conditions governing
assumption of the duties and responsibilities of the private entity by the County and
the transfer or purchase of property or other interests of the private entity by the
County;
8. The terms under which the private entity will file appropriate financial statements on
a periodic basis;
9. The mechanism by which user fees, lease payments, or service payments, if any, may
be established from time to time upon agreement of the parties. Any payments or fees
shall be set at a level that is the same for persons using the facility under like
conditions and that will not materially discourage use for the qualifying project;
a. A copy of any service contract shall be filed with the County.
b. A schedule of the current user fees or lease payments shall be made available by
the private entity to any member of the public upon request.
April 25, 2006
339
c. Classifications according to reasonable categories for assessment of user fees may
be made.
10. The terms and conditions under which the County may contribute financial resources,
if any, for the qualifying project;
11. A periodic reporting procedure that incorporates a description of the impact of the
project on the Commonwealth and the County; and
12. Such other terms as the County may find necessary and convenient, that are agreed to
by the private partner(s).
Any changes in the terms of the comprehensive agreement as may be agreed upon by the
parties from time to time shall be added to the comprehensive agreement only by written
amendment.
Parties submitting proposals understand that representations, information and data
supplied in support of, or in connection with proposals plays a critical role in the competitive
evaluation process and in the ultimate selection of a proposal by the Commonwealth.
Accordingly, as part of the Comprehensive Agreement, the private entity and its team members
shall certify that all material representations, information and data provided in support of, or in
connection with, a proposal is true and correct. Such certifications shall be made by authorized
individuals who have knowledge of the information provided in the proposal. In the event that
material changes occur with respect to any representations, information or data provided for a
proposal, the prospective operator shall immediately notify the County of same. Any violation of
this section of the Comprehensive Agreement shall give the County the right to terminate the
Agreement, withhold payment or other consideration due, and seek any other remedy available
under the law.
A copy of the Comprehensive Agreement shall be submitted to the Auditor of Public Accounts
within 30 days of its execution.
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
340
April 25, 2006
IN RE:
.L General Fund UnaDDroDriated Balance
2. CaDital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Continaencv
4. Future CaDital Proiects
5. Accounts Paid = March 2006
6. Statement of eXDenditures and estimated and actual revenues for
the month ended March 31. 2006
7. Public Safety Center Buildina Proiect Budaet ReDort
8. Public Safety Center Buildina Proiect Chanae Order ReDort
9. ReDort from the Virainia DeDartment of TransDortation (VDOT) of
chanaes to the secondary road system in February 2006
10. ReDort of claims activity for the self-insurance Droaram for the
Deriod ended March 31. 2006
11. Proclamations sianed ~ the Board and Chairman
(a) Declarina ADri119. 2006. as J.J. Redick Dav
(b) Declarina ADril 28. 2006. as National Arbor Dav
(c) Declarina ADril 30 throuah Mav ~ 2006. as MuniciDal/Countv
Clerks Week
CLOSED MEETING
April 25, 2006
341
At 3:50 p.m. Supervisor Wray moved to go into closed meeting pursuant
to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (3) to discuss or consider the acquisition of
real property for public purposes. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS (Training Room - 4th floor)
1. Work session to discuss fiscal year 2006-2007 budaet
develoDment. (Elmer C. Hodae. County Administrator: Brent
Robertson. Director of Manaaement and Budaet)
The work session was held from 4:05 p.m. until 4:40 p.m. Staff present
included: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Brent Robertson, Director of
Management and Budget; Chad Sweeney, Budget Manager; Cathy Tomlin, Budget
Analyst; Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer; Arnold Covey, Director of Community
Development; and Paul Mahoney, County Attorney.
Mr. Hodge advised that the purpose of this work session was to review
any pending budget items before the public hearing at the evening session.
In response to Supervisor Wray's inquiry about the status of the state's
budget, Mr. Hodge advised that staff was unable to obtain any additional information
and there are still issues to be resolved. Mr. Hodge advised that most of the legislation
affecting the County was approved including the rural additions provision (HB 1543).
Mr. Mahoney advised that the Telecommunications Bill, which will take
342
April 25, 2006
effect January 1, 2007, was approved by the General Assembly (GA). While this
legislation may be positive for local governments, there may also be adverse effects
which will be unknown for approximately two years. He advised that the Virginia
Association of Counties (VACO) plans to continue monitoring this legislation. He
advised that there is similar legislation being considered in Congress which would
completely eliminate local discretionary jurisdiction with respect to franchising and place
that responsibility with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Mr. Mahoney
advised that this federal legislation will probably affect localities far greater than the bill
approved by the GA.
Mr. Mahoney advised that the Commonwealth Transportation Board
(CTB) has scheduled statewide meetings for public comments on the six-year
improvement program which allocates funding for transportation projects. He advised
that the funding information may be misleading because the CTB based their program
on the 2005-2006 figures since they are mandated to move forward with the plan, and
the program does not reflect the House or Senate proposed budgets for 2006-2007.
Mr. Covey advised that the Route 11/460 project is moving forward, and
while the Route 220 project is in the planning stage, no funds have been allocated for
the next six years. Mr. Covey advised that the secondary fund allocations and revenue
sharing for the County may be reduced by approximately 30 percent but the exact
amount will not be determined until June 2006.
April 25, 2006
343
Supervisor Church requested that Mr. Hodge provide a synopsis of the
number of police officers who were funded in the budget. Mr. Hodge responded that
when Chief of Police Lavinder made his budget presentation to the Board, he requested
that 18 police officers be hired because of concerns about public safety. Mr. Hodge
advised that six police officers were funded during the current year because of the time
that is required for the hiring of officers and the period required for the nine-month
Police Academy. He advised that the fiscal year 2006-2007 budget includes funding for
an additional six police officers and he plans to bring forward a request for another six
officers during the 2007-2008 budget process. Supervisor McNamara pointed out that
the Board also approved the addition of two animal control officers due to work
responsibi I ities.
Supervisor Church inquired where the proposed funding for Explore Park
had been placed in the budget. Mr. Robertson advised that the proposed $500,000 had
been reserved in the Parks, Recreation, and Tourism (PR&T) Department's budget. Mr.
Hodge advised that it was his understanding that the Board had previously agreed to
allocate the $500,000 as follows: (1) $300,000 - Explore Park, and (2) $200,000 -
sports marketing initiatives. After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to
allocate the $500,000 as follows: (1) $300,000 - Explore Park; (2) $150,000 - sports
marketing initiatives; and (3) $50,000 - matching grant program. Supervisor Church
advised that he did not support the funding for Explore Park.
IN RE:
CLOSED MEETING
344
April 25, 2006
The closed meeting was held from 4:57 p.m. until 5:07 p.m.
IN RE:
CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
R-042506-4
At 7: 10 p.m., Supervisor Wray moved to return to open session and adopt
the certification resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS:
None
RESOLUTION 042506-4 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS
HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members
knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies, and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
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
IN RE:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
.1: Presentation of and public hearina for the proposed budaet for
April 25, 2006
345
fiscal year 2006-2007 and the fiscal year 2007-2011 Capital
Improvements Proaram. (Elmer C. Hodae. County Administrator:
Brent Robertson. Director of Manaaement and Budaetl
Mr. Hodge advised that because of the number of issues on the agenda
for this evening's meeting, he would summarize the budget. He advised that the
proposed fiscal year 2006-2007 budget represents the priorities of the County as
expressed by the Board of Supervisors, the School Board, the citizens, and staff and
allows the County to improve or maintain existing service levels in order to responsibly
plan for the long-term welfare of the community.
Mr. Hodge reported that the budget is balanced, not only within existing
tax rates, but includes a reduction in the real estate tax rate from $1.12 to $1.11 which
was approved by the Board. He advised that as of this date, the Virginia General
Assembly (GA) has not approved a state budget and the current stalemate in state
budget deliberations revolves mostly around transportation funding. It is not anticipated
that these issues will significantly affect the projected local funding for the County or
schools; however, if unforeseen actions by the GA adversely affect projected state
revenues, the Board and staff will have to reevaluate the budget and make the
necessary adjustments. Mr. Hodge advised that this is a public hearing on the budget,
and Mr. Robertson will report later on the schedule for adopting the budget
appropriation ordinance.
346
April 25, 2006
Mr. Hodge advised that the general government fund revenues are
projected at $151,667,991 which is an increase of five percent over last year's
beginning projections of $144,392,088. The revenues from real estate, personal
property, sales tax, and business license continue to provide consistent, stable growth
with which to fund needed services. He stated that the County currently enjoys a stable
and diverse economic base that is further enhanced by economic development
initiatives. While also promoting economic vitality in the Roanoke Valley, three recent
economic development announcements will result in $275,000 of direct tax revenue to
the County in fiscal year 2006-2007 through real estate, personal property, and
business licenses. The companies that have recently made economic development
announcements are Tecton, ITT, and Cox Communications.
Mr. Hodge advised that the County's interest this year, as in the past, has
been providing funds for the educational system and for public safety needs. Since
2001, the County has added 57 positions to the Fire and Rescue Department and 23
positions to the Police Department. He advised that as the County's population grows
and the demographics change, so does the need to safeguard the public. The following
public safety needs have been addressed in the budget: (1) Six new uniform patrol
officers were added to the fiscal year 2005-2006 budget in the Police Department. This
staffing increase represents an additional patrol district in order to reduce response
times. (2) The fiscal year 2006-2007 proposed budget includes six additional uniform
patrol officers to meet growing community needs. The additional officers represent an
April 25, 2006
347
additional patrol district; thereby reducing the size of existing patrol districts in order to
reduce response times.
Mr. Hodge advised that tremendous progress has been made in the
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and again this year, the CIP Review Committee
worked through the winter months to evaluate and prioritize submitted capital projects
and made recommendations regarding capital planning and maintenance for County
facilities. Mr. Hodge advised that due to the work and diligence of this committee and
the support of the Board, a number of capital projects and initiatives have been
implemented as follows: (1) Increased County funding for joint County/School capital
program by $300,000. Last year, the Board of Supervisors and the School Board
agreed to set aside $600,000 ($300,000 each) to fund future capital projects and to
increase the fund by an additional $600,000 ($300,000 each) every year. (2) The new
Public Safety Center is scheduled to open in the fall 2006. Operating costs of $250,000
for the partial year are included in General Services budget. (3) The new regional jail
that includes the County of Roanoke, City of Salem, Montgomery County, and Franklin
County will begin operations in fiscal year 2008. (4) Renovations to the existing
Roanoke County-Salem jail will be phased-in over five years and $500,000 from the
year-end fund balance will be used to begin renovations in fiscal year 2006-2007.
Mr. Hodge advised that the budget includes the following employee
benefits: (1) Funding to provide an average pay increase of four percent, based on
performance, which will total $1,700,000. (2) Health insurance increases of
348
April 25, 2006
approximately 8.5 percent are being shared equally with employees, with the County's
cost at $640,000. (3) After a three-year premium holiday, the Virginia Retirement
System life insurance contributions were reinstated for fiscal year 2006-2007 at a cost
of $500,000.
