Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/25/2006 - Regular July 25, 2006 591 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 July 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 July, 2006. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wray called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Michael A. Wray, Vice-Chairman Joseph P. McNamara, Supervisors Michael W. Altizer, Joseph B. "Butch" Church (arrived at 7:00 p.m.), 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 IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by Reverend Bruce Tuttle, Cave Spring United Methodist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. 592 July 25, 2006 IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1:. Resolution of aDDreciation to John P. Krista. Circuit Court Clerk's Office. uDon his retirement after twenty-two years of service. R-072506-1 Chairman Wray presented the resolution to Mr. Krista. Also present was Steve McGraw, Clerk of Circuit Court. Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church RESOLUTION 072506-1 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO JOHN P. KRISTA, CIRCUIT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE, UPON HIS RETIREMENT AFTER TWENTY-TWO YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, John P. Krista was employed by Roanoke County on October 8, 1983, as a microfilm technician in the Circuit Court Clerk's Office; and WHEREAS, Mr. Krista retired from the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's Office as Deputy Clerk III, on June 1, 2006, after twenty-two years and eight months of service; and WHEREAS, Mr. Krista received the designation of Certified Deputy Clerk from the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service through the University of Virginia; and WHEREAS, Mr. Krista was dedicated to the preservation and management of the public's records and worked closely with the Library of Virginia; and WHEREAS, Mr. Krista remains an active member of the Virginia Association of Government Archives and Records Administrators (VAGARA), having served as its Treasurer twice and as a member of various committees', and was named the Outstanding Member of the Year for 1996; and WHEREAS, Mr. Krista, through his employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. July 25, 2006 593 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to JOHN P. KRISTA for more than twenty-two years of capable, loyal, and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1:. Reauest to acceDt and aDDroDriate additional state revenues in the amount of -'475.000 to the Sheriff's Office for fiscal year 2005- 2006 budaet. (Brent Robertson. Director of Manaaement and Budaetl A-072506-2 Mr. Robertson advised that during fiscal year 2006, as in previous years, the inmate population at the Roanoke County jail remained above capacity. In addition, the average daily inmate population increased from 268 to 285 through fiscal year 2006 which is an increase of 6.3% over the prior fiscal year on a rated capacity of 107 that the jail was designed to hold. They are all local prisoners with no prisoners being housed in the jail for revenue producing purposes. Due to the increased inmate population, Sheriff Holt is projecting expenditures related to inmate care to exceed the original budget allocations by $475,000 for fiscal year 2006. 594 July 25, 2006 Mr. Robertson stated that Roanoke County is reimbursed by the state for salaries, mileage, office expenses, and for housing state prisoners. The reimbursement for state responsible inmates varies between a rate of $6 and $8 per day. In addition, the City of Salem reimburses the County for housing its prisoners on a per diem basis. He advised that the budget approach that has been taken over the past six to eight years, because of the fluidity of prisoner population and state appropriations, was to budget expenditures conservatively, monitor the revenues, and adjust revenue and expenditure budgets at year end. Based on the revenue estimates versus the projected revenues anticipated to be collected from the state for the Sheriff's Department for fiscal year 2006, revenues in excess of budget for these categories should total approximately $340,000. Revenues from the City of Salem for their prisoners in the jail exceeded budget projections by $210,000, resulting in a total of approximately $550,000 of unallocated revenue. Mr. Robertson advised that staff recommends that the Board approve an appropriation adjustment to recognize an additional $475,000 of revenue for fiscal year 2005-2006 for personnel and operations reimbursement and increasing the fiscal year 2005-2006 Sheriff's Department budget by $475,000 to cover the increased operational costs of the jail caused by increased inmate population, staffing requirements, and capital reimbursements. July 25, 2006 595 Mr. Robertson advised that he had anticipated that Sheriff Gerald Holt would be present to answer questions but he is advised that Sheriff Holt is continuing to meet with the Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority. Supervisor Flora stated that you should never turn down state money and inquired if there will be any rollover to the general fund unappropriated balance from the $475,000 being appropriated to the 2006 budget. Mr. Robertson advised that he anticipates that approximately $100,000 will be available to go into the general fund. Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the staff recommendation (approval of an appropriation adjustment to recognize an additional $475,000 of revenue for fiscal year 2005-2006 for personnel and operations reimbursement and increasing the fiscal year 2005-2006 Sheriff's Department budget by $475,000 to cover increased operational costs of the jail). The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: IN RE: Supervisors McNamara, Altizer, Flora, Wray None Supervisor Church REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA 1: First readina of !!!l ordinance to obtain ! sDecial .!:!!.!!. Dermit for the construction of an accessory aDartment on .63 acres located at 6162 SteeDlechase Drive. Windsor Hills Maaisterial District. 596 July 25, 2006 uoon the oetition of Victor and Elmarie Mvburah. 2. First readina of an ordinance to remove the soecial y!!! oermit and conditions from 1.9 acres located at 6044 Peters Creek Road. Hollins Maaisterial District. uoon the oetition of Jesse Jones. Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the first readings and set the second readings and public hearings for August 22, 2006. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second readina of an ordinance acceotina the conveyance of ! one-half interest in the Vinton Business Park. aoorovina an amendment to the Gain Sharina Aareement. and reallocatina funds for this ouroose. (Doua Chittum. Director of Economic DeveloDmentl 0-072506-3 Mr. Chittum advised that there have been no changes since the first reading of the ordinance. He reported that the County will be investing $798,200 to receive an undivided one-half interest in the 66.7 acre Vinton Business Center. The ordinance will amend the gain sharing agreement to allow for future expenditures and July 25, 2006 597 revenues to be equally shared between the County and the Town. He asked that the Board approved the ordinance and allocate $798,200 from the Community Development Center for Research and Technology (CRT) account to allow the County to have two industrial sites for development. Supervisor Altizer inquired if the Town of Vinton is planning to act on this ordinance at their first meeting in August. Mr. Chittum responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Wray inquired how this action would affect CRT. Mr. Chittum advised that through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the Board has been allocating approximately $1,000,000 annually towards CRT funding. He advised that the County has sufficient funds for next year's planned improvements at CRT, and they are currently reviewing the master plan, covenants and restrictions. He stated that the CRT project will not be compromised in any way by this action. Supervisor Wray asked Mr. Chittum to review the planned improvements for the Vinton Business Center which will make it more attractive to prospects. Mr. Chittum advised that several items of public infrastructure need to be built as well as a storm water detention area, and there are other issues with state and federal agencies such as wetlands. He advised that the Town of Vinton has employed Mattern and Craig to design these future improvements and will use some of the funding being requested. He advised that there are other improvements planned which relate to the rezoning and fulfilling the requests of the residents for such things as a common area, walking trails, and berms to protect the Montgomery Village neighborhood. 