HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/26/2006 - Regular
September 26, 2006
757
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
September 26, 2006
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day atthe
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of September, 2006.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Wray called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call was
taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairman Michael A. Wray, Vice-Chairman Joseph P.
McNamara, Supervisors Michael W. Altizer, Joseph B.
“Butch” Church, Richard C. Flora
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County
Administrator; Dan O’Donnell, Assistant County
Administrator; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board; Teresa
Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by Pastor Peter Isenberg, New Hope Christian
Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
September 26, 2006
758
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Recognition of the Sheriff’s Office for receiving re-accreditation
by the American Correctional Association
Chairman Wray recognized the following representatives from the Sheriff’s
Office: Sheriff Gerald Holt; Captain Barry Tayloe; Sargeant Tim Baker; Sergeant Paul
Kiser; Lieutenant Jim Dorton; Lieutenant Greg Winston; Deputy Denise Likens;
Sargeant Brian Keenum; Karen Hough; and Kelly Laux.
IN RE: BRIEFINGS
1. Briefing regarding the gypsy moth program. (John M. Chambliss,
Assistant County Administrator; Jon Vest, Extension Agent –
Virginia Cooperative Extension)
Mr. Chambliss reported that in June 2006, Supervisor McNamara, Mr.
Hodge and he met with residents in the Bent Mountain area where defoliation had
occurred rapidly in the early summer. Larry Nichols, a representative from the State of
Virginia, was also present at that meeting to provide information regarding the available
programs. At that time, Mr. Nichols recommended that the County hire a Gypsy Moth
Coordinator to assist with egg mass counts and the related documentation and
applications to the State. Mr. Chambliss stated that the Board was advised in July 2006
that the Federal budget had not yet been approved and that it appeared that funds
would not be available as they had in the past to cover 50% of the program costs. He
stated that staff has communicated with our senators and congressmen requesting their
September 26, 2006
759
support for funding; however we will need to wait until a budget is adopted before we
will have answers to these questions.
Mr. Chambliss advised that the County has hired Bob Grace as Gypsy
Moth Coordinator. He indicated that Mr. Grace is familiar with the application process
and related deadlines to apply for funding. In addition, Mr. Grace is meeting with
residents in the affected areas to begin counting the egg masses, which is the basis for
filing the application with the State. Mr. Grace will also be providing educational
information to residents and property owners regarding actions they may take on their
own to address the gypsy moth problem.
Mr. Vest stated that two public meetings will be held to communicate
information to the public. The first meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 4 at
6:00 p.m. at the Bent Mountain Fire Station. It is anticipated that a second meeting will
be held the following week. Mr. Vest indicated that these public meetings will coincide
with the application process and will demonstrate that the County has been proactive in
addressing this situation.
Mr. Chambliss reported that the County has been added to the list of
gypsy moth quarantined areas. This designation is significant for the following reasons:
(1) It attempts to mitigate the artificial movement of egg masses by means such as
grocery products or logging materials; and (2) It assists in qualifying localities for federal
funding assistance, if available. Mr. Chambliss stated that the County has taken a
proactive stance in hiring a coordinator to assist with the process and to educate the
September 26, 2006
760
public. He advised that spraying will occur in the spring for areas that qualify due to
significant egg mass counts. He stated that individual property owners can take action
to minimize any long-term effects if they are located in areas that do not qualify for
spraying.
Supervisor McNamara requested an update on the status of funding in the
federal budget. Mr. Chambliss reported that the President has indicated that he does
not support funding for this program; however, there may be funding available under the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) that could be re-directed for this
program. He stated that in the past, federal monies have been administered through
the State which coordinates the program. This allows for economies of scale in
grouping localities which will receive spraying treatments. Mr. Chambliss advised that
staff will continue with the required steps so that we will be prepared if funding becomes
available. He stated that if funding is not available, the County will work with other
localities to address the issue.
Supervisor Wray inquired if this will have an effect on Christmas tree
farms. Mr. Vest responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Wray requested an
explanation of the quarantine status and any funds that may be available as
compensation for losses that occur as a result of the quarantine. Mr. Vest advised that
being placed in a quarantine status establishes that Roanoke County will have a survey
and inspection process over the various forestry and logging operations (timber,
Christmas trees, pulp mills, etc.). He stated that affected companies will be made
September 26, 2006
761
aware of the requirements, the inspection process, and what will be required for them to
comply. He advised that it is an effort to maintain or reduce the possibility of
transferring egg masses outside of Roanoke County in order to limit the further spread.