Mr. Hodge advised that a reorganization of the Community Development
Department was implemented during the current year to meet the complex and evolving
needs of the development community. These changes will provide better customer
service and coordination for critical services that affect the community and include the
areas of highways/transportation, planning, zoning enforcement, and building
inspections. The cost is approximately $400,000. Mr. Hodge advised that to maximize
state matching funds, an additional $500,000 is being proposed to be allocated from
year-end fund balance to the VDOT revenue sharing program. This will increase the
total County allocation to $1,000,000. The County will continue the state mandated
program for the Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT) which has resulted
in an increase in funding for fiscal year 2006-2007 in the amount of $500,000. This
increase was split equally with the schools. Mr. Hodge advised that $200,000 has been
included for instructional programs related to the construction of the new Art Museum of
Western Virginia in partnership with Roanoke County schools. He advised that it was
the consensus of the Board at the budget work session held earlier today to reallocate
the $500,000 funding for Explore Park as follows: (1) $300,000 - Explore Park; (2)
April 25, 2006
349
$150,000 - sports marketing initiatives; and (3) $50,000 - Parks, Recreation and
Tourism Department matching funds program.
Mr. Hodge advised that this is a very good budget and expressed
appreciation to the Board for their guidance and support to staff through the process.
He advised that Mr. Robertson and staff in the Management and Budget Department
are to be commended for their work in organizing and facilitating changes in the process
and providing information needed for informed decision making as well as their
monitoring of the budget through the year. He also expressed appreciation to the
School Board and staff for their cooperation and willingness to work with the Board and
County staff to bring together a plan that provides for all of the citizens of Roanoke
County.
Mr. Robertson advised that this public hearing does not require action by
the Board and is being held to present the proposed budget and receive comments from
citizens. He advised that staff anticipates that the first reading of the budget
appropriation ordinance will be held at the May 9 meeting and the second reading will
be held on May 23. He reported that if the state does not approve their budget, the
second reading of the ordinance may be delayed to another meeting; however, the state
budget may not have a significant impact on the County's budget.
Eddie L. Honts, 2821 Riverview Road, advised that he is representing his
family, extended family, and neighbors who are taxpayers, and they are requesting that
the Board no longer fund Explore Park. He stated that the Virginia Recreational
350
April 25, 2006
Facilities Authority, which is a state agency, has title to the land; however, Roanoke
County has been paying the major costs since 1987. He asked that the Board also
cease funding for the Pulaski Industrial Park. He advised that the millions of dollars
allocated by the state and federal governments for Explore Park have not returned
anything worthy of what has been spent. He advised that he felt that Explore Park
should be self-sustaining and questioned whey they have cancelled all of the
agricultural leases, which create income, effective October 1, 2006. He advised that the
County has far greater needs for these funds such as schools, teachers, public safety,
water, roads, public sewer, and health.
Supervisor Church advised that the Board has tried to address their
responsibilities for schools, land use issues, and public safety in the budget process.
He advised that he favors zero funding for Explore Park. He stated that a tragic
situation was brought to his attention by email on April 4 from a grandfather concerning
the death of his five-week-old granddaughter. The emergency call was made at 6:36
a.m. from the home of a citizen who lives on the Catawba/Botetourt County line and has
a 992 telephone number exchange. The emergency call went to Botetourt County and
while no one is pointing a finger at anyone, 26 minutes passed before there was a
response from an emergency unit. The family has indicated that they were not sure if
the child would have survived if assistance had arrived earlier. Supervisor Church
advised that he was informed that the Catawba-Masons Cove Fire and Rescue
Department arrived at 7:00 a.m. and the Botetourt County Fire and Rescue arrived a
April 25, 2006
351
few minutes later. He suggested that this issue might be resolved by either requesting
that Verizon or the appropriate party change the telephone number to a 387 exchange
which would route the 9-1-1 call to Roanoke County, or by placing a tag with
appropriate routing information on the 9-1-1 system. He advised that he considered
delaying this information until the Board comments section of the agenda but this
situation pertains to budget and public safety. He asked Mr. Hodge and staff to
investigate the situation, determine if there are other similar boundary situations, and
take whatever steps are necessary to prevent a situation such as this happening in the
future.
IN RE:
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1:. Withdrawn at the reauest of the petitioner. Second readina of an
ordinance to rezone 1.3014 acres from C-1. Office District. and
.0786 acres from C2C. General Commercial District with
conditions. to C-2C. General Commercial District with conditions.
and to obtain ~ special use permit for the construction. of ~ fast
food restaurant with drive-thru located at 3814 Challenaer
Avenue. Hollins Maaisterial District. upon the petition of Grant
Avenue Development. Inc. (Janet Scheid. Chief Planner)
Chairman Wray advised that this item has been withdrawn at the request
of the petitioner.
2. Second readina of an ordinance to rezone .369 acres from R-1.
352
April 25, 2006
Low Density Residential District. to C-1. Office District. for the
operation of ! beauty salon located at 3722 Colonial Avenue.
Cave Sprina Maaisterial District. upon the petition of Judv Tavlor
Waaner. (Janet Scheid. Chief Planner)
0-042506-5
Supervisor McNamara advised that after discussions with the County
Attorney, the appearance of a conflict of interest may exist as a result of his
participation, discussion or vote on this item. He advised that attorneys with the
petitioner's law firm are representing a party who is involved in a private civil litigation
with a business that he formerly owned. Although he believes that he can act fairly and
in the public's best interest, he does not want to subject the Board or himself to
unwarranted criticisms or allegations of impropriety; therefore he will not participate in
any way in the discussion or vote on this matter.
Ms. Scheid advised this is the petition of Judy Taylor Wagner to rezone a
0.369 acre parcel in order to convert a residence into a beauty shop. The facility would
provide space for up to eight employees providing hair, nail, and skin care. Considered
a personal service by the zoning ordinance, the proposal is limited with moderate
compatibility by the Community Plan's transition future land use designation that
encourages the orderly development of highway frontage parcels while discouraging
intense, highway oriented commercial uses. Ms. Scheid advised that compliance with
County and state regulations regarding parking, screening and buffering, stormwater
April 25, 2006
353
management, signage, exterior lighting, traffic impact and commercial entrance
permitting will be crucial for the proposed change of use to be compatible with
surrounding land uses.
Ms. Scheid advised that the proposal calls for enclosing the existing
carport and attaching a canopy over the rear building entrance. The current structure
footprint of approximately 1,450 square feet will not be increased and the lot contains an
estimated 16,000 square feet. The one-story residence was constructed in 1956, and
this parcel has been zoned R-1 since at least 1960. The corner lot is landscaped with
deciduous trees and shrubs along the Green Valley Drive boundary and deciduous
trees parallel Colonial Avenue. Foundation plantings are in place around the existing
structure. A serpentine brick wall stands along the east side property line. Deciduous
shrubs and trees and one large evergreen tree are found along the rear border. The
grass yard is generally flat excluding well-defined ditches paralleling both Colonial
Avenue and Green Valley Drive.
Ms. Scheid advised that the proposed use would be limited to the existing
building footprint including the basement. The Colonial Avenue Corridor Design
Guidelines call for the maintenance of existing structures' scale and front facing Colonial
Avenue, avoidance of excessive height, and the use of earth tones for any changes to a
building's exterior materials. She advised that per the proffered conditions, the carport
will be enclosed, a canopy will be placed over the main (rear) entrance, and there will
be no other exterior building expansion. A pervious (permeable) surface parking area
354
April 25, 2006
has been proffered indicating 12 spaces on the concept plan. The plan shows a
freestanding sign near the property's northwest corner.
Ms. Scheid stated that the design guidelines recommend monument
signage not in excess of 35 square feet, landscaped and ground or top lit with shielded
lamps placed so as to not cast light on any adjoining road or property. No exterior
lighting is indicated. She advised that per County ordinance, intensity shall not exceed
0.5 foot candle at adjacent streets and residential properties and glare is prohibited.
Design guidelines call for fixtures to be compatible with the existing residential
character, light placements not higher than 14 feet in height, path lighting where
appropriate, and keeping light sources out of view from adjoining residential areas. A
screened dumpster is also shown on the east property line opposite the vehicular
access.
Ms. Scheid advised that the site's only vehicular access is at Green Valley
Drive approximately 150 feet from its intersection with Colonial Avenue. The existing
driveway led to a carport on the building's west end. Currently, a sidewalk connects the
rear drive access to the residence. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
states that the posted speed limit on Green Valley Drive is 25 miles per hour with a
minimum of 280 feet of sight distance required. Sight distance appears adequate and
information regarding drainage system modifications will be reviewed as part of the
commercial entrance permitting process per the Assistant Resident Administrator.
During 2003, the annual average daily traffic (MDT) was 740 vehicle trips on Green
April 25, 2006
355
Valley Drive and during 2004, the MDT on Colonial Avenue was 10,000 trips. She
advise that the County's Transportation Engineering Manager reports that 40 trips per
day, per stylist. is sometimes used as traffic generation multiplier. If eight work stations
are created, traffic generated could reach 320 additional vehicle trips. The applicant
anticipates four to five beauticians on the premises during work hours. Peak hour
afternoon traffic is expected to be impacted at the Colonial Avenue and Green Valley
Drive intersection. Stacking space on Green Valley Drive should accommodate six to
seven vehicles from the intersection south to the proposed rear entrance.
Ms. Scheid advised that on February 13, 2006, a meeting was held with
citizens to provide Ms. Wagner's attorney an opportunity to discuss the proposal. The
topics included the petitioner's beauty salon experience, the fact that only three
vehicular access points exist from Colonial Avenue into the Green Valley development,
that numerous accidents and close calls are commonplace in the immediate vicinity, on-
and offsite existing drainage issues, and the fact that a beauty salon currently operates
400 feet from the subject property. The Community Plan land use policy, which is
specific to neighborhoods, advocates preserving the stability of residential areas by
discouraging the intrusion of incompatible uses and encourages the maintenance and
enhancement of older neighborhoods while recognizing that these homes provide a
viable source of affordable housing to the community. This proposal represents the
highest intensity redevelopment proposed in the Colonial Avenue corridor east of Route
419 since the Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs project was approved for C-1 use in
356
April 25, 2006
early 2004. She quoted the Colonial Avenue Corridor Design Guidelines, "as
commercial pressures increase, the importance of protecting established
neighborhoods and ensuring the safe and efficient flow of traffic becomes more crucial."
The basic goal of the design guidelines is "to plan for and achieve compatibility between
new and existing developments along the corridor." In addition to traffic, on-site
parking, stormwater management, screening and buffering, signage and exterior lighting
are all critical to this proposal's compatibility with surrounding land uses.
Ms. Scheid advised that the Planning Commission recommended
approval with the following proffered conditions: (1) The use of the property shall be
limited to cosmetic services including hair, nail, and skin treatment. (2) The carport may
be enclosed, a canopy may be placed over the main entrance. and there shall be no
other exterior building expansion. (3) Colonial Avenue shall not be utilized for ingress
and egress. (4) The new parking area shall be of a pervious surface and will be
increased in size by elimination of the dumpster. (5) Stormwater management shall be
addressed through available methods including the use of the pervious surface and
other sub-surface storm drainage. (6) Hours of operation shall be 9:00 a.m. until 8:00
p.m., Monday through Saturday. (7) Applicable Colonial Avenue Corridor Design
Guidelines shall be in effect as determined during the site plan review process. (8)
Signage shall be limited to one monument sign not exceeding thirty-five (35) square
feet. (9) Any exterior lighting installed shall comply with Colonial Avenue Corridor
Design Guidelines for lighting.
April 25, 2006
357
Ms. Scheid advised that at the public hearing held by the Planning
Commission on April 4, citizens spoke in opposition to the request and the key issues
emphasized were traffic on Colonial Avenue and Green Valley Drive, the number of
employees, potential for tanning beds, need for a dumpster, potential impact on
property values, transition designation does not necessarily indicate that this is a good
fit, and neighborhood conservation properties cannot be adequately protected if this
request if approved.