598 July 25, 2006 Supervisor Altizer commented that the three available sites in the Vinton Business Center make it a significant second venue for the County to locate those projects that cannot be placed at CRT because of the restrictive covenants already in place. He advised that he felt this was a good business decision for the County. Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church ORDINANCE 072506-3 ACCEPTING THE CONVEYANCE OF A ONE- HALF INTEREST IN THE VINTON BUSINESS PARK, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GAIN SHARING AGREEMENT AND REALLOCATING FUNDS FOR THIS PURPOSE WHEREAS, by the "Gain Sharing Agreement between the Town of Vinton and the County of Roanoke" dated March 2, 1999, the Town and the County reached an agreement to provide for the sharing of certain local tax revenues and the sharing of the costs of certain public services; and WHEREAS, Section 4.03 of the Gain Sharing Agreement provides that the Town and County may negotiate an agreement to fund jointly the costs of development of a publicly-subsidized economic development project, which was called the "McDonald Farm Economic Development Project" ("Project"); and WHEREAS, by an Agreement dated November 6, 2001, the Town and the County agreed to the valuation of the McDonald Farm, the County appropriated funds for some of the costs of development, and that the parties agreed to confer before any additional improvements are constructed or incentives to prospects are provided; and WHEREAS, this ordinance approves an Agreement so that the new local tax revenues generated by this Project shall be shared equally by the County with the Town based upon each localities equal contributions toward the costs of development; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance is scheduled for July 11, 2006, and the second reading is scheduled for July 25, 2006. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County as follows: July 25, 2006 599 1. That the conveyance of a one-half undivided interest in 66.74 acres of real estate known as the Vinton Business Center to the County from the Town of Vinton is hereby accepted. 2. That the Amendment to the Vinton Gain Sharing Agreement is hereby approved and that the County Administrator is authorized to execute this agreement on behalf of the County upon form approved by the County Attorney. 3. That the allocation of $789,200 dollars from the Community Development Center for Research and Technology Minor Capital Account to implement this agreement is hereby approved. 4. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church IN RE: APPOINTMENTS 1:. CaDital ImDrovement Proaram CCIP} Review Committee CADDointed ~ District} Supervisor McNamara advised that he thought the term limit for this committee was going to be increased to two years but evidently this action was never taken. Supervisor McNamara requested that the Clerk contact Mr. Brian Garber, the Windsor Hills representative, to determine if he would be willing to serve an additional one-year term. If Mr. Garber would like to serve, Supervisor McNamara requested that confirmation of his appointment be placed on the consent agenda. Supervisor Altizer suggested that the terms be increased to two years and staggered so that there would not be a complete turnover of the members at anyone date. Supervisor Altizer suggested that Mr. Robertson could develop some guidelines concerning this committee and terms. Mr. Robertson advised that he would be glad to 600 July 25, 2006 bring back guidelines concerning the term limits as well any other suggestions that the Board might want to make at one of the meetings in August. Supervisor Flora advised that he thought two years should be the shortest period of time for the term limits to have continuity on the committee; however, he did not have a problem with a three-year limit or staggered terms. Supervisor McNamara suggested that the term limit could remain one year with the guideline established that a Board member could appoint the same member to serve additional terms. Supervisor Wray advised that the information that a new member of the committee is given can be overwhelming, and it would be beneficial to have the continuity of experienced members. Chairman Wray asked Mr. Robertson to provide the Board with suggested guidelines. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-072506-4; R-072506-4.a Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church RESOLUTION 072506-4 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: July 25, 2006 601 1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for July 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 2, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes - July 11, 2006 2. Acceptance of a portion of Broyles Lane, Route 1054, Hollins Magisterial District, into the Virginia Department of Transportation secondary system 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, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church RESOLUTION 072506-4.a REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF A PORTION OF BROYLES LANE, ROUTE 1054, HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the street described on the attached Addition Form LA-5(A), fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street extension described on the attached Additions Form LA-5(A) to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to Section 33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, and: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Moved by: Supervisor Altizer Seconded by: None Required Yeas: Supervisors McNamara, Altizer, Flora, Wray Nays: None Absent: Supervisor Church 602 July 25, 2006 IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Flora moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church 1:. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Reserves 3. Reserve for Board Continaency 4. Future Capital Proiects 5. Accounts Paid = June 2006 6. Public Safety Center Buildina Proiect Budaet Report 7. Public Safety Center Buildina Proiect Chanae Order Reoort 8. Reoort of claims activity for the self-insurance oroaram for the period ended June 30. 2006 9. Statement of the Treasurer's accountability oer investment and oortfolio oolicv as of June 30. 2006 July 25, 2006 603 IN RE: CLOSED MEETING At 3:35 p.m., Supervisor Wray moved to go into closed meeting pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (3) discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real property for public purposes. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: IN RE: Supervisors McNamara, Altizer, Flora, Wray None Supervisor Church CLOSED MEETING The closed meeting was held from 3:42 p.m. until 4:27 p.m. WORK SESSIONS 1.:. Joint work session with the Roanoke County Plannina Commission: Chairman Wray welcomed the members of the Planning Commission to the meeting at 4:30 p.m. Vice-Chairman Gary Jarrell called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. with the following members present: Martha Hooker, Rodney McNeil, and AI Thomason. Chairman Steve Azar arrived at 5:15 p.m. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m. following the work sessions. IN RE: 604 July 25, 2006 The following staff members were present for the work sessions: Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; Paul Mahoney, County Attorney; Phillip Thompson, Deputy Director, Planning; and David Holladay, Senior Planner. - a. Work session to discuss proposed amendments to the Roanoke County Code. Chapter 8.1. Erosion and Sediment Control. (Arnold Covey. Director of Community Development 1 The work session was held from 4:45 p.m. until 5:25 p.m. Mr. Covey advised that the Planning Commission approved a resolution in support of the proposed amendments at their meeting on July 10, 2006. He reviewed the amendments which were required by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) as part of the review of the County's erosion and sediment (E&S) control program and advised that Mr. Holladay would review the amendments concerning the slope development standards. In response to Supervisor Wray's inquiries, Mr. Covey advised that there are several phases to the E&S control program which include administration, plan review, construction, inspection, and enforcement. He described the inspection process as follows: The County inspects the projects every two weeks and some weekly; if a violation is found, an inspection notice with a time to comply is issued. The project is then re-inspected; if the corrections have not been made, a notice to comply is issued. If the project remains in non-compliance, civil and/or criminal penalties can be assessed. Mr. Covey advised that there are five construction inspectors, two building July 25, 2006 605 inspectors, two mechanical plumbing inspectors, and two electrical inspectors. Five of the inspectors are certified for E&S. Mr. Covey advised that the inspectors