With respect to funding, Mr. Vest stated that the County will advise companies and
homeowners how they can be proactive in addressing the problem if federal funds do
not become available.
In response to an inquiry from Supervisor Wray, Mr. Vest advised that the
quarantine status is all or none and it is currently in place. Mr. Vest stated that during
the inspection process, logs will be individually turned and thoroughly inspected to
ensure removal of the egg masses before they are transported out of the area. He
again reminded citizens that a community meeting will be held on October 4 at 6:00
p.m. at the Bent Mountain Fire Station.
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
Supervisor Church moved to approve the first readings and set the second
readings and public hearings for October 24, 2006. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
September 26, 2006
762
1. First reading of an ordinance to rezone 4.494 acres from R-1, Low
Density Residential, to C-2, General Commercial, in order to
construct a retail sales facility located at 3909 Challenger Avenue
and 3911 Challenger Avenue, Vinton Magisterial District, upon the
petition of The Rebkee Company.
2. First reading of an ordinance to review proposed water and sewer
line extensions to Explore Park per section 15.2-2232 of the Code of
Virginia for consistency with the adopted Community Plan, located at
3900 Rutrough Road, Vinton Magisterial District, upon the petition of
Virginia Living Histories, Inc.
3. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to
operate a commercial indoor sports and recreation facility on 1.53
acres located at 7525 Hitech Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon
the petition of Laura Quarles.
4. First reading of an ordinance to rezone 4.1+ acres from AR,
Agricultural Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial, and
CVOD, Clearbrook Village Overlay District, and to obtain a special
use permit to operate a retail sales establishment with gross floor
area greater than 50,000 square feet, garden center, and minor
automobile repair facility on 41+ acres, located in the 5200 block of
Franklin Road, Stable Road, Clearbrook Lane, Singing Hills Road,
September 26, 2006
763
and Sunset Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition
of Holrob Investments, LLC.
5. First reading of an ordinance to rezone 24.46 acres from R-1, Low
Density Residential, to R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential,
in order to construct multi-family dwellings at a maximum density of
5.15 dwelling units per acre located at 4800 Keagy Road, Windsor
Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Hidden Valley Villas,
LLC.
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Second reading of an ordinance authorizing the acquisition of
certain real estate from Len Deshano and Dorothy Deshano
consisting of approximately 8.9 acres for future County use,
Hollins Magisterial District. (Anne Marie Green, Director of
General Services)
O-092606-1
Ms. Green advised that this is the second reading of the ordinance and
there have been no substantial changes since the first reading. She noted that there
had previously been a question concerning the acreage, and she advised that it has
been determined to be 8.9 acres and this change has been made. Ms. Green indicated
that the Request for Proposals (RFP) has been received from the architectural and
engineering firms, and a committee is being established to review the design for the
September 26, 2006
764
new garage. She further advised that staff met with the Western Virginia Water
Authority (WVWA) and a second meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 28 to
discuss arrangements to build a garage that will serve both the County and the WVWA.
She stated that staff recommends approval of the ordinance.
There was no discussion regarding this item.
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 092606-1 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF
CERTAIN REAL ESTATE FROM LEN DESHANO AND DOROTHY
DESHANO CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 8 ACRES (TAX MAP
NO. 38.16-1-7) FOR FUTURE COUNTY USE, HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the
acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the
first reading of this ordinance was held on September 12, 2006, and the second reading
was held on September 26, 2006.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the acquisition of 8 acres of real estate (Tax Map No. 38.16-1-7)
located off John Richardson Road and Hershberger Road owned by Len DeShano and
Dorothy DeShano for the sum of Four Hundred Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($415,000) is
hereby authorized and approved.
2. That an additional sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) is hereby
appropriated to pay ancillary costs of this transaction including a Phase 1 environmental
study and geotechnical work, surveying costs, title insurance and other closing costs.
3. That funds were previously appropriated into the Garage Account in the
Major County Capital Fund to pay all of the costs of this acquisition.
4. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrator are
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of
September 26, 2006
765
Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of this
real estate, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
1. Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals (Fire Code
Board of Appeals)
Chairman Wray advised that the four-year term of Richard L. Williams will
expire on October 24, 2006. He indicated that Mr. Williams is unable to serve an
additional term, and that staff is working to obtain nominees to fill this vacancy.
2. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee
(Appointed by District)
Chairman Wray advised that the one-year term of Jason B. Perdue,
Hollins District, expired on August 31, 2006.
3. Economic Development Authority
Chairman Wray advised that the four-year terms of Craig W. Sharp and
Allan Robinson, Jr. will expire on September 26, 2006.
4. Grievance Panel
Chairman Wray advised that the three-year terms of Beth Anderson and
Jim Garlow, Alternate Members, will expire on October 28, 2006. He stated that Ms.
Anderson and Mr. Garlow have indicated that they are willing to serve an additional
September 26, 2006
766
term, and he stated that confirmation of these appointments has been added to the
consent agenda.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
R-092606-2; R-092606-2.c
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 092606-2 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
September 26, 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 –September 12, 2006
2. Request from the Police Department to accept a United States Department of
Justice grant in the amount of $21,677
3. Request from the Community Development Department to accept a Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation grant in the amount of $148,000
for the Mudlick Creek urban stream restoration at Garst Mill Park
4. Resolution amending and readopting guidelines for the implementation of the
Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002
5. Request to accept and appropriate reimbursement in the amount of
$32,909.28 for time/resources as part of the 800MHz rebanding project
6. Confirmation of committee appointments
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:
September 26, 2006
767
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 092606-2.c AMENDING AND READOPTING
GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PUBLIC-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, on April 25, 2006, the Board adopted Resolution 042506-3b
amending and readopting the PPEA Guidelines; 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 amendments to the Guidelines for the
Implementation of the Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002
as amended.
1. That the Guidelines are hereby amended as follows:
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 § 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 by
following the procedures under subdivision 11 of Section 2.2-3705.6.
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
September 26, 2006
768
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 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.
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 Accept and Consider Unsolicited Proposal; 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.
September 26, 2006
769
3. a. If the County chooses to accept an unsolicited proposal for conceptual-
phase consideration, within 10 working days after acceptance of such
proposal, 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 World 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) 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 § 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.
4. Once the negotiation of a comprehensive agreement under VIII of these
Guidelines is complete, but before a comprehensive agreement is entered
into, the County shall make available the proposed agreement for public
inspection at least 7 days before any proposed action by the Board of
Supervisors.
B. Initial Review by the County at the Conceptual Stage (Part 1)
September 26, 2006
770
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.
Section 1.01 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. Once the negotiation of a comprehensive
agreement under VIII of these Guidelines is complete, but before a comprehensive
agreement is entered into, the County shall make available the proposed agreement for
public inspection at least 7 days before any proposed action by the Board of
Supervisors.
The scope of the comprehensive agreement shall include but not be limited to:
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;
September 26, 2006
771
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.
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;
September 26, 2006
772
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 play 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.
2. That this Resolution and these amendments shall be in full force and
effect from and after the date of their adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Flora moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
September 26, 2006
773
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Future Capital Projects
5. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for
the month ended August 31, 2006
6. Public Safety Center Building Project Budget Report
7. Public Safety Center Building Project Change Order Report
8. Proclamations signed by the Chairman
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 3:35 p.m., Supervisor Wray moved to go into closed meeting following
the work session pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (30) discussion of
the award of a public contract involving the expenditure of public funds and discussion
of the terms or scope of such contract with the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority,
where discussion in open session would adversely effect the bargaining position or
negotiating strategy of the County. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
The closed meeting was held from 3:50 p.m. until 4:30 p.m.
September 26, 2006
774
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to present initial findings with respect to the Parks,
Recreation and Tourism Master Plan. (Pete Haislip, Director of
Parks, Recreation, and Tourism; Leon Younger, PROS Consulting)
The work session was held from 4:35 p.m. until 6:05 p.m. The following
Parks, Recreation, and Tourism (PR&T) Department staff were in attendance: Pete
Haislip, Director; Marcus Ordonez, Assistant Director of Recreation; and Mark
Courtright, Assistant Director of Parks. Representatives from the Parks, Recreation and
Tourism Advisory Commission who attended the meeting included: Tim Guilliams, Jerry
Williams, Paul Bailey, Lee Blair, Jack Griffith, and David Watt. Also attending were
Maurice Law and Bob Halpin, English Construction Company.