Mr. Ed Natt, attorney for the petitioner, advised that Ms. Wagner would
like to open a second location for her business which is Brambleton Studio. Mr. Natt
advised that while there may be up to eight stations available at the salon, there will
usually only be four to five people working at any given time. He reported that the
clientele who visit Ms. Wagner's salons have been developed over a period of time and
they will spend forty-five minutes to an hour at any session which will not generate a
great deal of traffic. He stated that he spoke with Anthony Ford, County Transportation
Engineering Manager, regarding the 40 trips per day estimate for beauty shops, as
outlined in the staff report. Mr. Natt advised that 40 trips per day may be the typical
traffic count for a walk-in salon; however, he does not agree that 40 trips per day for the
proposed salon is an accurate figure. In response to a citizen who spoke, he advised
that there will be no tanning beds and noted that it has been proffered that the services
will be limited to hair, nail, and skin treatments. He advised that the only exterior work
will be to enclose the carport and place a canopy over it for the entrance. The existing
358
April 25, 2006
entrance will be used and there is approximately 150 feet of stacking space which will
allow seven to eight cars on Green Valley Drive. He advised that there will be a limited
number of vehicle trips per day because they have proffered that the salon will not be
open before 9:00 a.m. which will be after the morning rush traffic. He advised that when
the traffic traveling on Colonial Avenue from the City of Roanoke makes a left turn from
Green Valley Drive into the salon, there will be an opportunity at the traffic signal
approximately one and one-half blocks away at Colonial Avenue to make a left turn ;
although you will have a wait a few minutes. If traffic is leaving Green Valley Drive and
turning right onto Colonial Avenue, there is no problem because there is a traffic signal
and the opportunity to work into traffic. If a car is traveling down Colonial Avenue from
Route 419 and wants to make a right turn onto Green Valley Drive, that will not be a
problem. The only traffic movement problem would be if you want to leave Green
Valley Drive and turn left onto Colonial Avenue to get to Route 419. He stated that he
suspects that if clients at the salon encounter this traffic between the hours of 4:00 p.m.
to 6:00 p.m., they will schedule an appointment at a different time to avoid it. He
advised that while traffic is currently a problem in some areas on Colonial Avenue, it will
not be impacted anywhere near the estimated 40 to 50 trips per day.
Mr. Natt advised that because parking was a concern to citizens, the
dumpster has been removed and other arrangements will be made to dispose of trash.
This will result in an increase in the number of parking spaces but he is uncertain if it will
be two or four additional spaces. The parking area will be of a pervious material which
April 25, 2006
359
means that water will be able to sink through it, and it will be made of gravel or some
other mixture other than concrete or asphalt. The stormwater detention, if necessary,
will be placed under the parking area. He advised that some screening and buffering
will be necessary to meet the County requirements, and they may have to add to the
existing vegetation. Mr. Natt advised that this proposal meets the comprehensive plan.
He referred to a map of the area and advised that going toward the City of Roanoke on
the same side of the street for approximately two blocks, there are commercial uses
which are significantly more intense than the proposed use, with the exception of the
accounting business. He advised that the petitioner is not asking to put the salon into
an area that does not have commercial uses. He advised that they are not destroying
the house but converting it by interior renovations to a new use that has a small amount
of traffic and limited hours of operation. He advised that they have agreed to comply
with the Colonial Avenue Corridor Design Guidelines, limit signage to a 35 foot
monument sign and any exterior lighting will also comply with the guidelines. He
requested that the rezoning be approved.
Mr. Natt responded to Supervisor Wray's inquiries about the proposed
activities at the salon and advised that these include hair, nail, and skin treatments but
not tanning beds. Mr. Natt advised that they are not asking for exterior lighting at this
time but if it is required, they have proffered that they would comply with the Colonial
Avenue Corridor Design Guidelines. Mr. Natt advised that by removing the dumpster, it
will increase the parking spaces by two or four spaces but it is still being designed. He
360
April 25, 2006
advised that there will be approximately 14 to 16 parking spaces which includes two
handicapped spaces. Supervisor Wray expressed concerns about the possible
overflow parking onto the street because of the potential for 16 vehicles due to eight
beauticians and eight clients being in the building at the same time. Mr. Natt advised
that he does not believe that if there are eight beauticians, there will be eight vehicles
parked at anyone time plus client vehicles. He advised that the work schedules for the
beauticians will probably be staggered and some of the workers may not drive to work.
In response to Supervisor Wray's inquiries, Mr. Natt advised that the
business is almost exclusively by appointment and has limited walk-in customers. He
reported that all of the beauticians may not be working at the same time and there will
be a maximum of four to five persons working at one time. Mr. Natt advised that he
estimated Saturday as being the heaviest day of business. He further advised that if the
site plan review from the County indicates that stormwater will be an issue, the
petitioner has indicated her willingness to install underground piping.
Supervisor Church inquired if there would be walk-in customers at this
business. Mr. Natt advised that the salon is not a store-front business with walk-in
traffic; it is a destination business with the repeat clientele. Supervisor Church advised
that he was concerned about the potential for increased traffic between the hours of
4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Mr. Natt advised that he agrees that generic traffic issues can
be cited but he still feels that the salon will not substantially impact the existing traffic.
April 25, 2006
361
He advised that they believe the only major traffic concern is the left turn from Green
Valley Drive between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
In response to Supervisor Altizer's inquiry, Mr. Natt advised that there will
not be a receptionist at the salon, and that the beauticians are independent contractors.
Nine citizens spoke in opposition to granting the rezoning and expressed
the following concerns: impact of increased traffic on the safety of citizens and children;
there are only three vehicular access points from Colonial Avenue into the Green Valley
neighborhood; cut-through traffic; commercial encroachment into a residential area;
decrease in property values; overflow parking; and increased vehicle accidents in an
already hazardous area. The following area the citizens who spoke: (1) Chris Craft,
1501 East Gate Avenue, Roanoke City; (2) Maraaret Sharpe, 3651 Cedar Lane; (3)
Mark Overstreet, 3835 Thompsons Lane; (4) David Courey, 3419 Ashmeade Drive; (5)
Terry Newman, 10971 Bottom Creek Road, Bent Mountain; (6) Liz Edlich, 3596
Parkwood Drive; (7) Isabel Briaas, 3636 Colony Lane; (8) Dorothv Q. Hodaes, 3621
Colony Lane; and (9) Tom Webster, 4714 Colonial Avenue.
Mr. Natt advised that there are two questions to be answered and one is
whether this property is residential. He advised that the property fronts on Colonial
Avenue although the driveway is not on Colonial Avenue. He advised that there are
commercial developments for a couple of blocks along both sides of Colonial Avenue;
that the area is not primarily residential; and it fits with the transition and land use plan.
He advised that the second question is about traffic, and he believes that the 40 trips
362
April 25, 2006
per day traffic count, as stated by Mr. Ford, is too high and is not an appropriate
estimate for this project. Mr. Natt advised that when you review the traffic movements,
the only problem would be the left turn from Green Valley Drive onto Colonial Avenue.
In response to Supervisor Church's inquiry, Mr. Ford advised that there
was no traffic data generated for trips to beauty salons, and he provided the Planning
Commission with the 40 trips per day which was obtained from a search of the internet
for information from other localities. Mr. Ford advised that he reported to the Planning
Commission that this figure was applicable to chain salons and may be excessive. He
advised that a there is no way to determine if this traffic count is high or low unless a
traffic survey was conducted for beauty shops.
Supervisor Wray advised that transition means moving from residential to
a low-impact office commercial use with no weekend hours and a lower traffic volume.
He reported that there was one rezoning in the area and since it was generating very
low traffic, the citizens accepted it as transitional development. He advised that this
request is consistent with a heavier commercial corridor, and he is concerned that if the
parking lot is full, the customers will park on the street creating safety hazards. He
advised that he would move to deny the rezoning.
In response to Supervisor Wray's inquiry if a vote "yes" on this motion
would be a vote to deny the rezoning, Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative.
April 25, 2006
363
Supervisor Flora advised that transition generally means that a
neighborhood is moving from one use to another such as single family to multi-family or
single family to commercial; however, it does not mean that any request for commercial
use is appropriate. He agreed that the key issue is whether the salon is an appropriate
use for this property. He advised that he would support Supervisor Wray's motion to
deny the rezoning. He advised that he does not think that Colonial Avenue will remain
residential forever and that the Board will continue to receive requests for commercial
projects; however, the area is still predominantly residential and this use is not a good fit
for the neighborhood.
Supervisor Church advised that he was concerned about the traffic issues,
parking, congestion, disruptions, and the homeowners' desires to have the
neighborhood remain residential. He stated that he will support the motion to deny
because he feels this is the wrong place and time for this rezoning.
Supervisor Altizer advised that from his perspective transitional zoning
means the right kind of project and he referenced a recent rezoning approval which was
appropriate for the neighborhood. He voiced concerns about traffic and commission-
type businesses which are mainly concerned with profits. He stated that he believes
that there may be 18 cars at the salon which will mean that cars will be parked on the
street. He believes that the property is transitional and at some point in time, another
use may be appropriate; however, he is concerned about the neighborhood and the
364
April 25, 2006
additional cars. He advised that he will support Supervisor Wray's motion to deny the
request.
Supervisor Wray moved to deny the rezoning. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Supervisor McNamara
ORDINANCE 042506-5 TO DENY REZONING .369 ACRES
FROM R-1, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO C-1,
OFFICE DISTRICT, FOR THE OPERATION OF A BEAUTY
SALON LOCATED AT 3722 COLONIAL AVENUE (TAX MAP
NO. 77.18-3-31), CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT,
UPON THE APPLICATION OF JUDY TAYLOR WAGNER
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on February 28, 2006,
and the second reading and public hearing were held April 25, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on April 4, 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:
On motion of Supervisor Wray to deny the rezoning, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Supervisor McNamara
IN RE:
RECESS
Chairman Wray declared a recess from 8:50 p.m. until 9:00 p.m.
April 25, 2006
365
IN RE:
SECOND READINGS CONTINUED
3. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 94.229 acres from AG-
b Agricultural Preserve District. to PRD. Planned Residential
District. with! maximum density of 0.33 houses per acre located
at 3672 and 3804 Sterling Road. Vinton Maaisterial District. upon
the petition of Loblollv Mill. LLC. (Janet Scheid. Chief Planner)
0-042506-6
Ms. Scheid advised that Loblolly Mill, LLC, has applied to rezone 94.229
acres from AG-3 to PRO in order to construct a planned residential community in the
Vinton magisterial district. She reported that two separate parcels make up the 94.229
acres, and the proposed project includes lots for 29 homes on privately maintained
streets. The petitioner wishes to rezone the property so that potential home sites can
be clustered to preserve the site's natural features. The density of homes proffered by
the petitioner is equal to the gross density allowed under the current zoning district.
Ms. Scheid advised that the parcels that the petitioner wishes to rezone
are zoned AG-3 agricultural rural preserve and are adjacent to 20 parcels zoned AG-3
agricultural rural preserve, AG-1 agricultural rural low-density, and AR agricultural
residential. The majority of the site is designated rural preserve in the 2005 Community
Plan.
Ms. Scheid advised that several accommodations are being made to
preserve and protect environmentally sensitive areas on the parcel including cluster
366
April 25, 2006
development. She advised that rezoning this parcel will allow greater freedom to design
a development that protects the sensitive areas and allows for more responsible
development than by-right allowances in the current AG-3 district. Ms. Scheid advised
that two single-family homes currently exist on the property and are expected to be
removed during construction. The central natural features of the large parcel are the
1.75 acre pond, the streams, knolls, and forest resources. An historic grist mill and a
covered bridge, which was moved from its original location on Back Creek in Roanoke
County, are also located on the property adjacent to Turner Branch.