are cross- trained; however, hiring a residential E&S inspector may be necessary since the E&S inspection will add approximately twenty minutes to the process, Mr. Holladay advised that since September 2005, staff has conducted six work sessions with the Planning Commission and worked with a committee of experts in the fields of construction, grading contracting, civil engineering and design, geotechnical engineering, and County engineering and planning staff. He expressed appreciation to the following individuals who provided assistance in developing these amendments: Roanoke Regional Home Builders Association: Melody Williams, Bob Flynn, Ron Booth, David Vaughn, David Radford, Pete McKnight, AI Cooper, Dean Bandy, Don Bandy; Engineer/Builder Sub Committee: Lee Henderson, Joe Miller, John Cutright; Charles Hoffer, citizen; and County Staff: Arnold Covey, George Simpson, Butch Workman, Danielle Bishop, and Denise Sowder. He distributed a handout describing slopes and showing an example of three ways to measure a slope. Mr. Holladay reviewed the proposed amendments to the County Code for slope development standards as follows: (1) Limiting the angle of constructed slopes to 2: 1 (horizontal: vertical) unless a geotechnical engineering report is provided for the proposed slopes. (2) Limiting the height of constructed slopes to 25 vertical feet unless a geotechnical report is provided for the proposed slopes. Constructed slopes with an angle of less than or equal to 3:1 (horizontal: vertical) would be allowed to exceed 25 606 July 25, 2006 vertical feet without a geotechnical report being required. (3) Requiring "as-built" plans for any constructed slopes that required geotechnical evaluation. (4) Requiring soil compaction information on site development plans and compaction test results submitted in development files. (5) Requiring individual lot grading plans for all new subdivisions. (6) Defining "Geotechnical Report" and "Steep Slope". Mr. Holladay advised that the geotechnical report will be provided at the applicant's expense and shall be prepared by a professional engineer to communicate the site conditions and the recommended design and construction methods. He stated that the geotechnical report shall be included in site development files prior to the issuance of a land disturbing permit. He advised that a steep slope is defined as a slope greater than 3: 1, or 33.3%. In response to Supervisor McNamara's inquiry, Mr. Holladay advised that staff has not received any negative feedback. Mr. Mahoney advised that he would anticipate that the Board may receive criticism because the ordinance does not go far enough to prevent development on steep slopes. He advised that a citizen could still go forward with developing a steep slope if they hire a geotechnical engineer and comply with their suggestions. In response to Supervisor Wray's inquiry, Mr. Holladay advised that it is proposed to implement the ordinance effective November 1, 2006, and that any project currently submitted or being reviewed would be grandfathered if the project is finalized within 60 to 90 days. This approach has been used in the past. He advised that staff July 25, 2006 607 would be prepared to bring back the ordinance for Board approval in August. Ms. Hooker advised that she felt there is a consensus between the homeowners, developers, Planning Commission, and staff from their research that this is a good first step in the process; however, it is not the ultimate goal. Mr. Covey advised that he agreed that this is the first step and is intended to address what is happening in the construction industry in the Roanoke Valley and the problems as identified by the professionals. Supervisor Wray suggested that there should be an education process for the public, and Mr. Covey advised that plans are being made to inform the public and developers about the process. Mr. Holladay advised that this ordinance applies to the Town of Vinton, that their staff has attended some of the work sessions, and it will be presented to the Vinton Town Council at their August meeting. It was the consensus of the Board for staff to move forward with the County Code amendments as presented at the work session. b. Work session to discuss conditional zonina. (Paul Mahoney. County Attorney) The work session was held from 5:25 p.m. until 5:50 p.m. Mr. Mahoney advised that this work session was scheduled in response to comments from the Planning Commission and Board members regarding his recent communication on conditional zoning. He advised that his Board report provided 608 July 25, 2006 background information about conditional zoning and pointed out some of the fundamental legal problems with proffered conditions. He advised that Virginia's conditional zoning process is unique in the United States. Some other states view conditional zoning as illegal and consider it contract zoning which means that the government is giving up its legislative power in exchange for financial consideration by a developer. He advised that Federal courts as well as the U. S. Supreme Court consider the connection and proportionality between what the government is demanding and what the landowner is giving up, and he cited two court cases where the rulings were in favor of the landowners. Mr. Mahoney advised that many developers in Virginia decide not to challenge voluntary proffers because they want to complete their projects. However, he advised that the courts in Maryland have held that third parties can challenge these kinds of zoning transactions because they are viewed as contract zonings and the proffers are not voluntary and not consistent with the locality's comprehensive plan. Mr. Mahoney advised that there are courts which will view these kinds of transactions as over-reaching by legislators to extract certain kinds of conditions from landowners that should be voluntary. Mr. Mahoney suggested that he and Mr. Thompson develop a series of proffer guidelines for the consideration of the Planning Commission and Board. He advised that other localities have developed guidelines to make proffers more concise and comprehensive to avoid creating a contract or placing an affirmative obligation on July 25, 2006 609 the locality. He advised that conditional proffers that arise under certain circumstances such as if/then scenarios should be avoided. He advised that the guidelines listed in the Board report which were developed by the County of Albemarle could be used as the basis to develop the County's guidelines. Mr. Mahoney advised that the 2006 General Assembly adopted legislation that would authorize the governing body to make or allow changes in proffers even after the public hearing has commenced so long as they do not materially affect the rezoning application. He advised that the definition of "materially affect" will have to be determined by future court cases. It was the consensus of the Board that Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Thompson move forward with developing the County's guidelines for proffers. IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R-072506-5 At 7:00 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, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Church Supervisor Church advised that he voted to abstain because he was not present during the closed meeting. 610 July 25, 2006 RESOLUTION 072506-5 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, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Church IN RE: RECOGNITION Chairman Wray recognized Assistant Scoutmaster John Conley and three members of Boy Scout Troop #221, Cave Spring United Methodist Church, who were attending the meeting to meet the requirement for their citizenship badges. July 25, 2006 611 IN RE: NEW BUSINESS .:L. Reauest to aoorove the ootional Flexible Leave Plan and disabilitv insurance for Roanoke County emolovees effective November ~ 2006. (Joe Saroi. Director of Human Resources: Rebecca Owens. Director of Finance) A-072506-6 Mr. Sgroi advised that staff is requesting approval of an optional Flexible Leave and Disability Insurance Plan that will make a positive difference in the work life of County employees. He advised that the proposed changes to the employee handbook are described in Attachment 1. He advised that the Human Resources (HR) and Finance Departments have worked closely together and studied this concept for over a year, and they believe that the Flexible Leave Plan (FLP) is on the cutting edge of benefit leave plans offered by employers in the United States. He advised that the FLP focuses on the current and future needs of County employees and shifts the costs within the County's current leave program without any additional expense. Mr. Sgroi advised that the design of this kind of benefit leave plan is finding greater prevalence and acceptance among for-profit and non-for-profit employers including government agencies. He reported