Mr. Haislip advised that this is the first of two work sessions to present
draft recommendations for the PR&T 10-Year Master Plan. He stated that community
input into the Master Plan was received in the following ways: stakeholder meetings,
community meetings, focus groups, and the citizen survey.
Mr. Younger reported that this is a 10-year plan that will focus on priorities
for the future development of the County’s PR&T Department. He stated that a work
session is scheduled for October 10 and at that time, recommendations will be made
regarding core programs, funding sources, and policy changes that would help manage
the organization.
September 26, 2006
775
Mr. Younger advised that facility standards define the services, facilities,
and amenities based on population density. They identify the type and location of
needed recreation facilities and guide the development of the CIP. He reviewed facility
standards for indoor facilities, park land, and park amenities and identified the surplus or
deficit in each area. He stated that the key issues identified in the Master Plan study
include the following: lack of indoor recreation space; shortage of aquatic facilities; teen
centers needed; need for additional greenways and community trails; park land needed
for passive recreation; and a facility to pursue and maintain sports marketing initiatives.
Mr. Younger stated that based on the community input process, the
following recreation space needs have been identified: indoor leisure pool; indoor
fitness and recreation; outdoor swimming; indoor basketball/volleyball; indoor senior
center; and teen center. The top program needs which were identified include: adult
fitness and wellness programs; water fitness programs; youth learn to swim programs;
youth summer camps; birthday parties; adult art dance; and youth fitness and wellness.
Mr. Younger indicated that the recommendation for Roanoke County is to develop an
indoor center that is approximately 83,571 total square feet.
Mr. Younger advised that two possible locations were examined which
included Valley Pointe in North County and the Taylor Tract in South County. The
analysis was based on a 20-minute drive time and the recommended site was deemed
to be Valley Pointe because it will serve the highest number of County residents, will
serve a larger overall market, is more accessible and visible from two major interstates,
September 26, 2006
776
and could serve as an anchor for the new North County business park. He reported
that the estimated capital cost of the center is $19.8 million.
Mr. Younger reviewed the preliminary pricing structure for residents and
non-residents which includes a variety of options such as daily admission rates, 10
punch passes, annual passes, summer season passes, and non-primetime annual
passes. Mr. Younger advised that 80% of the revenues will come from season and
monthly pass holders. He stated that the center is projected to recover approximately
100% of all operating costs.
Mr. Younger advised that greenways and trails were a high priority for
County citizens. Recommendations include the following: connect existing greenways;
build trails to connect community facilities; develop loop trails within existing parks that
connect to neighborhoods; and develop equestrian trails where appropriate. He
indicated that it is recommended that the County coordinate and work with the Roanoke
Valley Greenway Commission and other valley governments to help develop the
Roanoke River greenway. This should include identification of easements and rights-of-
way for acquisition; participation in the development of funding strategies for right-of-
way acquisition and construction; obtaining corporate support, grants, local, federal and
state funding; and connecting greenways/trails within the valley greenway network. Mr.
Haislip stated that staff used a two-pronged approach: identification of internal County
loop trails over which the County already has control, as well as working with the
Greenway Commission to acquire rights-of-way and easements for completion of the
September 26, 2006
777
Roanoke River greenway trail. He stated that currently, nine County parks have eight
miles of trail. Roanoke County has identified seven additional parks with the capacity to
add nine additional miles of trails.
Mr. Younger presented the following recommendations for land
acquisition: acquire land for passive use parks; priority has been identified for
community parks (10-40 acre parcels); use facility standards to determine location and
type of parcels to acquire; the goal is to acquire 300 acres over the next 10 years.
Mr. Younger stated that with respect to a sports complex, the citizen input
process indicated the following: citizens understand the value of sports marketing and
the facilities to support it; they support a signature facility to attract national, state, and
regional tournaments; the center would be an economic impact tool for the community;
and it will create a revenue producing facility. It was recommended that a
baseball/softball complex be developed with five fields containing 300’ fence distances.