Ms. Scheid advised that the area to be rezoned varies in elevation from
approximately 900 to 1,100 feet. The topography consists of several knolls rising
adjacent to Turner Branch and its tributaries. Slopes vary from 0 percent to more than
50 percent on the property, and the majority of the property is wooded. Ms. Scheid
advised that the properties immediately to the north, east and south of the parcels are
zoned AG-3 agricultural rural preserve district. Many of these parcels, ranging in size
from 1 to 78 acres, have large wooded tracts and some contain single-family homes.
Properties to the west are AG-1 agricultural rural low density district, and AR agricultural
residential district. The Blue Ridge Parkway is located approximately 0.5 miles
northwest of the property's northern boundary. She advised that in accordance with a
memorandum from Martha Bogle, Deputy Superintendent of the National Park Services,
the Loblolly Mill parcel will be visible but mostly screened from view by trees within the
parkway boundary, and the development will be more visible during the winter. From
April 25, 2006
367
the Roanoke Mountain Overlook Road, this project will be visible even though it is more
than a mile away. Ms. Scheid advised that the overall effect of this project on the
landscape scene will probably not be immense; however, this project may be the first of
many rezoning projects that erode or eliminate the rural agricultural preserve
designation of this area.
Ms. Scheid advised that the properties surrounding the proposed Loblolly
Mill Development are designated rural village and rural preserve according to the future
land use map. She reported that rural preserve regions are generally stable and require
a high degree of protection to preserve agricultural, forestal, recreational, and remote
rural residential areas. Residential uses in rural preserve designations should be
single-family residential and averaging a gross density of one unit per three acres.
Cluster developments are encouraged in the rural preserve designation to protect
natural resources.
Ms. Scheid advised that the master plan for the proposed Loblolly Mill
residential community shows a 90 acre tract accessible by a smaller four acre parcel
from Sterling Road. The plan shows 31 clustered single-family home lots predominantly
situated near the tops of rises on the property where slopes are more conducive to
development. The maximum area allowed for clearing trees on each home site is
16.500 square feet exclusive of any drain field areas. Fifty percent of the total site will
be set aside and dedicated as common open space. The areas of clustered home
development will be connected to the open spaces through a network of trails
368
April 25, 2006
maintained by the homeowners association. The petitioner has maintained that all
roads within the development will be private with a minimum of 18 foot wide with 3 foot
shoulders. She advised that the development will be accessible from one main
entrance on Sterling Road; three main roads will be constructed in the development;
and additional driveways will provide access to the homes from those main roads. The
road serving Lots 1 through 6 will have a maximum grade of 18 percent, and the other
two roads will have a maximum grade of 16 percent.
Ms. Scheid advised that the existing traffic on Sterling Road is 460
vehicle trips per day according to Anthony Ford, County Transportation Engineering
Manager. She reported that it appears that Sterling Road would be capable of handling
an additional 310 trips without much degradation of the level of service The County
school system appears adequate to handle a development of this nature. At full build-
out, a scenario assuming one school-age child per home in the development would be
expected to add an additional 16 children to elementary schools, 6 to middle schools,
and 6 to high schools.
Ms. Scheid advised that a community meeting was held at the Mount
Pleasant fire station on Monday, March 20, 2006, with approximately 65 to 70 residents
attending. Ms. Scheid advised that some of the concerns voiced by those in attendance
included increased traffic on Sterling and other area roads, increased taxes and
property values, and the impact this proposed rezoning may have on the future
character of the neighborhood.
April 25, 2006
369
Ms. Scheid advised that the proposed rezoning generally conforms to the
policies and guidelines of the Community Plan and the future land use designation of
rural preserve, but there are some inconsistencies. She stated that some Community
Plan discrepancies in this rezoning request include the proposed project's suitability
regarding County services. The maximum road grades proposed in the PRO exceed
the maximum VOOT subdivision and County's cluster development requirements for
private roads. The rezoning would be in closer conformity to the Community Plan if the
maximum proffered grades were reduced from 18 percent to grades nearer County and
VOOT standards.
Ms. Scheid advised that the 2005 Community Plan has listed "rural view
and vista preservation" as an objective for rural preserve and rural village land use
designations. Although most of the proposed sites in Loblolly Mill are removed from the
view from public rights-of-way, care should be taken to incorporate homes into the
natural surroundings as much as possible in order to preserve viewsheds from
surrounding properties in the rural preserve areas
Ms. Scheid advised that the Planning Commission heard this petition at
their April 4 public hearing and several citizens spoke in opposition to the project citing
their concerns about ridge top development, increased traffic, viewsheds and rural
preservation. She reported that a citizen presented a petition with the signatures of 179
residents who opposed the rezoning, and another citizen spoke in support of the project
370
April 25, 2006
citing responsible and attractive development. The Planning Commission denied the
rezoning with the proffered master plan on a vote of three to two.
Supervisor Altizer inquired about the difference between the 18 percent
grade proposed for the road and VDOT standards. Ms. Scheid advised that on the
main road to Lots 1 through 6 going into this development, the petitioners have
indicated that the road grade needs to be a maximum of 18 percent which exceeds the
VDOT and County cluster ordinance standards. She advised Supervisor Altizer that the
grade for the other two roads is 16 percent. Supervisor Altizer inquired about the other
aspects of construction of the roads. Ms. Scheid advised that she understands that the
petitioner will meet all other VDOT standards for the roads in terms of width, shoulders,
and construction materials.
Supervisor Flora inquired if it was accurate to state that the petitioner can
construct 25 houses by-right on the property and 29 houses under the rezoning with
conditions. Ms. Scheid advised that this was correct.
Supervisor Wray asked Ms. Scheid to explain ridge top protection. Ms.
Scheid advised that the 2005 Community Plan speaks about protection of ridge tops
and mountain sides, and staff is currently working on developing steep slope
ordinances. One of the concerns that the Planning Commission cited in their negative
recommendation to the Board was ridge top protection. The property is fairly unique
with a stream and pond and there are knolls rising approximately 100 feet. These knolls
are not mountains but they are clearly visible rises and this is where the petitioner
April 25, 2006
371
proposes to build the houses because it would be cost effective and require less
grading of the property.
Supervisor Altizer inquired if it would be correct to state that if you build on
the slopes, more green space would have to be removed. Ms. Scheid advised that she
believes that there would be more grading, soil and erosion issues when building on the
slopes rather than at the top of the property. Supervisor Altizer inquired if there would
be advantages to building on the slopes. Ms. Scheid advised that building on the
slopes would improve the viewshed from both the Parkway and Roanoke Mountain
Overlook, but there would be more cut and fill and soil and erosion issues.
Supervisor McNamara inquired about trash collection. Ms. Scheid
advised that there was no clear answer on this subject but the County will pick up the
trash on the roads built to VDOT standards. However, she advised that trash pick up
will be an issue on the road that could be 18 percent grade. She advised that the
petition has proffered that all trash pick up will be internal to the development, and they
will not be bringing their trash cans to Sterling Road to be picked up at the end of the
private road. Supervisor McNamara advised that in one of the staff reports, it was
reported that trash will be picked up on or adjacent to Sterling Road. Ms. Scheid
advised that the revised master plan clarifies that there will be no external trash pickup.
Ms. Scheid advised that residents on the road with the 18 percent grade may have to
bring their trash cans to the intersection with the main internal road.
372
April 25, 2006
Mr. Mike Pace, attorney for Loblolly Mill LLC, advised that Rob Sorentino
and Mike Pile from Loblolly Mill LLC, and Sean Horne, Balzer and Associates, were
present. He advised that Mr. Horne was responsible for preparing the master plan
based on Mr. Sorentino's vision. Mr. Pace advised that they appreciated the staff report
which was very accurate in reflecting the intent of the proposed project.
Mr. Pace advised that Loblolly Mill is proposed to be a 94 acre planned
high-end residential community based on a village concept on Sterling Road in the
Mount Pleasant community. It is a cluster of 29 home sites and the design is intended
to limit the density to less than one single family home per three acres and preserve the
rural character of the property. He advised that the property needs to be developed in
its entirety to preserve the special features. The property consists of a series of knolls
and the center is a 1.75 acre pond. There are two primary historic features which are
the covered bridge and the water-powered mill house and these will be preserved as
amenities for the residents. The design is also intended to address concerns about
changing the rural character of the Mount Pleasant area. He advised that water and
sewer will be provided by individual well and septic systems and the access to the
development will be from Sterling Road.
Mr. Pace advised that it is anticipated that there will be 290 vehicle trips
instead of 310 because of the decrease in the number of houses from 31 to 29. He
reported that the design and site distance on Sterling Road is in accordance with VDOT
standards and that all property owners will become part of the homeowners association
April 25, 2006
373
which will maintain the common areas. There will be a minimum of 50 percent of the
area preserved for open space, conservation and recreation areas which will include the
steepest slopes, the streams, the pond, and some of the more sensitive environmental
areas because of the topography of the property. The home site placement under this
plan allows them to preserve the majority of the sensitive areas and if they were to
move it to the slopes, they would have to disturb considerably more of the property and
they do not want to do this. They will maintain a 50 foot natural buffer along all adjacent
property lines with the exception that wherever there is a house, driveway, or drain field
on a property that is 50 percent closer to an adjacent property line and the natural buffer
cannot be maintained, they will plant two rows of six-foot evergreen trees to provide an
additional buffer. He advised that in no case will there be a natural buffer of less than
20 feet.
Mr. Pace advised that the road will be private and maintained by the
homeowners association. He advised that if the Board requires the 16 percent grade of
the road because of their concerns about trash pick up, buses, or emergency vehicles,
they would be agreeable to reducing the grade of the road to 16 percent. He advised
that lighting will be residential in scale and style and the utility lines will be underground.
The trash will be collected inside the residential area and there will be no pick up on
Sterling Road. They have proffered a dry hydrant in the pond which can be used by the
County Fire Department in the neighborhood or anywhere in the vicinity.
374
April 25, 2006
Mr. Pace advised that they will have an architectural review board. He
advised that the project is consistent with the purpose and intent of the current AG
district and the proposed PRO district. He reported that they are proposing to rezone
the property from AG-3 to PRO to allow greater flexibility for a high quality of design to
create a superior living arrangement. The zoning ordinance states that a component is
to have significant open space to maintain the critical and natural resources and this is
balanced with the density that will allow this to occur. He advised that this project is
going to further the intent of the current zoning designation and is compliant with the
intent and purpose of the PRO district.
Mr. Pace advised that this project is for 29 lots that will be served by joint
driveways which is a critical feature of this planned development. If all of the homes
had private driveways, there would be additional cuts and land disturbance. The
majority of the site is rural preserve under the land use category and a small part is rural
village. The future land use designations encourage cluster developments and the
Loblolly Mill plan that is designed and based upon cluster criteria. It allows for lower
than the suggested density in the rural preserve designation and the design respects
the natural and historical resources that are promoted in the Mount Pleasant area. The
adjacent properties consist of single family residences and large undeveloped tracts.
Mr. Pace advised that he distributed to the Board a petition and letter of
support from adjacent property owners. He illustrated on the map of the property all of
the properties surrounding the project and advised that all owners had expressed
April 25, 2006
375
support for the project. He advised that they are aware of the opposition to the project
and he hoped that he had addressed their concerns. He read letters of support from
Pam Berberich, on behalf of the Citizens for Smart Growth and Daniel Barchi, President
and CEO of Carilion Biomedical Institute. Mr. Pace advised that this project has been
designed to balance the needs of the community with proper development. He advised
that he believes this design is an appropriate land use and asked for Board approval of
the rezoning.