that a survey by Mercer HR Consultants of 536 employers showed that almost half of the employers reporting offered a leave plan that combines vacation days with sick days, and generally, these programs had a disability plan included to prevent long term illnesses from depleting 612 July 25, 2006 leave balances. The percentage of employers moving to this design has increased each year since 2000. Mr. Sgroi advised that the Cities of Staunton, Franklin, and Hopewell have similar leave plans. Mr. Sgroi advised that Attachment 2 is a comparison of the FLP with the County's traditional leave plan. He reported that the proposed FLP is an optional benefit plan and current employees may choose to either enroll in the FLP plan or remain in the traditional annual and sick leave plans. Employees who do not enroll when the plan is first presented may enroll yearly during the open enrollment period, and all new employees will be automatically enrolled in FLP. Mr. Sgroi advised that the FLP achieves several key objectives as follows: (1) County recruitment and retention efforts will be strengthened with a more diverse benefit package. (2) Fifty percent of the County's workforce has less than five years of service and is between ages 20 to 40. Employees are at financial risk under the current sick leave plan, especially less tenured employees. The addition of short and long term disability insurance is a proactive benefit that protects the employee from financial harm. (3) With greater access and flexibility in the FLP design, employees are empowered to manage their leave time for such things as child care, the increasing need for eldercare, or other personal reasons. The FLP offers an attractive component of a cash-in option for leave not taken. (4) The FLP rewards employees for good attendance. (5) Current employees are kept "whole"; those who transition to the new plan will not loose accrued leave balances. July 25, 2006 613 Mr. Sgroi advised that Ms. Owens would address the Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Ms. Owens advised that the FLP is a comprehensive benefit program with components designed to focus on current and future workforce needs without adding costs to the County. One important component of the proposed optional FLP is the short and long term disability plans. At the Board's work session on March 14, 2006 approval was granted to move forward to obtain proposals for both short and long term disability. Ms. Owens reported that RFP's were solicited for short and long term disability to seventeen carriers. Although carriers were hesitant to offer proposals based on the high number of police and fire employees to be covered, four proposals were received, of which only two met the County's plan design requirement. Based on the bids submitted, interviews conducted, follow up negotiations, references, and evaluations of each finalist, the committee agreed that The Standard Insurance Co. was the most qualified bidder and should be awarded the contract. The Standard Insurance Co. currently administers the long term disability plan for the City of Roanoke and the Western Virginia Water Authority. The short term disability plan would be self-funded by the County at no cost to the employee with a 30-day waiting period and would pay 60% of earnings for a maximum of 60 days. The long term disability would be a fully funded plan with the premiums being shared equally by the County and employee. This plan begins when the short term benefit ends and continues paying 60% of salary. She 614 July 25, 2006 advised that as an example, the cost for an employee earning $40,000 would be $4.90 per pay period. Ms. Owens stated that the FLP was designed to provide employees income protection, greater flexibility, and other attractive components while not adding additional costs to the County. Many cost analyses were performed comparing the traditional plan to the FLP, and the analysis confirmed and provided assurances that the FLP design would shift costs as well as provide the County long term savings. Ms. Owens advised that Mr. Sgroi would address the communications of the plan to employees. Mr. Sgroi advised that in early February 2006, HR met with the Employee Advisory Committee (EAC) to review the components of the flexible leave concept and they were the initial focus group to gauge the potential level of interest in the plan. The EAC agreed that the FLP had merit and should be shared with employees. He advised that HR staff continued to meet with senior and mid-level management as well as employees from all departments throughout the County with the overall response to these first meetings being positive. Many employees realized the value of disability income protection and were receptive to various aspects of the plan. Mr. Sgroi stated that with the Board's approval, HR will plan a major communication initiative to explain the final details of the plan and the enrollment process. He advised that Attachment 3 contains the proposed implementation timeline. July 25, 2006 615 Mr. Sgroi advised that staff is recommending that the Board approve the optional FLP changes to the Employee Handbook effective November 4, 2006, and the contract with The Standard Insurance Co. as the administrator for short and long term disability. Supervisor Church advised that he feels that income protection is an added benefit of the FLP and that insurance statistics show that a person is seven times more likely to have a disability than die. He inquired as to the benefit period for long term disability. Mr. Sgroi advised that after the gO-day waiting period, the coverage is for two years in the employee's own occupation and up to age 65 for any occupation if they are permanently disabled. Supervisor Church advised that he thought this was a good benefit and he was glad that the plan was optional; even though he thought the plan would sell itself. Supervisor McNamara inquired about the anticipated costs of the FLP since the Board had not been provided this information. Ms. Owens advised that they are anticipating that the costs for the short term disability would be $24,000. She stated that there is an administrative fee per claim, and the $24,000 figure was obtained by taking an average of the previous three years of claims that would be short term. She advised that it is anticipated that the departments will assume part of the costs because while an employee is on short term disability, they will receive 60% of their salary which will be absorbed by the department. Supervisor McNamara asked Ms. Owens to clarify that it was a total of $24,000 in costs for the entire work force for the year. Ms. Owens 616 July 25, 2006 advised that $24,000 is the administrative cost and that 60% of the salaries would be the other cost which would be funded by the department. In response to Supervisor McNamara's inquiry as to the cost for the salaries, Ms. Owens advised that there was an average of 21 claims from employees with an average salary of $40,000 per year. Supervisor McNamara estimated that the salary costs would be $130,000. Ms. Owens advised that they are anticipating costs for the long term disability at $68,000 based upon an assumption of the number of employees who would choose FLP. Supervisor McNamara inquired as to the cost if all employees chose the FLP. Ms. Owens advised that if all employees chose the FLP, the County's share of the cost would be $92,000. She advised that they would request that the departments absorb this cost within their budgets through potential savings from part-time, over-time, and employee turnover. Supervisor Wray inquired if the FLP can be used in conjunction with the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Mr. Sgroi advised that FMLA can be used in conjunction with any kind of leave plan whether it is FLP or the traditional leave plan. Supervisor Wray inquired if the administrative requirements for FLP are more intense and costly than the traditional plan. Mr. Sgroi advised that some of the administrative work has been done and after the initial enrollment period, FLP will be system driven. He advised that staff met with a focus group of supervisors recently to discuss the administration of the FLP, and generally speaking, the supervisors and Payroll Department are satisfied that there will be no problems with the administration of the plan. He advised that once the system is put into place, it will not burden the County July 25, 2006 617 staff excessively. Supervisor Wray inquired if an employee can request leave in 15 minute increments. Mr. Sgroi advised that leave can be taken in 15 minute increments using the current traditional plan. Supervisor Wray stated that looking at the FLP from the HR standpoint, the actual administration of the cash out policy per year is less than cashing it out on a bi-annual basis and the committee must have seen the benefit of implementing the policy. Mr. Sgroi advised that he feels that one of the best benefits is in the area of public safety because those employees sometimes have difficulty getting the days off that they want because of their work schedules, and this gives them the option and flexibility to balance their leave. He advised that the administrative cost is worthwhile to help manage the FLP so that employees would have that flexibility. Supervisor Wray inquired if there would be any additional administrative costs. Mr. Sgroi advised that there may be some but it would not be a large amount. Supervisor McNamara advised that he believes this is a nice program but it needs to be advertised as a very unique benefit because it is unusual for long term disability insurance to be employer sponsored. The FLP has a real cost to the County of approximately $250,000, utilizing staff's figures, which is .07 of a percentage point of the County's total payroll. He advised that he intends to support approval of the FLP but it would seem more logical to bring this forward as part of the annual salary changes as opposed to mid-year so that the employees would recognize the benefits that they will be receiving. 