Each field would have the capability to adjust to 200’ distance through the use of
portable sports fencing. The complex will focus on key park amenities that make
tournament play attractive and visitors comfortable. Mr. Younger stated that the Taylor
Tract, several privately owned sites, and existing County parks were evaluated as
possible locations for this facility. The recommended site is Green Hill Park for the
following reasons: the County owns the land; lower cost of development; accessibility
to I-81, restaurants, hotels, and the Moyer complex; existing infrastructure; will serve
local community sports needs; natural setting with a controlled site; popular venue for
September 26, 2006
778
current tournaments; and potential for expansion. The sports complex has a projected
cost recovery rate of 59% to 60%; including the annual capital maintenance fund, cost
recovery is projected at 48% to 50%.
In response to an inquiry from Supervisor McNamara, Mr. Haislip advised
that the projected operating loss for the sports complex does not take into consideration
the $78,000 per year currently being spent; if this is taken into consideration, it will bring
the net loss to approximately $4,000 per year. Supervisor McNamara advised that the
sports complex seems like it would have a proven payback and would satisfy needs for
residents and tourists. He noted that he would like to see additional information
regarding the proposed plans for greenways and trails in light of the fact that this ranked
highest on the survey responses of citizens. Mr. Haislip advised that the Greenway
Commission is in the process of updating their Master Plan and more detailed data will
be presented to the Board once this process is complete.
Supervisor Flora voiced support for the multi-generational center concept
and inquired if the region is large enough to support two such facilities. Mr. Younger
advised that there is also a need for a facility that would serve the residents in the
southern portion of Roanoke County. Supervisor Flora voiced support for pursuing
greenways and trails on land where the property is already owned and development can
proceed.
There was general discussion regarding competition with private
businesses that provide this type of service, and Mr. Younger stated that the target
September 26, 2006
779
market for facilities such as the YMCA and the Roanoke Athletic Club/Botetourt Athletic
Club is different from the market a public facility would serve.
Supervisor Altizer stated that the multi-generational facility and greenways
are not mutually exclusive options; they can move forward hand-in-hand. He noted,
however, that the multi-generational center will have the greatest impact across the
board and will address numerous needs identified in the citizen survey. Members of the
PR&T Advisory Commission voiced support for the multi-generational center.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
R-092606-3
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, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 092606-3 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
September 26, 2006
780
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: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
Chairman Wray recognized Taylor Early, Boy Scout Troop 221, who was
present at the meeting. Also attending was John Early, his father.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Continued until November 14, 2006, at the request of the
petitioner. Second reading of an ordinance to obtain a special
use permit for the construction of a mini-warehouse facility on
14.559 acres located at 5627 Williamson Road and Florist Road,
Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Wayne Fralin.
Chairman Wray advised that this item has been continued until November
14, 2006, at the request of the petitioner.
2. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 8.829 acres from R-1,
Low Density Residential District, to PRD, Planned Residential
Development District, for the development of a residential
community called Summer Hill located at 5815 Bent Mountain
Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Qwiz
September 26, 2006
781
Construction and Investments, LLC. (Philip Thompson, Deputy
Director of Planning)
O-092606-4
Mr. Thompson advised that Qwiz Construction and Investments, LLC, is
requesting to rezone approximately 8.8 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to
PRD, Planned Residential Development, to develop a 10-lot residential subdivision
called Summer Hill. An existing home on the property would be incorporated into the
subdivision and approximately 25% of the property would be dedicated as open space.
He reported that an existing 10 foot paved driveway would be widened to 20 feet with 3
foot shoulders and would be privately maintained. Grades on the private road are
approximately 16% with a small section of the roadway at a 19% grade. The Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) has stated concerns regarding sight distance at
the Route 221 entrance and regarding the future plans for realigning Ran Lynn Drive
with Cotton Hill Road.
Mr. Thompson stated that the slopes on the property range from 0% to
more than 50% with the majority of the site having slopes between 30% and 50%. The
surrounding zoning is R-1, Low Density Residential, and AR, Agricultural Residential.