Supervisor Altizer asked for an explanation of the term "gated" community.
Mr. Pace advised that they intend to have a gatehouse midway down the entrance off
Sterling Road which will be staffed twenty-four hours a day. Mr. Pace advised that the
purpose is to eliminate through traffic and provide privacy.
Supervisor McNamara asked Mr. Ford if VDOT has lowered their
standards for road grade from 18 percent to 16 percent, and he asked if Mr. Ford knew
if Hidden Woods Drive had 16 percent or 18 percent grade. Mr. Ford advised that he
did not know the percent of grade of Hidden Woods Drive but as a reference, he
advised that the grade of the entrance road to Carlos Restaurant is 16.3 percent.
Supervisor Wray asked Mr. Ford to explain his statement in the Board report about
Sterling Road not being striped. Mr. Ford advised that VDOT does not usually stripe the
roads in the County that have 500 vehicles per day or less, and he stated that the
number of vehicle trips per day on Sterling Road is 460. Mr. Ford advised that he
376
April 25, 2006
recommended to VDOT that Sterling Road be striped if the rezoning is approved since
there will be additional traffic.
Seventeen citizens spoke in opposition to granting the rezoning request
and expressed the following concerns: need to preserve the natural beauty of the
property; the development is out of character with the community; increased traffic;
setting a precedent for other developers; inconsistent with zoning ordinance; increased
property values and taxes; changing the community; negative effect on the aquifer and
drying up wells; and Loblolly Mills LLC is not a legal corporation.
Following are the citizens who spoke in opposition: (1) Chris Craft, 1501
East Gate Avenue, Roanoke City; (2) Roscoe O. Martin, 5039 Bandy Road; (3)
Florence Scott, 5095 Lewis Road; (4) Jessica Scott, 5095 Lewis Road; (5) Paul Beers,
4414 Bandy Road; (6) Tommy Hambrick, 3936 Sterling Road; (7) Clifford Eanes, 3656
Sterling Road; (8) Caleb Taylor, 4291 Bandy Road; (9) Gabriele Hooten, 3822 Bandy
Road; (10) Randa Eanes, 3656 Sterling Road; (11) Michelle Buonocore, 4414 Bandy
Road, presented a revised petition signed by 179 of the 276 people who live in the area
and oppose the project; (12) David Dollberg, 4421 Bandy Road; (13) W. F. Mason, 302
Washington Avenue; (14) Martha Graves, 7352 Old Mountain Road; (15) Aric Jaklitsch,
3804 Sterling Road; (16) Beth Jaklitsch, 3804 Sterling Road; and (17) Brad Tesnow,
3480 Sterling Road.
Fourteen citizens spoke in support of approving the rezoning and
expressed the following statements: development will attract residents who can support
April 25,2006
377
the County; developer balances growth and preservation; positive impact on local
economy; plan preserves 50 percent of the green space; growth is inevitable; increases
the tax base; creates growth; benefits the local contractors; blueprint of the way
communities should be planned; preserves natural habitat; and has the least impact of
any development on this property.
Following are the citizens who spoke in support: (1) Richard B. Osmann,
3564 Grandin Road; (2) Morton Brown, 5260 Crossbow Circle; (3) John Breeding, 4324
Rakes Road; (4) Frank M. Guilfoyle, 5112 Red Stag Road; (5) Phil Rife, representing
Rev. George and Glorice Stevenson, Sterling Road; (6) Jeff Rogers, 3303 Garst Mill
Road; (7) Davin Schippels, 1650 Imlay Avenue; (8) Garry Leonard, 3850 Sterling Road;
(9) Duane W. Ison, Jr., 2701 Sunnyvale Street; (10) James Ringer, 3564 Grandin Road;
(11) Rob Sorrentino, 3672 Sterling Road; (12) Mark McConnel, 532 Linden Street; (13)
Mike Ferguson, 117 Serpentine Road; and (14) Bob Johnson, 8276 Olsen Road.
IN RE: RECESS
Chairman Wray declared a recess from 8:50 p.m. until 9:00 p.m.
IN RE:
SECOND READING (CONTINUED)
Mr. Pace advised that he would like to respond to the speaker who
questioned the legal existence of Loblolly Mill, LLC. Mr. Pace advised that Loblolly Mill,
LLC is a Florida corporation and authorized to conduct business in the State of Virginia.
Mr. Pace advised that a number of the residents who spoke in opposition mentioned
inconsistencies with the Community Plan and the future land use designation. He
378
April 25, 2006
advised that according to the Community Plan and rural preserve designation, rural
residential is included which consists of single family residence generally averaging a
gross density of one unit per three acres with cluster development being encouraged.
He stated that this project is consistent with the future land use for the rural preserve
designation.
In response to Supervisor Altizer's inquiry about whether this public
hearing is legal since the legal status of the corporation was questioned, Mr. Mahoney
advised that the critical concerns are who signed the application and proffered
statement. Mr. Mahoney advised that in his opinion this is a legal, valid public hearing,
and is appropriate and consistent with the State Code.
Supervisor Altizer asked Ms. Scheid to report on what can be done by-
right on the property if this rezoning is not approved. Ms. Scheid advised that the
property is currently zoned AG-3 which allows agricultural uses and development of
single family homes at the density of one house per three acres. She advised that
approximately 25 houses could be built; that there would be no restrictions on
preservation of open space; and the entire acreage could be divided into three acre
sites with private wells and septic. She reported that state maintained roads would be
required and each three acre site must have the required road frontage.
Supervisor Church advised that in the insurance industry, safety factors
which affect the premium are assigned for being close to a fire hydrant or fire
department. He asked if this project was within five miles of a fire department and if
April 25, 2006
379
there was a contingency plan if the wells go dry. Mr. Sorentino advised that there is
quite a bit of water with the deepest point for wells being approximately 20 feet, and
they have proffered a dry hydrant to assist with fire protection of the community. Mr.
Sorentino advised that the property is located close to a fire station.
Supervisor Church asked the petitioner about his future plans for the
property if the Board denies the rezoning. Mr. Sorentino advised that he is uncertain of
his plans and would have to re-assess the situation. Supervisor Church advised that he
dislikes having a situation where the petitioner responds that if you do not do this, we
will do that. Mr. Sorentino advised that he has tried to be very sensitive to all issues
involved, and he is seeking approval of a project that he believes in and has devoted
much time and effort. Supervisor Church asked what would be the costs for the extra
four houses since with the rezoning, there will be 29 houses instead of 25. Mr.
Sorentino advised that the biggest funding issue is the cost for the roads which is
approximately four times the cost of a normal development. Mr. Sorentino advised that
the difference in the costs of building 29 instead of 25 homes is huge and leaves no
room for errors in their calculations.
Supervisor McNamara inquired if the cluster ordinance is only available in
R-1 districts, and Ms. Scheid advised that it could be available in the other residential
districts such as R-2 and R-3 if public water and sewer were available. Supervisor
McNamara asked Ms. Scheid if she agreed that the petitioner was trying to create a
380
April 25, 2006
cluster development in a non-cluster zoned area. Ms. Scheid responded in the
affirmative.
Supervisor Flora noted that the number of houses is increasing from 25 to
29, and questioned what value the community will receive. Ms. Scheid advised that one
of the most important things that the community will receive is the 50 percent open
space which will take 45 to 46 acres of the project. Supervisor Flora asked if a buffer
would be required or if they would be required to preserve the bridge and other
structures if the property were to be developed under the AG-3 district. Ms. Scheid
advised that these provisions would not be required.
Supervisor Wray inquired about the preservation of the bridge and grist
mill. Ms. Scheid advised that in the petition, the developers state that the historical
bridge and grist mill will be preserved; that the bridge will be incorporated into the
design as a foot bridge or serve as a vehicle access pending structural inspection; and
the grist mill will remain as a scenic and interpretative backdrop for the development.
Supervisor Flora inquired if the property were developed under the AG-3
zoning and the roads were built to VDOT standards, could they still be private roads.
Ms. Scheid advised that roads can be built to VDOT standards and still remain private;
they do not have to be taken into the state system. Ms. Scheid further advised that a
gated community such as this would have to have private roads because VDOT would
not take a gated road into the public system. Supervisor Flora advised that if the
April 25, 2006
381
property is developed under the agricultural zoning, the roads must meet VDOT
standards whether or not they are taken into the secondary system.
Supervisor Church advised that he did not want to leave the impression
that the insurance rates would reflect on the type of development and he understands
that the rating protection class would remain the same under either zoning option. He
advised that some of the neighbors spoke of increased assessments of property and he
reported that he asked for an in-depth study of County assessments last fall, and he is
concerned for the citizens whose property assessments will increase because of the
sales of neighboring properties. He advised that although the Board reduced the tax
rate by one cent, assessments will keep increasing. He advised that he did not want to
make a decision that would require a homeowner to sell his property in order to pay his
taxes. He advised that something should be done about assessments for those citizens
who do not have the means to increase their incomes.
Supervisor Wray advised that whether you have 29 or 25 houses in the
higher-priced range in the development, there will still be concerns about increased
assessments. He advised that the Board tried to address this issue by reducing the tax
rate and they hope to continue to make a difference in reducing taxes for the citizens.
Supervisor Altizer advised that he represents the Vinton district and this
project is located in the community where he lives. He advised that earlier when he
voted against a rezoning for the beauty salon, he looked at the worse case scenario and
made the best decision that he could. He advised that he appreciated the position of
382
April 25, 2006
the citizens who supported and opposed this project; however, he is moving that the
project be approved. He stated that the County is still experiencing concerns at a
development in Falling Creek without controls. He expressed appreciation to the
petitioner for not pointing out what can be developed by-right, and that he understands
the large investment that has been made. Supervisor Altizer advised that he does not
know the petitioner or if he will walk away from the project or sell the property if the
rezoning is not approved. Supervisor Altizer advised that if the rezoning is approved, it
will go with the property and the petitioner may find a situation where he cannot build 29
houses. Supervisor Altizer advised that the question is should it be a development with
or without controls, and he has tried to determine the benefits for the community if the
project goes forward versus a by-right development. He advised that the proposed
open space is a significant benefit for this development. He stated that there will be
some development of this property if it is not rezoned with the PRD which includes
controls.
Supervisor Altizer advised that when there is a development of this nature,
the area can be designated and taxed as a subdivision. However, he stated that if a
large number of the citizens sell their properties at a higher price because of the
development, this would affect the assessments. He advised that after talking with Billy
Driver, Director of the Real Estate Valuation Department, he feels more comfortable that
there will not be large increases in assessments for the citizens in the surrounding
areas because they would be placed in a separate subdivision. He advised that he
April 25, 2006
383
believes he is making the best decision for the community and its protection. He
advised that property will be developed and the Board must choose the right type of
development to limit the growth in an appropriate way.
Supervisor Church advised that he respects Supervisor Altizer's conviction
and that he has also struggled with the decision. He understands that many citizens
have a feeling of exclusion rather than inclusion and growing up in southeast Roanoke,
he understand those feelings. He advised that he has asked himself if this is the right
thing to do; how people will be affected by the decision; and how would he feel if he
lived next door to the development. He advised that he is also voting with his heart but
he cannot vote in favor of the rezoning.