618 July 25, 2006 Supervisor Wray inquired if the schools had a flexible leave plan. Mr. Sgroi advised that the schools do not; they have a traditional plan much like the County's current plan. Supervisor Church inquired about the current cost of the traditional program versus the projections for the FLP. Ms. Owens advised that it was difficult to estimate costs for the traditional plan compared to the FLP. She advised that when she took the total costs for all of the leave time, which was basically vacation and sick leave that each employee used during the past year, the cost of the traditional plan was $2.6 million. She advised that when she examined the same data for the same time period and applied the components of the FLP, the cost was approximately $2.596 million. She advised that she is comfortable in stating that the costs for both plans are comparable; however, it will be several years before cost savings can be recognized. She advised that the plan could be re-evaluated each year as more employees choose to participate. Supervisor Church advised that he appreciated Ms. Owens' attempt to answer a difficult question, and he believes that the costs will be nearly equal using either plan. He advised that workmen's compensation injuries would come under a different system and are outside of the FLP. He advised that staff needs to evaluate the plan after a period of time because factors change such as employees' ages and rates. He advised that since the costs are comparable, it is a bonus to have benefits to offer employees without the costs burdening the taxpayers. July 25, 2006 619 Supervisor McNamara advised that he appreciated the staff's analysis of the costs; however, he sees a problem with a historical analysis using a new set of rules because there is a small percentage of employees who are going to be absent more often because there are short and long term disability programs. He explained as an example that some people have a difficult time finding a job until their unemployment benefits run out and they are forced to find work. He suggested that the program be evaluated annually. Supervisor Flora moved to approve the staff recommendation: (1) approve the Flexible Leave Plan as outlined in the Board report; (2) approve changes to the Employee Handbook effective November 4, 2006; and (3) approve the contract with The Standard Insurance Co. as the administrator for short-term and long-term disability. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES ~ Withdrawn at the reauest of the Detitioner. Second readina of an ordinance to obtain! sDecial use Dermit with amended conditions for the oDeration of ! used automobile dealershiD Q!l .467 acres located at 6717 Williamson Road. Hollins Maaisterial District. UDon the Detition of Daniel W. Doss. (PhiliD ThomDson. DeDutv Director of Plannina) 620 July 25, 2006 Chairman Wray advised that this item has been withdrawn at the request of the petitioner. 2. Continued until Auaust 22. 2006. at the reQuest of the oetitioner. Second readina of an ordinance to obtain! soecial use oermit for the construction of !!! accessory aoartment Q!1 .387 acres located at 2923 Embassy Drive. Catawba MaQisterial District. uoon the oetition of Amina AI-Hindi. a/k/a Amina AI-Habashy. (Philio Thomoson. Deouty Director of Plannina) Chairman Wray advised that this item has been continued until August 22, 2006, at the request of the petitioner. 3. Continued until Auaust 22. 2006. at the reQuest of the oetitioner. Second readina of an ordinance to rezone .69 acres and .48 acres from R1. Low Density Residential. to C2. General Commercial District. in order to construct! retail sales facility located at 4065 Challenaer Avenue and 4053 ChallenQer Ayenue. Vinton Maaisterial District. uoon the oetition of Valley Gateway. LLC. CPhiliD ThomDson. Deouty Director of Plannina) Chairman Wray advised that this item has been continued until August 22, 2006, at the request of the petitioner. July 25, 2006 621 4. Second readina of an ordinance to obtain! special use permit for the operation of ! reliaious assembly located at 6200 block of Meacham Road (revised driveway location). Catawba Maaisterial District. upon the petition of Bethel Assembly of God. (Philip Thompson. Deputy Director of Plannina) 0-072506- 7 Mr. Thompson advised that Bethel Assembly of God is requesting a special use permit to operate a religious assembly in an agricultural/residential zoning district. The 26-acre parcel is located in the 6200 block of Meacham Road and is adjacent to Interstate 81. He advised that the proposed project includes a new 7,200 square foot building with a 240-seat sanctuary. The building will also house the support services and classrooms and have a 1,100 foot paved driveway. Paved parking and landscaping will also be associated with the project. The concept plan also shows a future expansion area of 2,000 square feet. Mr. Thompson advised that site access to the site will be via Twine Hollow Road and Meacham Road, and the road network is capable of handling the increase in traffic according to VDOT and County staff because the peak traffic for the church does not coincide with normal peak traffic. The project will be served by private wells and septic systems. The surrounding property is zoned agricultural/residential, and the surrounding land uses include single family homes, agricultural uses and forested land. 622 July 25, 2006 Mr. Thompson advised that the future land use plan designates the property as transition which is consistent with the Community Plan, and the site has ample space to meet all applicable development standards. He stated that no negative impacts are anticipated. Mr. Thompson advised that a community meeting was held on June 19, 2006, at Glenvar High School with approximately twenty-five citizens in attendance. The citizens expressed concerns about the existing problems on Meacham Road with respect to the steep shoulders needing guardrail and curves with limited visibility. Staff is working with VDOT to determine if those issues can be resolved through VDOT's road maintenance program. Mr. Thompson advised that the Planning Commission held its public hearing on July 10, 2006, with one citizen present who inquired about the location of the access easement and landscaping in relation to a house that he is considering purchasing on Meacham Road. The Planning Commissioners asked questions regarding site design concerning the paved parking, landscaping, and easement location. The Planning Commissioners commented that the revised access location to the site along Meacham Road was an improvement over the original Kelley Street location, and recommended approval of the request with a vote of five to zero with the following four conditions: (1) 50-foot setback from Interstate 81; (2) utilizing two parcels for access; (3) providing a buffer within the access easement; and (4) site be developed in general conformance with the concept plan submitted with the application. July 25, 2006 623 Supervisor McNamara inquired if the map supplied to the Board with the agenda displays the current access plan. Mr. Thompson responded in the affirmative. Pastor Burk Franks, speaking on behalf of Bethel Assembly of God, advised that they need to expand the church and the land where it is presently located is zoned residential only. They sold that property and were able to secure property on Meacham Road and they would like to build their new church on that site. Supervisor Church advised that he drives by this church several times a day and recognizes that they are landlocked and have no room for expansion at their present location. He stated that the new entrance that has been worked out is better for the project. There were no citizens present to speak on this item. Supervisor Wray inquired about the status of the citizen who had concerns about the landscaping in relationship to the home he was considering purchasing. Mr. Thompson advised that the citizen was satisfied when information was provided that the easement was 15 to 20 feet from the property line and that there is a requirement for landscaping within the easement to supplement the existing vegetation. Supervisor Church inquired if staff had heard anything from VDOT about the feasibility of installing a guard rail. Mr. Thompson advised that he had not heard back from VDOT. Supervisor Church advised that guard rails save lives in many cases, and asked Mr. Thomson to follow up on this request with VDOT. 624 July 25, 2006 Supervisor Church asked Pastor Franks if he agreed with the four conditions that were being placed on the special use permit. Pastor Franks replied in the affirmative. Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance with the conditions. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None ORDINANCE 072506-7 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE OPERATION OF A RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY ON 26.32 ACRES LOCATED IN THE 6200 BLOCK OF MEACHAM ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 63.04-3-49, 51, PART OF 53) CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON THE PETITION OF BETHEL ASSEMBLY OF GOD WHEREAS, Bethel Assembly of God has filed a petition for a special use permit for the operation of a religious assembly to be located in the 6200 block of Meacham Road (Tax Map No. 63.04-3-49, 51, and part of 53) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on July 10, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on April 25, 2006; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on July 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 for the operation of a religious assembly to Bethel Assembly of God to be located in the 6200 block of Meacham Road in the Catawba 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) All improvements shall be setback a minimum of 50 feet from the Interstate Route 81 right-af-way. (2) Tax Parcels 63.04-3-49 and 63.04-3-51 shall be used for the entrance driveway only. July 25, 2006 625 (3) Large or small evergreen or large or small deciduous trees shall be planted within the entrance driveway easement between the entrance driveway and property at 6224 Meacham Road per the planting specification in Section 30- 92-5 (D) 3 of the Zoning Ordinance. The intent of this condition is to fill in the open spaces between existing wooded areas. (4) The development shall be in general conformance with the concept plan entitled Proposed Church Facility for Red Lane Assembly of God, dated 5/30/06. 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 to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None 5. Second readina of an ordinance to rezone 17.24 acres from 11-C. Industrial District with conditions. to C2. General Commercial District. in order to construct .! retail sales facility located at the 3900 block Challenaer Avenue n.!!!! the intersection of Valley Gateway Boulevard. Vinton Maaisterial District. UDon the Detition of Kahn DeveloDment COmDany. Inc. (PhiliD ThomDson. DeDuty Director of Plannina) 0-072506-8 Supervisor Altizer advised that the Board has an adopted policy with a cut- off date for petitioners to submit proffers but the Board has allowed proffers to be presented at previous public hearings. He advised that proffers have been submitted for this project at this meeting and asked Mr. Mahoney for his direction on accepting the proffers. 626 July 25, 2006 Mr. Mahoney advised that in 1990 the Board adopted a policy for the postponement or continuance of various rezoning matters and stated that any amendment or change to proffered conditions would be submitted to the Clerk on or before noon on the Thursday prior to the Tuesday Board meeting. He advised that he has reviewed the amended proffers with counsel and the Board has been provided a copy. Mr. Mahoney advised that historically, as Supervisor Altizer indicated, the Board has waived their policy in situations where the proffers do not materially affect the substance of the rezoning. He stated that if the Board believes in its discretion that the amended proffers materially affect the substance of the rezoning, the Board has the right to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission. He advised that he has reviewed the proffers submitted and in his opinion they are attempts to enhance the screening and buffering aspects and are not substantive changes to the rezoning. He advised that it is clearly within the Board's discretionary power to go forward and consider the proffers which would be consistent with previous Board actions. Supervisor Altizer advised that he appreciated Mr. Mahoney's opinion since he wanted to be sure that the Board could accept the proffers offered at this meeting. Chairman Wray asked Mr. Thompson to include the proffers submitted at this meeting for the project in his presentation to the Board. July 25, 2006 627 Mr. Thompson advised that Kahn Development Company is requesting to rezone 17.24 acres from 1-1 Industrial District with conditions to C-2 General Commercial with conditions to construct a retail sales facility. He reported that they already have under contract 4.47 acres which are zoned C-2 General Commercial and there will be a total of 21.7 acres for the proposed project. The property is located in the 3900 block of Challenger Avenue at the intersection with Valley Gateway Boulevard in the Vinton Magisterial District. The proposed project consists of approximately 240,000 square feet of retail space and includes the following: (1) 83,000 square foot grocery store, (2) 133,000 square foot home improvement center, and (3) 23,000 square feet of additional retail space. Also proposed are parking, landscaping, lighting, signage, and storm water management as associated with retail developments. He advised that access to the site will be along Challenger Avenue (Route 460), Valley Gateway Boulevard, and Integrity Drive. A traffic signal is planned for the intersection of Challenger Avenue and Valley Gateway Boulevard and will be at the County's cost as part of the public private partnership with Integrity Windows. A traffic study has been submitted for the potential land uses along Valley Gateway Boulevard and Integrity Drive, and the developer will be responsible for the traffic improvements generated. There will be public water and sewer, and the storm water management area for Integrity Windows was designed to handle the storm water runoff for this site. 628 July 25, 2006 Mr. Thompson advised that the surrounding properties are zoned C-2, General Commercial to the north; 1-1 Industrial to the east, south and southwest; and R- 1 Low Density Residential to the northwest. The industrial land uses are for Integrity Windows, a vacant shell building, and Roanoke Gateway, LLC, and there is also residential property and vacant commercial land. He advised that the proposal is not consistent with the designation of principal industrial land use in the Community Plan; however, based upon the recent growth and development patterns along the Route 460 corridor, staff would recommend changing the land use designation to core in the near future. Mr. Thompson stated that the proposal would be consistent with the core land use designation. Mr. Thompson advised that on June 26, 2006, a community meeting was held at Bonsack Elementary School with approximately forty citizens in attendance. The citizens expressed their concern about two main issues which were traffic on Carson Road and storm water runoff. The storm water runoff will be handled by the Integrity Windows detention pond and staff will consider trying to bring Carson Road into the VDOT secondary road improvement plan. Mr. Thompson advised that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 10, 2006, and no citizens were present to speak on this issue. He advised that the Planning Commissioners had questions regarding traffic issues and recommended approval of the rezoning request with a vote of five to zero. July 25, 2006 629 Mr. Thompson advised that the petitioner has agreed to proffer the following conditions: (1) Before a certificate of occupancy can be issued for any building constructed along the southern border of the property, a row of staggered evergreen trees will be installed along said southern border at or near the top of the slope above the existing storm water detention facility. Trees will be spaced 12' on center and will extend from one end of the building or buildings along that border to the other end. It is estimated that this would result in the planting of no more than 45 trees. (2) Screening shall be provided for HV AC rooftop units on the building or buildings located along the southern border of the property in order to shield those units from the view of residents situated directly behind the Integrity Windows facility. Screening shall be in the form of covers or parapet walls, and shall be a neutral color. Ms. Goodlatte, attorney representing the petitioner, advised that Kahn Development Company has contracted to purchase approximately 22 acres on Route 460 East at its intersection with Valley Gateway Boulevard. She reported that approximately 4 ~ acres are zoned C-2 and approximately 17 acres are zoned 1-1, and the petitioner would like to construct a shopping center which would require that the entire parcel be zoned C-2. This acreage, along with approximately 80 additional acres, was originally rezoned to industrial in 1989. She advised that the shell building was constructed in the 1990's to attract industrial prospects and it is still available. 