He advised that the surrounding land uses are single family homes and the Community
Plan future land use map designates this property as rural village. The proposal meets
several objectives of the Community Plan with respect to reducing the number of
driveways fronting public roads, attempting to preserve natural resources as buffers,
September 26, 2006
782
and clustering homes; however, it does not meet the open space requirement of 50%
and exceeds the rural housing density guidelines of one house per acre for the rural
village designation.
Mr. Thompson stated that a community meeting was held on August 21 at
the Roanoke County Administration Center (RCAC) and 30 citizens attended. The
concerns expressed at the meeting included increased traffic, viewshed protection,
slope development and stability, coordination with the VDOT project, and increased
development along Route 221. He advised that the Planning Commission held a public
hearing on September 5 and several citizens spoke in opposition to the petition citing
concerns regarding ridge-top development, increased traffic, viewshed, impact on
infrastructure, and development along Route 221. The Planning Commission had
questions regarding private roads, steep slopes, entrance at Route 221, fire response,
traffic, open space and the VDOT road improvement project. Mr. Thompson stated that
the Planning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning request with a vote of 5-
0.
Jacob Quesenberry advised that he is a manager representing Qwiz
Construction. He stated that the rezoning to a PRD will allow the proposed subdivision
to be built in a responsible manner by preserving open space and minimizing the
environmental impacts. He indicated that based on the recommendation of County staff
and the Planning Commission, the request for the rezoning was submitted to allow
specific conditions and proffers to be placed on the development and the private road.
September 26, 2006
783
He stated that the PRD was proposed in order to protect the steep slopes on the
property as well as provide a buffer for neighboring properties and adjacent public
roads. By widening the existing driveways, they can minimize the amount of land
disturbance created by building the road. Mr. Quesenberry indicated that their
development strategy entails minimizing any unnecessary land disturbance and
preservation of the natural landscape and ridgelines. He stated that construction of a
public road to serve the development would result in clearing over half the parcels for
road construction; however, the private road standard proposed for this development
would minimize the amount of earth work and disturbance. Upgrading the existing
driveway entrance to VDOT commercial entrance standards would improve the already
ample sight distance and provide a centralized access point to Bent Mountain Road and
Route 221.
Mr. Quesenberry reported that the Planning Commission voted to deny
the rezoning request and he stated that in light of their prior recommendation to submit
the petition to allow for the placement of proffers and conditions on the development,
this ruling seems suspect. He indicated that traffic was a significant concern voiced by
citizens at the community meeting and public hearing; however, the traffic issue does
not stem from this proposed development. He indicated that he feels that these
concerns result from other pending projects and the current challenges. Mr.
Quesenberry stated that The Hampshire development currently under construction on
Cotton Hill Road contains 44 new lots for single family homes; Old Mill Plantation,
September 26, 2006
784
currently under construction behind Back Creek Elementary School, will be comprised
of 145 lots for single family homes. He stated that these two developments alone will
generate more than 1,890 vehicle trips per day, not to mention the additional traffic that
will be generated when Boone Homes develops a 56-acre parcel they have purchased
on Ran Lynn Drive. Mr. Quesenberry advised that his proposed development has a
maximum of 90 additional vehicle trips per day. He stated that he feels the Planning
Commission is making Qwiz Construction, a small and responsible developer, bear the
burden of what is happening with the larger developments that have already been
approved and are under construction. He advised that the Planning Commission stated
that they feel the proposed development does not fit with their view and intent of a PRD.
He stated that if this is the case, then Roanoke County needs to revise the PRD zoning
ordinance because Summer Hill meets the requirements set forth in the existing
ordinance. Mr. Quesenberry stated that the Planning Commission’s actions can be
construed as being complicit in the taking of the property without compensation and
limitation of rights. He asked that the Board evaluate the request based on its merit and
the benefits it will offer, compared with the alternative of constructing a public road on
the property. He stated that a by-right subdivision under the current R-1 zoning would
greatly increase the amount of land disturbance and development costs unnecessarily.
Supervisor Wray questioned what arrangement would be made for trash
collection. Mr. Quesenberry responded that the cans will be collected internally,
September 26, 2006
785
possibly as a responsibility of the homeowner’s association, and placed along Route
221 for collection.
Supervisor Altizer inquired about the length of the proposed roadway. Mr.