Supervisor McNamara advised that this is a cluster development in a AG-
3 zone and there is no question that it will change the environment. He advised that the
Board created the cluster ordinance to encourage developers to be environmental
stewards in their developments, and he realizes that it is expensive to use the cluster
ordinance. He stated that this development is exactly what the Board intended with the
cluster ordinance; however, he has two concerns with the project but they are not going
to stop him from supporting it. He stated that there are streets in his district that are 18
percent grade and private roads and when it snows, citizens do not understand why
private roads are not cleared when they are paying taxes. He advised that he would
implore the developers to build the roads to VDOT standards. He advised that he does
not care for gated communities but this is the developer's option, and he would rather
384
April 25, 2006
see walking trails open to the community. He advised that he appreciated the
developer's good intentions and believes that the positives for the project outweigh the
negatives. He advised that the property will be developed and the only way to have
protections is to rely on private organizations and responsible developers.
Supervisor Flora advised that there are occasions when the Board deals
with rezoning and issues that tend to divide communities. He advised that the Board
must weigh what is best for the community and in this case, the people who live
adjacent to the property are in support of the rezoning. He commended the citizens for
the way they maintained decorum at this meeting. He advised that the Board approved
a request for a golf course in Mount Pleasant which he considered to be a positive
thing, and he believes this project will also be positive. He advised that real estate
values will increase with or without this project and factors must be weighed such as
giving up four houses in return for open space, preservation of the natural features, and
buffers. He advised that development is going to occur and noted that if their
forefathers had the attitude of not allowing development and leaving the land as God
intended it to be, which he has heard many times, then there would be no houses in
Mount Pleasant. He advised that the project is good for the community and will set a
standard for other developments. He advised that he will support the motion.
April 25, 2006
385
Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors McNamara, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS:
Supervisor Church
ORDINANCE 042506-6 TO REZONE 94.229 ACRES FROM AG-3,
AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE DISTRICT, TO PRD, PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, TO CONSTRUCT A
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY LOCATED AT 3672 STERLING
ROAD AND THE 3800 BLOCK OF STERLING ROAD (TAX MAP NOS.
89.00-3-12 AND 89.00-3-6), VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT UPON
THE APPLICATION OF LOBLOLLY MILL, LLC
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on February 28, 2006,
and the second reading and public hearing were held April 25, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on April 4, 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
94.229 acres, as described herein, and located at 3672 Sterling Road and in the 3800
block of Sterling Road (Tax Map Numbers 89.00-3-12 and 89.00-3-6) in the Vinton
Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of AG-3, Agricultural
Preserve District, to the zoning classification of PRD, Planned Residential Development
District.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of Loblolly Mill, LLC.
3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing
conditions which are made a part hereof and incorporated herein by reference and
which are set out in detail in the attached Exhibit A entitled "The Planning and Design
Documents for Loblolly Mill - A Planned Residential Community, Roanoke County, VA,
Vinton Magisterial District, prepared for Loblolly Mill, LLC, 119 Norfolk Ave., Roanoke,
VA 24011, prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc., Roanoke, VA, Project
#R0500414.00, dated January 18, 2006, revised April 17, 2006" which the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts.
386
April 25, 2006
4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
Tax Map No. 89.00-03-12
Parcel One containing 90.22 acres as shown on a survey made for Harry
P. Turner by W. I. McChee, CPE, dated April 30, 1959, a copy of which is
attached to a deed recorded in the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's Office
in Deed Book 618, page 236.
Parcel Two being a 10-foot strip along the west side of the property being
conveyed to the Grantors by deed from Annie Laura Turner and shown as the
easterly one-half of the 20-foot roadway on the survey made by T. P. Parker,
SCE, dated July 25, 1959, a copy of which is recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's
Office in Deed Book 1233, page 1181.
Tax Map No. 89.00-3-6
Containing 3.808 acres, being Lot B-1 as shown on Boundary Line
Adjustment Plat of Turner Boundary Line Adjustment #2 recorded in the
aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 29, page 56.
5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final
passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: Supervisor Church
4. Second readina of an ordinance to obtain! special use permit for
the operation of! used automobile sales business located at 7400
Sunnvbrook Drive. Suite ~ Hollins Maaisterial District. upon the
petition of Kevin and Jennifer Cook. (Janet Scheid. Chief
Planner)
0-042506-7
Ms. Scheid advised that Kevin and Jennifer Cook are requesting to obtain
a special use permit for the operation of a used automobile sales business located at
7400 Sunnybrook Drive. She advised that the petitioners plan to use the existing
April 25, 2006
387
building for office use only to market used and new vehicles via the internet. There will
be no outside display of vehicles but they will be stored on the property until they can be
picked up by the clients. She stated that visits by customers will eventually be
eliminated as the petitioner plans to have a service delivering vehicles directly to the
buyers. Ms. Scheid advised that the proposed use is consistent with the policies and
guidelines of the core commercial land use designation in the 2005 Community Plan.
The property is zoned C-2 and contains a seven-unit building but the petitioners plan to
use one unit. She advised that the public hearing by the Planning Commission was
held on April 4 and there was one speaker in opposition who stated that he owns the
adjacent property and had applied for a special use permit for this location several years
ago but the request was denied. The speaker also stated that he believes that Mr.
Cook will be unable to meet the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
standards. Ms. Scheid advised that the Planning Commission approved the request
with the following conditions: (1) No more than two (2) vehicles shall be stored on the
parcel at any given time. (2) No outside display of vehicles for sale shall be allowed.
No truck or commercial vehicle with, or designed to have, more than two (2) rear wheels
shall be stored on the parcel.
Supervisor Church inquired if the petitioner had acquired a dealer's
license and Ms. Scheid advised that the DMV requires that the appropriate zoning be in
place prior to issuing a license to operate a used car dealership. She advised that the
petitioner believes that he can meet all of the standards and is planning to pursue the
388
April 25, 2006
license as soon as the appropriate zoning is approved. In response to Supervisor
Church's inquiry, Ms. Scheid advised that a special use permit, if approved, will be
effective for the property even if the petitioner does not obtain a dealer's license. The
only way for it to be removed would be by Board action.
In response to Supervisor Wray's inquiries, Ms. Scheid clarified that Mr.
Cook has informed staff that he is required by DMV to have ten parking spaces
designated for his use prior to obtaining a license; however, he will not be utilizing all
ten parking spaces since he has proffered that he will not have more than two vehicles
stored on the site at one time. Ms. Scheid advised that the petitioner has a lease
agreement with the owner of the property for the ten parking spaces. Supervisor Wray
questioned how many parking spaces are in this development. Ms. Scheid advised that
between the total estimated parking spaces are either 20 or 21, and that the proposed
business would require fifty percent of those spaces. Supervisor Wray inquired if the
dealer's license requires you to have ten parking spaces and you only use two to three,
what will be done with the other spaces when they are unoccupied. Ms. Scheid advised
that according to the petitioner's agreement with the property owner, he has ten parking
spaces designated for his use and even if he is not using all of them, they are still
available for his use. She reported that although there are six or seven units in the
building, there are only three or four businesses located there and they can suffice with
the ten remaining parking spaces. Supervisor Wray inquired if the parking spaces could
be subleased. Ms. Scheid advised that she feels that if DMV requires the spaces, they
April 25, 2006
389
should be dedicated for the use of that business. Supervisor Wray inquired if the
County would be obligated to monitor the parking spaces. Ms. Scheid advised that this
would be the responsibility of DMV since it is their requirement.
Supervisor McNamara advised that the petitioner is trying to meet the
DMV requirement of ten parking spaces without using all of them. He stated that he did
not want citizens to get the opinion that they could sublease parking spaces which could
result in buildings being out of compliance for parking requirements.
Supervisor Flora inquired about the number of required parking spaces
based on the square footage of the building. Ms. Scheid advised that the number is 20.
Supervisor Flora advised that the 20 spaces required for the building and the ten
spaces required by DMV makes a total of 30 spaces, and he questioned how they can
meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance for the parking for the reminder of the
building. Ms. Scheid advised that the ten parking spaces are not in addition to the 20
spaces. Supervisor Flora advised that the ten parking spaces will decrease the total
spaces and this business, which will occupy approximately one-seventh of the building,
should only have access to three spaces while the remaining businesses should have
18 spaces. Supervisor Flora advised that it would seem to him to be a zoning violation
to provide ten parking spaces for DMV plus the required parking spaces for the building.
Ms. Scheid advised that the requirement for parking spaces for the building was
satisfied when it was built. Ms. Scheid advised that the County has a letter from the
property owner which states that of the 21 spaces on the property, ten spaces can be
390
April 25, 2006
leased to the petitioner. She reported that the parking situation is acceptable to the
owner and complies with the zoning ordinance. She advised that the site plan review
approved it and the method of dividing the parking spaces between the tenants in a
building is not a zoning ordinance issue if the site is in compliance. Ms. Scheid advised
that how the DMV mandates the designated parking spaces to the petitioner is an issue
between the petitioner and DMV, and the property owner has gone on record as
agreeing to provide ten parking spaces for the petitioner.
Supervisor Flora advised that he has a problem with reserving 10 of the
required 21 parking spaces and leaving the other tenants with 11 spaces when they are
required to have 18.
Supervisor Church advised that he knows from experience that managing
ten or fifteen parking spaces can be a war for more than two people. He asked Ms.
Scheid to clarify exactly where the property was located. In response to Supervisor
Church's inquiry, Supervisor Altizer advised that the location is at the corner of Dexter
Road and Sunnybrook Drive with a day care center located to the left. He stated that it
is a residential area all the way to the Kroger store.
Supervisor Altizer He inquired if this is a general office building. Ms.
Scheid advised that it is zoned C-1. Supervisor Altizer advised that whether or not this
is an internet business, it will place a car lot off Williamson Road in a residential
neighborhood. Ms. Scheid advised that this would depend upon how you define a car
lot since there will be no vehicles stored there for sale, and there will be no inside or
April 25, 2006
391
outside display of vehicles. Supervisor Altizer advised that if the petitioner has to
acquire a DMV license to sell cars, has ten parking spaces for storage of cars, it
appears to be a used car lot.
Allen M. Simoson, 8358 Cardington Drive, advised that he was speaking
on behalf of his mother who lives next door to the proposed car lot. He advised that at
the Planning Commission meeting, there was mention of another petition for a car lot in
the area some years ago. He advised that from his conversation with Mr. Bailey, the
owner, and Mr. Cook, the petitioner, this is a different type of car lot than then the one
which was denied 13 years ago. He advised that the concerns at that time were
storage of cars on the lot and drainage problems in the residential area from Kroger
down to the proposed location. He stated that the petitioner informs him that his
business is different from a traditional used car lot. He advised that his mother has no
objection and is in favor of granting the special use permit. He understands that the
special use permit will remain with the land, and it is a possibility that someone could
use it to have a traditional car lot. However, Mr. Simpson advised that if Mr. Cook
proceeds with the business as planned, he does not see any effect on the area.