630 July 25, 2006 Ms. Goodlatte advised that Integrity Windows sited its facility in 2001 at the back end of the development and it has been very successful. The Route 460 frontage began its transition to commercial in 1995 when the Board of Supervisors rezoned over 20 acres from 1-1 to unconditional C-2 to recognize the commercial nature of the Route 460 frontage. She advised that part of the property that the petitioner has under contract was rezoned in the 1995 action but there is not enough depth to create a retail development of any significance on the C-2 acreage. Ms. Goodlatte advised that creating a retail development of this size has the added benefit of meeting the VDOT requirements for a traffic light at Valley Gateway Boulevard. She advised that the County wanted to install a traffic signal for the benefit of Integrity Windows but that development alone did not meet the VDOT warrants for a signal. She advised that the proposed development will help meet the warrants for a signal and when the engineered plans for the development are submitted, VDOT and the County will determine what additional road improvements must be made in order for ~ road entrance permits to be granted by VDOT. Those improvements are discussed in the traffic impact study prepared by Mattern and Craig and submitted to the County. The analysis surrounding the needed road improvements will be updated when the engineered plans are submitted since VDOT requirements are tied to the specifics of the final development plan. July 25, 2006 631 Ms. Goodlatte advised that the layout shown on this plan is conceptual, and that Kahn does not yet have leases with tenants. She reported that the most likely first tenant would be a grocery store but this is not firm at this point. She advised that it is possible that Kahn will be able to integrate an adjoining parcel into this development so that the center could have access to the traffic lights at Valley Gateway Boulevard and at West Ruritan Road. She advised that while Kahn is in discussion with that co- developer and hopes to have that additional acreage as part of the shopping center, a formal agreement has not yet been executed and any use of that property for shopping center purposes would require the rezoning of that parcel. Ms. Goodlatte advised that except for the adjoining piece which is under contract to a retail developer, all of the other properties surrounding the 17 acres are zoned industrial or unconditional C-2. Ms. Goodlatte advised that the County's Economic Development Department supports this rezoning request because the property, which can be used for heavier and more intense uses, is being down zoned to commercial. She advised that the County's Economic Development Department recognizes that the growth and development patterns of the Route 460 corridor makes developments fronting on Route 460 better suited for commercial rather than industrial uses, and those same growth patterns have had an impact on secondary roads in the vicinity of this site. Ms. Goodlatte reported that at a community meeting which discussed both this development and the one which had been proposed for the other side of Valley Gateway Boulevard, residents expressed concerns about Carson Road, which is located on the far end of 632 July 25, 2006 the parcel on the other side of Integrity Drive, regarding increased traffic in the area and storm water runoff. Roanoke County staff was present at the meeting and expressed their desire to work with VDOT to address road improvements for Carson Road. Ms. Goodlatte advised that the Planning Commission and County staff have recommended that the rezoning request be approved. She advised that this down zoning to C-2 follows the course set in 1995 when the other Route 460 frontage parcel was down zoned from 1-1 to unconditional C-2. She advised that even though the Planning Commission recommended approval of the petition without any conditions, Kahn has voluntarily added two conditions relating to landscaping and screening in order to help shield the views of those residents who live behind Integrity Windows. She advised that Supervisor Altizer, in whose magisterial district this property is located, asked that landscaping be provided along the southern boundary of the property between the building and the storm water management pond, and that the HVAC units on the roof of the back building be screened. She reported that Kahn is happy to address those concerns and has submitted two proffers. Ms. Goodlatte introduced Bobby Temple, Kahn Development; John Neel and Ron Fink of Gay and Neel, civil engineers; and Mike Agee of Mattern and Craig, traffic engineer, who were present at the meeting. Supervisor Altizer inquired if the detention pond will be used for the back upward sloping portion of the property well as the front of the parcel. Ms. Goodlatte responded in the affirmative and advised that when it was developed by Fralin & July 25, 2006 633 Waldron, the pond was sized to cover approximately 70% of the needs for the development of the entire parcel. She advised that there will be some additional storm water management that will need to be engineered as part of the approved plan but the pond was engineered to serve Integrity Windows and the vast majority of the property. Supervisor Altizer inquired if the other parcel, which mayor may not be part of the project, would have an exit at the traffic signal at West Ruritan Road. Ms. Goodlatte advised that the benefit of allowing this development to tie into the other parcel is that access to the traffic light could benefit the entire development. She advised that she is speaking without the ability to say what someone else may do but this is one of the reasons why the unconditional rezoning was requested so that the petitioner would not be tied to a particular concept plan but rather would have the ability to find the right design that would work for both properties. Supervisor Flora inquired about the access to the west of Valley Gateway Boulevard entering onto Route 460 and whether this is going to be right turn in and right turn out only. Ms. Goodlatte responded in the affirmative as this is suggested by the traffic impact study. Supervisor Flora inquired if the other parcel was tied to the overall development, would there be any chance that the access would be eliminated. Ms. Goodlatte responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Church asked Ms. Goodlatte to point out the two traffic signals on the map. Ms. Goodlatte advised that there is an existing traffic light located at West Ruritan Road and the other traffic light which has been approved for the intersection of 634 July 25, 2006 Valley Gateway Boulevard and Challenger Avenue would serve this development, Integrity Windows, the shell building and whatever may be developed on the adjoining parcel. She advised that VDOT requires the second traffic light for this development and that the County wanted to install a light at this intersection for the benefit of Integrity Windows; however, the requirements for a traffic signal could not be met with the single development. Supervisor Wray inquired about the parcel that has not been acquired and if the detention pond would handle storm water management for that site. Ms. GoodlaUe advised that the detention pond was not designed for that site because it was not owned by the developer of the Valley Gateway project. She advised that engineering would need to be done for the storm water management on that site to work with the rest of the development, but it is early enough in the development that this would be one of the elements of cooperation with the co-developer. She reported that this property is owned by individuals and is not owned by Fralin & Waldron which owns the property that Kahn has contracted to purchase. She advised that this parcel has never been part of the Valley Gateway Park. There were no citizens present to speak on this item. Supervisor Altizer advised that at the community meeting