Quesenberry advised that it is approximately 900 feet. In response to an inquiry from
Supervisor Altizer regarding homeowner’s association dues, Mr. Quesenberry stated
that an initial budget has not yet been established; however, he advised that the
homeowner’s association would be responsible for maintaining the private road and any
open space areas.
Supervisor Altizer inquired about the projected cost for constructing the
roadway. Mr. Quesenberry indicated that he did not have this information available, and
indicated that the main objective will be to utilize as much as possible of the existing 10
foot roadway to attempt to keep the costs under $100,000.
Supervisor McNamara requested that Mr. Thompson indicate the
proposed VDOT realignment of Ran Lynn Drive and Cotton Hill Road on the map
provided by the petitioner. Mr. Thompson complied. Supervisor McNamara question
why VDOT has not tried to secure right of ways for the realignment. Mr. Thompson
indicated that at this time, funding is not available in the VDOT budget for this purpose.
Supervisor Church requested that staff elaborate on the fact that the
petition does not meet the open space requirements for the rural village designation.
Mr. Thompson advised that the rural village land use designation in the Community Plan
states that 50% of the development site should be open space; however, the pending
September 26, 2006
786
proposal includes 25% dedicated open space with some additional private land
containing conservation easements. He indicated that the maximum amount of open
space with this petition is 35%, which falls short of the 50% requirement.
Supervisor Church noted that the petitioner referenced the existing traffic
concerns and he inquired if this is accurate, would this development, if approved, add to
the existing problems. Mr. Thompson responded affirmatively. Supervisor Church
inquired if this would then revert to the VDOT Six-Year Plan for needed improvements.
Mr. Thompson responded affirmatively.
Supervisor Altizer questioned how stormwater management will be
addressed. Mr. Thompson advised that the petitioner is using the existing drainage
along the driveway coming down to Route 221. Mr. Quesenberry stated that although
nothing has been designed at this time, it is envisioned that underground storage will be
constructed that will allow water to be slowly released into the existing drainage ditches.
Mr. Quesenberry advised that with respect to questions that were raised
earlier, Qwiz Construction first purchased the property in October 2004 and at that time
no funding was included in the VDOT Six-Year Plan for the Route 221 project to realign
Ran Lynn Drive and Cotton Hill Road. Funding for this project continues to be delayed,
and he advised that they have contacted VDOT in an attempt to obtain information
regarding project specifics, timelines, etc; however, he has been unable to obtain
relevant information. With respect to the Community Plan designation of rural village,
he stated that he feels this is in conflict with the existing zoning ordinance. He indicated
September 26, 2006
787
that his project proposes that a minimum of 25% of the site be designated as common
open space and a minimum of an additional 10% will be conservation/recreation
easements on individual lots. While the community plan encourages 50% open space,
the by-right zoning allows for development densities as high as five units per acre. He
advised that the density for his proposed development is 1.1 unit per acre. He stated
that the rural village designation appears to be better suited for areas currently
designated as agricultural where the by-right zoning densities are less than those
allowed in R-1 zoning.
There were no citizens present to speak on this item.
Supervisor McNamara stated that the petitioner has made good steps in
attempting to minimize the impact on the hillside. He advised that the reason the Board
allows the use of private roads is for the reasons stated, namely to minimize the
alteration of the geography in order to accommodate development. However at the
same time, the site contains a 30% to 50% grade where five units per acre, or even one
unit per acre, would not be allowed. He stated that the County will be facing a lot of
problems down the road with this type of development. He stated that he does not like
grades of 19% and advised that this illustrates the difficulty in developing this site.
Further, he noted that there will likely be a realignment of Route 221 at some future date
that will go through the middle of this site.
September 26, 2006
788
Supervisor McNamara moved to deny approval of the ordinance. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
Supervisor Wray stated that he did not support this petition due to traffic
and sight distance concerns
.