Mr. Cook, petitioner, advised that he would like to clarify that it is not the
DMV but the Motor Vehicles Dealer Board (MVDB) that will grant the license. He
advised that there are only four tenants in the building, which decreases the number of
parking spaces to three each, which would leave nine and one extra space. He believes
that the building is in compliance on parking spaces and noted that he pays extra for the
392
April 25, 2006
rental of the seven parking spaces. He advised that if the special use permit is
approved, the three spaces on the side, four next to the budding, and three in the front
will have signs stating that they are specifically designated for his business. The three
spaces in the front are the only ones that will be used and the seven on the side are
never used because there are only four tenants in the building. The monitoring of the
parking spaces will be done by the MVDB approximately three to six times a year by
surprise inspection. From the information that he received from the MVDB, the only
issue is parking and as long as he is in compliance with the owner of the building and
no one else is using his spaces while he is conducting business, he feels that there is
no issue with parking
Supervisor Wray inquired about where a purchaser would pay sales tax if
Mr. Cook found a vehicle for him outside the state. Mr. Cook advised that it would be
the same situation if you went on vacation to Florida and bought a car, you would pay
the sales tax there. Mr. Cook advised that his business is not strictly conducted through
the internet but it is more by special order because he finds specific vehicles for
customers. They are advertising only on the internet, by bulk mail and flyers, and will
not have signs or billboards. It is highly unlikely that people outside the state are going
to deal with them. If you buy a car from someone in Virginia, you must register it in
Virginia, pay the sales tax, and when you return to your home state, it is registered and
the appropriate taxes paid.
April 25, 2006
393
In response to Supervisor Wray's inquiry, Mr. Cook advised that he would
not buy cars for a customer from an establishment such as Berglund because they are
his competitor. He advised that he has the same resources as they have to purchase
used cars at auctions, special sales, and General Motors sales. He advised that he can
buy cars for customers and save them money because he does not have a high
overhead and the process he uses to buy cars is the same as other companies except
he does not have a selection of cars on a lot.
Supervisor Flora advised that he has a problem with putting a used car lot
in a predominantly residential neighborhood even though there is one business located
there. He advised that when the Board approved another car lot approximately a year
ago on Williamson Road, he made the statement that he would not want to approve
another car lot in North County because they are becoming the used car capital of the
County. He advised that he cannot support another car lot even if it is an internet
business, but he commended the petitioner for coming up with a very creative idea. He
stated that he does not feel good about the location or putting a used car lot in the
neighborhood.
Supervisor Flora moved to deny the special use permit. Chairman Wray
clarified with Mr. Mahoney that a vote "yes" is to deny the action.
394
April 25, 2006
Supervisor Flora's motion to deny the special use permit carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS:
None
ORDINANCE 042506-7 DENYING GRANTING A SPECIAL USE
PERMIT FOR THE OPERATION OF A USED AUTOMOBILE
SALES BUSINESS LOCATED AT 7400 SUNNYBROOK DRIVE,
SUITE 6 (TAX MAP NO. 27.14-4-5) HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT, UPON THE PETITION OF KEVIN AND JENNIFER
COOK
WHEREAS, Kevin and Jennifer Cook have filed a petition for a special use
permit for the operation of a used automobile sales business to be located at 7400
Sunnybrook Drive, Suite 6 (Tax Map No. 27.14-4-5) in the Hollins Magisterial District;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
April 4, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on March 28, 2006; the second reading and public hearing on
this matter was held on April 25, 2006.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
On motion of Supervisor Flora to deny the special use permit, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
5. Second readina 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 Challenaer Avenue. Hollins Maaisterial District.
upon the petition of Sonic Restaurants. Inc. (Janet Scheid. Chief
Planner)
0-042506-8
April 25, 2006
395
Ms. Scheid advised this is a request by Sonic Restaurants, Inc. to obtain a
special use permit to operate a drive-in and fast food restaurant at 4504 Challenger
Avenue. The 1.101 acre site is currently zoned C-2 and is designated as core in the
future land use map from the 2005 Community Plan. The proposed special use permit
is in compliance with the Community Plan. Sonic Restaurants, Inc. proposes to
construct a 1,526 square foot building on the site. The Planning Commission held a
public hearing on April 4 and made a favorable recommendation for the special use
permit with two conditions as follows: (1) Substantial compliance with the concept plan
prepared by Parker Design Group dated February 15, 2006; and (2) That any
freestanding sign shall be limited to monument-type with a maximum height of 12 feet 6
inches.
Jason Kaoka. Project Manager, Sonic Restaurants, Inc., advised that he
was be glad to answer any questions.
The following citizen spoke regarding this item: Chris Craft, 1501 East
Gate Avenue, Roanoke City, advised that since the Wal-Mart opened in Bonsack, he
has been attempting to locate businesses in the Route 460 corridor. Although
Walgreens decided not to build there, there is an Applebee's restaurant being built. He
advised that Sonic Restaurant would be an opportunity for the County to receive more
revenue. He advised that he is also trying to locate businesses in Vinton. He asked
that the Board favorably approve the request
396
April 25, 2006
Supervisor Church asked the petitioner if he agreed with the proffered
conditions on this special use permit. The petitioner advised that he agreed.
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 042506-8 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVE-IN AND FAST FOOD
RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 4504 CHALLENGER AVENUE
(TAX MAP NO. 40.14-1-2.09) HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT, UPON THE PETITION OF SONIC RESTAURANTS,
INC.
WHEREAS, Sonic Restaurants, Inc. has filed a petition for a special use permit
for the construction of a drive-in and fast food restaurant to be located at 4504
Challenger Avenue (Tax Map No. 40.14-1-2.09) in the Hollins Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
April 4, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on March 28, 2006; the second reading and public hearing on
this matter was held on April 25, 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 Sonic
Restaurants, Inc. for the construction of a drive-in and fast food restaurant to be located
at 4504 Challenger Avenue in the Hollins 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) Substantial compliance with the concept plan prepared by Parker Design
Group dated 2/15/06.
(2) Freestanding sign shall be limited to monument-type. Maximum height
shall be 12 feet 6 inches.
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 Zoning Administrator is directed
April 25, 2006
397
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
6. Second readina of an ordinance to rezone .92 acres from C-1.
Office District. to C-2. General Commercial District. in order to
construct ! oersonal imorovement service (oersonal trainer)
located in the 4600 block of Brambleton Avenue. Windsor Hills
Maaisterial District. uoon the oetition of Che Torry. (Janet Scheid.
Chief Planner)
0-042506-9
Ms. Scheid advised this is a request by Mr. Che Torry to rezone the
property to construct a two-story, approximately 6,000 square foot per floor building
consisting of a personal training studio and office space. The first floor business will
consist of six personal trainers with an average clientele of 15 to 20 people per day.
The second floor business will consist of several physical therapy offices and one
counseling office. Public utilities, roads, schools and parks would not be negatively
impacted. Ms. Scheid advised that Mr. Ford estimated that this use would generate 18
vehicle trips per day (VTD) between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and 34 VTD between 4:00
p.m. and 6:00 p.m. These numbers are not sufficient to trigger a traffic impact study per
the criteria set forth by the Planning Commission. The property is located where
commercial zoning exists and it has direct frontage and access to an arterial or major
398
April 25, 2006
collector street and serves as a buffer strip between residential and commercially zoned
areas as noted in the transition land use plan.
Ms. Scheid advised that the Planning Commission heard the petition on
April 4 and moved to approve it with the following conditions: (1) The development of
the site shall be in substantial conformity to the concept plan and proposed elevation
concept plan dated February 28, 2006, subject to those changes that may be required
by the County during comprehensive site plan review. (2) Hours of operation shall be
from 6:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Saturday;
and 12:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. on Sunday. (3) A professional engineer must design and
seal the retaining wall plans for the site. (4) There shall be no roof top mechanical
equipment proposed.
Mr. Sean Horne, Balzer and Associates, advised that he and the petitioner
were present to answer questions.
Supervisor Church advised that it is important that the petitioner be on
record as stipulating that he agreed with the proffers in the petition. Mr. Torry advised
that he agreed.
There was no discussion on this item.
Supervisor McNamara move~ to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
April 25, 2006
399
ORDINANCE 042506-9 TO REZONE .92 ACRES FROM C-1, OFFICE
DISTRICT, TO C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, IN ORDER
TO CONSTRUCT A PERSONAL IMPROVEMENT SERVICE LOCATED
IN THE 4600 BLOCK OF BRAMBLETON AVENUE (TAX MAP NO.
86.08-4-16.2), WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON THE
APPLICATION OF CHE TORRY
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on March 28, 2006, and
the second reading and public hearing were held April 25, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on April 4, 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 .92
acres, as described herein, and located in the 4600 block of Brambleton Avenue (Tax
Map Number 86.08-4-16.2) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District, is hereby changed
from the zoning classification of C-1, Office District, to the zoning classification of C-2,
General Commercial District.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of Che Torry.
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 development of the site shall be in substantial conformity to the
Concept Plan and Proposed Elevation concept plan dated February 28, 2006, subject to
those changes that my be required by the County during comprehensive site plan
review.
(2) Hours of operation shall be from 6 a.m. - 10 p.m., Monday through Friday,
9 a.m. - 5 p.m. Saturday, and 12 p.m. - 5 p.m. on Sunday.
(3) A professional engineer must design and seal the retaining wall plans for
the site.
(4) There shall be no roof top mechanical equipment.
4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the westerly right-of-way line of Brambleton Avenue (U.S.
Route 221) at the southeasterly corner of Titan Park approximately 140 feet from
the southwesterly intersection of Brambleton Avenue & Pleasant Hill Drive
(Route 1548), being the northeasterly corner of the Tract A of Queens Court
(PB 10, Page 97) after a conveyance to the Commonwealth of Virginia in Deed
Book 1314, page 1099; thence continuing with the westerly right-of-way line of
Brambleton Avenue S. 280 12' 09" W 391.94 feet to a point on the northeasterly
corner of N/F Benjamine D. Owen & Susan L. Schauweaker; thence leaving said
400
April 25, 2006
right-of-way and continuing along the northerly line of said Owen property N. 590
34' OS" W 104.63 feet to a point at the southeasterly corner of N/F Judith E.
Orourke (DB 1640, page 734); thence leaving the line of Owen and continuing
along the easterly line of said Orourke property and the line of Lots 3, 4 & 5 of
said Queens Court plat N. 270 45' OS" E 370.23 feet to a point on the southerly
line of Titan Park; thence leaving the line of said Orourke property and Lots 3, 4
&5 and continuing with the southerly line of said Titan Park S. 710 01' 38" E
108.91 feet to the Point of Beginning containing .9277 acre.
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 McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
7. Second readina of an ordinance authorizina the vacation of two
50' roads located between Lots 10 and 11 and Lots 17 and 18 on
the north side of Buck Mountain Road and shown on the plat of
Thomas H. Beasley subdivision. Cave Sprina Maaisterial District.
(Paul Mahoney. County Attorney)
0-042506-10
Mr. Mahoney advised that this is the second reading of the ordinance and
a public hearing, as required by statute, to vacate two roads from a 1948 subdivision.
He advised that there have been no changes since the first reading.
April 25, 2006
401
There were no citizens present to speak and three was no discussion on
th is item.
Supervisor Wray moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS:
None
ORDINANCE 042506-10 AUTHORIZING THE VACATION OF TWO 50'
ROADS LOCATED BETWEEN LOTS 10 AND 11 AND LOTS 17 AND 18
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BUCK MOUNTAIN ROAD AND SHOWN ON
THE PLAT OF THOMAS H. BEASLEY SUBDIVISION IN PLAT BOOK 3,
PAGE 61, LOCATED IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Beasley Subdivision plat prepared by C. B. Malcom, dated
February 11, 1948, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke
County, Virginia, in Plat Book 3, page 61, ("the Beasley Plat") established two unnamed
streets 50 feet in width and approximately 300 feet in length located between Lots 10
and 11 and Lots 17 and 18 to provide ingress and egress access from the north side of
Buck Mountain Road to the remaining property of Thomas Beasley; and,
WHEREAS, the property immediately adjacent to and surrounding the two
described unnamed streets, consisting of a tract of 60.69 acres, adjoining Buck
Mountain Road, Virginia Secondary Route No. 679, in Roanoke County, is now owned
by AI M. Cooper Construction, Inc ("Cooper Construction"), as evidenced by a deed
from Old Heritage Corporation, recorded as Instrument No. 200415900 in the aforesaid
Clerk's Office on August 24, 2004; and,
WHEREAS, Cooper Construction has recorded contemporaneously with the
aforesaid deed a current plat of this property, designated as "Plat Showing Property of
Old Heritage Corporation Being Tract 1 B-1 (60.069 AC.) (Roanoke County Tax Map No.