citizens expressed comments regarding the traffic on Route 460 and Carson Road being used as a cut-through to get to Vinton, Wal-Mart and other places. He would like to see something done about Carson Road because it is curvy and has a one-lane bridge. He July 25, 2006 635 advised that he thought the storm water management problem was going to be enhanced by the detention pond and he would like for the Community Development Department to find ways to manage the storm water which comes through the Vinton and Hollins Magisterial Districts creating problems. He advised that the majority of the water comes under Route 460 which is a County problem that will need to be addressed at some time. He advised that rezoning the site from industrial to commercial make sense because you would not want an industry located right at the back of commercial establishments. He advised that a traffic signal is needed and if the other parcel on the lower end of West Ruritan Road develops, even though there is nothing finalized, there could be two access points at a traffic signal which would eliminate the entrance in the center. He advised that he felt that commercial zoning would be less intrusive to the citizens who live on the back side of this development. Supervisor Flora advised that Route 460 is rapidly developing into an intense commercial area, and the rezoning of this piece of property is appropriate. He advised that to be able to control development along Route 460 is important and it would help to eliminate as many access points on Route 460 as possible. He advised that he feels the rezoning to C-2 is the highest and best use for the property and is appropriate and he would support it. Supervisor Altizer asked the developer's representative to come forward and inquired if the petitioner was in agreement with the proffers as submitted at this meeting. Mr. Temple, representing Kahn Development, responded in the affirmative. 636 July 25, 2006 Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the ordinance with the proffers dated July 25, 2006. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None ORDINANCE 072506-8 TO REZONE 17.24 ACRES FROM 11-C, INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS, TO C2C, GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAIL SALES FACILITY LOCATED AT THE 3900 BLOCK OF CHALLENGER AVENUE NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF VALLEY GATEWAY BOULEVARD (TAX MAP NO. 50.01-1-5.5), VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT UPON THE APPLICATION OF KAHN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 27, 2006, and the second reading and public hearing were held July 25, 2006; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on July 10, 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 17.24 acres, as described herein, and located at the 3900 block of Challenger Avenue near the intersection of Valley Gateway Boulevard (Tax Map Number 50.01-1-5.5) in the Vinton Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of 11-C, Industrial District with conditions, to the zoning classification of C2C, General Commercial District with conditions. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Kahn Development Company, Inc. 3. That a portion of this property was included in the 1989 rezoning upon a petition by the Industrial Development Authority of a 105 acre parcel from residential to industrial, at which time the following conditions were placed on the property; which conditions are now being REMOVED: a. The property will not include permitted uses for: i. Manufacture of pottery and figurines or other similar ceramic products: ii. Veterinary hospital and commercial kennels with exterior runs and yards: iii. Outside flea markets, unless a special exception has been granted by July 25, 2006 637 the Board of Supervisors. b. That all locational signage (Sec. 21-93{D)) will be aesthetically pleasing and be not more than forty (40) square feet in sign face and no more than eight (8) feet in height. Outdoor advertising signs (billboards) will be prohibited. c. That all utilities will be underground. d. That there will be no on-street parking. e. That there will be sufficient truck loading spaces designed for each building site, as necessary. f. That the Petitioner will evaluate the drainage situation for the subject tracts and implement a design for drainage facilities to either retain or detain the two (2) year storm (as required by Roanoke County) and the retention or detention for a ten (10) year storm. g. That primary access to the property will be limited to Route 460. h. Building placement and parking will be designed to not impede the future widening of one additional lane along Routes 460 and 758. i. Should out-parcels be subdivided along Route 460 frontage (Parcel A), access will be provided via an internal road network plan utilizing the existing median cut on Route 460. j. Type E (Option 2) buffer and screening and requirements will be provided between Parcel "A" and single-family residences. All Roanoke County screening and buffering requirements will be implemented as specific development occurs. k. Existing oak trees on Parcel "A" will be preserved to the extent allowing for feasible development of the subject parcel. I. All internal thoroughfares will be designed and constructed to VDOT standards for future dedication. m. Dust mitigation controls will be implemented during site excavation activities. n. The developer will cooperate with the Roanoke County Utility Department to provide necessary utility easements{s) for a sanitary sewer submain along Route 758 (Carson Road) at a mutually agreed upon location. 4. 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) Before a certificate of occupancy can be issued for any building constructed along the southern border of the property, a row of staggered evergreen trees will be installed along said southern border at or near the top of the slope above the existing storm water detention facility. Trees will be spaced 12' on center and will extend from one end of the building or buildings along that border to the other end. It is estimated that this would result in the planting of no more than 45 trees. (2) Screening shall be provided for HV AC rooftop units on the building or buildings located along the southern border of the property in order to shield 638 July 25, 2006 those units from the view of residents situated directly behind the Integrity Windows facility. Screening shall be in the form of covers or parapet walls, and shall be a neutral color. 5. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point on Integrity Drive (formerly Woods Farm Road) being the northeastern corner of the hereinafter described parcel as shown on a Plat from Survey and Records showing Dedication of Right of Way and Easements for Integrity Drive from Tract "B", Tract "C" and Tract "0", Valley Gateway Business Park dated September 5, 2003, made by HSMM and recorded in the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's Office in Plat Book 27, page 23 (the "Plat"), then along Integrity Drive 914.14 feet to a point marking the southeastern corner of Tract "C" as shown on the Plat; then N. 67 degrees 24' 04" East 781.46' to a point marking the southwest corner of Tract "C" as shown on the Plat; thence N. 01 degrees 29' 30" West 1077.57' to a point marking the northwestern corner of Tract "C" as shown on the Plat; thence N 83 degrees 52' 32" East 783.75' to the point of beginning, being Tract "C" containing 17.2432 Acres as shown on the Plat. 6. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance with the proffers dated July 25, 2006, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Church: He thanked Mr. Covey, Mr. Moneir, and the staff of the Community Development Department for their assistance to citizens regarding their concerns about storm water management. Supervisor Wrav: (1) He advised that he is frequently contacted by citizens who are concerned about delays in the removal of dead animals from the roads during a weekend or holiday. He requested that Mr. Hodge determine if the County could coordinate with the state to improve the situation. Mr. Hodge advised that staff July 25, 2006 639 will review this issue and report back at the next Board meeting. (2) He advised that he has received several calls from citizens regarding the street light policy. He advised that it has been some time since the policy was reviewed and requested a work session. Mr. Hodge advised that since the Board already has a number of work sessions scheduled, he would suggest having a work session in approximately two months. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Wray adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: ~~~~ Brenda J. olton, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board ~~O)W~~J Michael A. Wray -~~ Chairman 640 July 25, 2006 (This page left intentionally blank)