87.20-01-09), prepared by Lumsden Associates, PC, dated August 22, 2004, and
recorded in Plat Book 28, Page 44, which indicates that the 60.69 acres owned by
Cooper Construction has not yet been developed and that the two unnamed roads have
never been utilized and serve no purpose; and,
WHEREAS, the above described streets or roads are more clearly indicated as
"ROAD" "TO BE VACATED" in two locations on "Plat Showing Two Unnamed Roads-
To Be Vacated by Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia", dated 3-7-2006,
prepared by Roanoke County Department of Community Development and attached
hereto as Exhibit "A"; and,
402
April 25, 2006
WHEREAS, no other property owner will be affected by the vacation of these two
unnamed streets and that their existence imposes an impediment to Cooper
Construction's development of its property adjoining these previously dedicated streets;
and
WHEREAS, the developer, as the Petitioner, has requested that, pursuant to
Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, vacate those two rights-of-way, each
designated as "Road" on the plat of the Thomas H. Beasley Subdivision, Plat Book 3,
Page 61, as now shown on the attached Exhibit "A"; and,
WHEREAS, this vacation will not involve any cost to the County and the affected
County departments have raised no objection; and,
WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by Section 15.2-2204 of the Code
of Virginia (1950, as amended), and the first reading of this ordinance was held on April
11, 2006, and the second reading and public hearing was held on April 25, 2006.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County
Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by
ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on April 11, 2006, and a second
reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on April 25, 2006.
2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County
Charter, the subject real estate (two unnamed streets 50 feet in width and 300 feet in
length) are hereby declared to be surplus and the nature of the interests in real estate
renders them unavailable for other public use.
3. That those two unnamed streets, 50 feet in width and approximately 300 feet
in length, being designated and shown as two roads "TO BE VACATED" on Exhibit
"A" attached hereto, said streets being located between Lots 10 and 11 and Lots 17 and
18 on the north side of Buck Mountain Road and having been dedicated on the
subdivision plat for Subdivision of Thomas H. Beasley and recorded in the aforesaid
Clerk's Office in Plat Book 3, page 61, in the Cave Springs Magisterial District of the
County of Roanoke, be, and hereby are, vacated pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the
Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
4. That all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to
publication, survey and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility of the Petitioners.
5. That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrator, is
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be
necessary to accomplish the provisions of this ordinance, all of which shall be on form
approved by the County Attorney.
6. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption, and
a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of
Virginia (1950, as amended).
April 25, 2006
403
On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
8. Second readina of an ordinance to vacate. auit-claim and release
.@. fifteen foot width drainaae easement dedicated ~ the Deed of
Easement recorded in Plat Book 10. Paae 112. formerly dedicated
~ Lynn Brae Farms. Inc.. and to accept dedication of ! ~
fifteen foot width drainaae easement. said easement crossina the
same property currently owned ~ Cox Cable Roanoke. Inc.. Cave
Sprina Maaisterial District. (Paul Mahoney. County Attorney)
0-042506-11
Mr. Mahoney advised that this is the second reading and public hearing,
as required by statute, to vacate a drainage easement and accept a new easement so
that Cox Cable can move forward with an addition to their building. He advised that
there have been no changes since the first reading.
There were no citizens present to speak and there was no discussion on
th is item.
Supervisor Wray moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS:
None
404
April 25, 2006
ORDINANCE 042506-11 TO VACATE, QUIT-CLAIM AND RELEASE A
FIFTEEN FOOT WIDTH DRAINAGE EASEMENT DEDICATED BY THE
DEED OF EASEMENT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 112,
FORMERLY DEDICATED BY LYNN BRAE FARMS, INC., AND TO
ACCEPT DEDICATION OF A NEW FIFTEEN FOOT WIDTH DRAINAGE
EASEMENT, SAID EASEMENT CROSSING THE SAME PROPERTY
CURRENTLY OWNED BY COX CABLE ROANOKE, INC., (TAX MAP #
77 .19-01-34.00-00) LOCATED IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, by an approved subdivision plat recorded in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 10, page 112, Lynn Brae Farms,
Inc., as owner of the property designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax
Map No. 79.19-01-15.1 to 15.10, conveyed to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, a fifteen foot (15') drainage easement as depicted on "MAP OF
TANGLEWOOD EXECUTIVE PARK, PROPERTY OF LYNN BRAE FARMS, INC.,
SITUATE ON STARKEY ROAD AND FALLOWATER LANE, ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA", prepared by T.P. Parker & Son, dated September 22, 1987; and
WHEREAS, Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc., is the current owner of Lot 5A, comprising
Lot 4, Lot 5 and a part of Lot 6 of Tanglewood Executive Park as recorded in Plat Book
10, Page 112, and the subject property is located on Fallowater Lane, a public right-of-
way in the Cave Spring Magisterial District and is now designated upon the Roanoke
County Land Records as Tax Map No. 77.19-01-34; and,
WHEREAS, the Petitioner, Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc. as the current owner of this
property, has requested that the Board of Supervisors vacate, quit-claim and release
the above-described existing fifteen foot (15') drainage easement and accept the
dedication of a new fifteen foot (15') drainage easement, as shown on Exhibit A
attached hereto; and,
WHEREAS, this vacation will not involve any cost to the County and the affected
County departments have raised no objection.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County
Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by
ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on April 11, 2006, and a second
reading and public hearing were held on April 25, 2006.
2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of
Roanoke County, the subject real estate is hereby declared to be surplus and the nature
of the interest in real estate renders it unavailable for other public uses.
3. That, subject to the following conditions, the vacation, quit-claim and
release of an existing fifteen foot (15') drainage easement across property of Cox Cable
Roanoke, Inc, located on Fallowater Lane in the Cave Spring Magisterial District of the
April 25, 2006
405
County of Roanoke, designated as "EXISTING 15' DRAINAGE EASEMENT HEREBY
VACATED" on Exhibit A attached hereto, is hereby authorized and approved.
4. That, subject to the following conditions, the acceptance of a new fifteen
foot (15') drainage easement across property of Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc., located on
Fallowater Lane in the Cave Spring Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke,
designated as "15' DRAINAGE EASEMENT HEREBY DEDICATED" on Exhibit A
attached hereto, is hereby authorized and approved.
5. That Petitioner, Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc. shall be responsible for all costs
and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to, all costs associated with
the establishment of an alternative drainage system, surveys, publication, and
recordation of documents; and,
6. That the County Administrator, or an Assistant County Administrator, is
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be
necessary to accomplish this vacation, quit-claim, and release, all of which shall be on
form approved by the County Attorney.
7. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption,
and a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with Section 15.2-2272(2) of
the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
IN RE:
CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Karen L. Desorcv, 6433 Merriman Road, presented the Board members
with pictures and a petition signed by citizens indicating their opposition to any
development at 5690 Crystal Creek Road. She advised that this is an undeveloped
property originally owned by the Roanoke County schools but which was deeded in
January to the County Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department. She requested that
Hurley Ward be allowed to continue her horseback riding lesson business which is
located on the property. Ms. Desorcy advised that Ms. Ward has been renting this
property since 1992 and that it is not feasible to develop the approximately 20 acres,
406
April 25, 2006
which includes 6.12 acres designated as wetlands, because of the environmental
impact of such developments on the wetlands. She advised that the cost/benefit ratio of
developing anything on the property other than what exists now would be throwing
taxpayers' money away. The purchase of the property should never have taken place
without a feasibility study which would have shown how unfeasible it is to develop this
flood plain and wetland area. She advised that since the hour was very late, she would
ask that the Board review the packet of information that she presented and thanked
them for their consideration of her request.
Jack Griffith, 4043 Snowgoose Circle, member of the Parks, Recreation &
Tourism Advisory Commission (Commission) representing the Cave Spring District,
advised that Paul Bailey, a member of the Commission representing the Windsor Hills
District, was also present. He advised that the Taylor tract has been designated as park
property for many years. He reported that he discovered a master plan report dated
1997 concerning the Southwest District Park Master Plan which listed two potential park
properties identified as the Raceway and Taylor tracts. The Raceway tract is now
Starkey II Park and serves the Windsor Hills youth baseball. Using state standards for
population base in 1997, the County was deemed to be deficient by 316 park acres with
114 acres being in the Cave Spring District and 131 in the Windsor Hills District. He
advised that 78 percent of the deficiency for park space was in Southwest County and
since that time they have only added approximately 28 acres which is the Raceway
tract. The Taylor tract, which is approximately 38 acres will help to provide additional
April 25, 2006
407
open space. They recognize that the wetlands are an issue but they will fit in with a
passive park space. The Commission feels that the Taylor tract being developed as
park space will complete the group of parks that begins at Shell Park at Penn Forest
Elementary School, goes across the road to the Taylor tract, down across Crystal Creek
to Starkey I Park, Starkey II Park, and Merriman Park, which will be the equivalent to a
district park similar to those in other areas. He advised that this space is needed
because both the Windsor Hills and Cave Spring youth leagues are based out of these
parks because there are no parks located in the Windsor Hills District. He distributed a
resolution that the Commission approved at their meeting on April 20 requesting that the
Taylor tract be identified as park space, acknowledging the lack of park land area in
South County, and supporting the development of the Taylor tract for park land and
facilities to serve the needs of all citizens.
Mr. Haislip, Director of the Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department,
advised that in 1997 according to the master plan there were numerous plans for the
Taylor property. He advised that they want to utilize the wetlands as an added feature
and have trails which will link with the greenway from Penn Forest to the Blue Ridge
Parkway from Merriman Park. Mr. Haislip advised that they have discussed this with
the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the officials are excited about the
plans for the wetlands and will help to seek funding.
408
April 25, 2006
In response to Supervisor Wray's inquiry, Mr. Haislip advised that the
County never considered building patio homes or condos on the Taylor tract.
Supervisor Wray asked Mr. Haislip to provide copies of the 1997 master plan for each
Board member.
IN RE:
REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor McNamara: He advised that there will be a community
meeting regarding the proposed rezoning of property on Stoneybrook Drive and Bridle
Lane at 7:00 p.m., April 26, 2006, at the Roanoke County Administration Center in the
fourth floor training room.
Supervisor Church: He advised those who will watch the rebroadcast of
this meeting that the time is approaching 1 :00 a.m., Wednesday. He asked for their
understanding if any of the previous comments made by the Board members seemed
too informal.
Supervisor Wrav: He requested that an item be added to the May 9
meeting for recognition of the employees in the Clerk's Office since the Board approved
a proclamation declaring April 30 through May 6 as Municipal Clerk's Week at this
meeting. He requested that Ms. Teresa Hall, Public Information Officer, plan this
recognition.
April 25, 2006
409
IN RE:
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Wray adjourned the meeting at 1 :00 a.m., Wednesday, April 26,
2006.
Submitted by:
Approved by:
~~.~
Brenda J. olton, CMC
Deputy Clerk to the Board
, - \
~~ Q.W~
Michael A. Wray
Chairman
410
April 25, 2006
This paae intentionallv left blank.