DENIAL OF ORDINANCE 092606-4 TO REZONE 8.829 ACRES FROM
R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO PRD, PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY CALLED SUMMER HILL LOCATED
AT 5815 BENT MOUNTAIN ROAD, WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 22, 2006, and
the second reading and public hearing were held September 26, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on September 5, 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 McNamara to deny approval of the ordinance, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
3. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 1.26 acres from R-1,
Low Density Residential, to C-1, Office, in order to construct two
general office buildings located at 2404 Electric Road, Windsor
Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of R. Fralin
September 26, 2006
789
Development Corporation. (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of
Planning)
O-092606-5
Mr. Thompson reported that the rezoning is being requested in order to
construct two office buildings on Electric Road. The proposed project includes the
construction of two, two-story office buildings, each approximately 8,000 square feet.
Parking, landscaping, screening, lighting, signage and stormwater management
associated with the office development would also be associated with the project. He
advised that there is an existing home on the property that will be removed or
demolished, and access to the site will continue via a driveway in the Wentworth Road
right-of-way. The existing driveway would be improved with a new commercial entrance
being constructed that will connect to Electric Road. Mr. Thompson indicated that the
project is served by public water and sewer, and underground stormwater detention is
being proposed. The surrounding zoning is R-1, Low Density Residential, and C-1,
Office. He stated that the surrounding land uses include single family homes and
offices, and the Community Plan future land use map designates this property as
neighborhood conservation and transition. The proposal is consistent with the transition
designation and with the design features of the Route 419 Frontage Development Plan
which has been incorporated into the County’s Community Plan.
Mr. Thompson reported that a community meeting was held on August 29
at the RCAC with eight citizens in attendance. The issues that were raised dealt with
September 26, 2006
790
site and building design, screening, buffering, stormwater management, and site
access. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 5 and there
were no citizens to speak at the public hearing. The Planning Commission had
questions regarding retaining walls, safety fencing, and lighting. The Planning
Commission recommended approval of the request by a vote of 5-0 with the following
proffers: (1) The site will be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan
dated 8-29-06, titled "Wentworth Office Park" prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc.
(2) The building will be developed in general conformance with the architectural
rendering dated 8-29-06, titled ''Wentworth Office Park" prepared by Balzer and
Associates, Inc. (3) All parking lot lighting shall be post top fixtures no more than I2 feet
tall with fully concealed fixtures and arranged so glare is not cast onto the adjoining
properties. (4) The dumpster shall be serviced between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. and in
accordance with the Roanoke County noise ordinance. (5) The proposed fencing shall
be a minimum of 6 feet tall and the side of the fence facing the adjoining properties shall
be finished. (6) The proposed sign shall be a monument style sign and shall be
designed to generally match the architecture and materials of the buildings. (7) A
minimum of 6 street trees and 35 shrubs will be planted along the Route 419 right-of-
way. (8) A safety fence shall be installed along the perimeter of the retaining wall.
Sean Horne, Balzer and Associates, stated that he is present on behalf of
Robert Fralin and David Bullington who are the developers of the property. He stated
that the requested rezoning of the property will provide an attractive and appropriate
September 26, 2006
791
office development located along a major arterial road (Route 419). He indicated that it
provides a good buffer and transition between the existing adjoining residential property
and the commercial property along Route 419. Mr. Horne advised that there will be two
buildings in individual office parks with extensive buffering, landscaping, and fencing,
around the property; the buildings will be designed around the existing contours of the
land. He outlined details regarding access to the site, buffering and fencing, and he
noted that community meetings have been held to address comments and concerns of
the surrounding community. He also displayed cross-sections of the site that showed
the grades for each building.
Supervisor Church referenced Proffer #5 and requested an explanation
regarding one side of the fence being finished. Mr. Horne advised that in some
instances, the unfinished side of the fence faces the neighboring property and he
indicated that this proffer states that the finished side of the fence will face the
neighboring property and in fact, a double-sided fence will likely be utilized so that it is
attractive from both sides. Supervisor Church inquired if the petitioner would be willing
to finish both sides of the fence. Mr. Horne replied that the original proffer stated that no
framing members would be exposed, and he indicated that this proffer was re-worded
by staff. He advised that the petitioner is willing to finish both sides of the fence.
Supervisor Church stated that he would feel more comfortable if both sides were
finished, and Mr. Horne indicated that this would not be a problem.
September 26, 2006
792
Supervisor Altizer requested information regarding the proposed
underground stormwater detention. Mr. Horne noted the location of the stormwater
detention area on the map.
Mr. Fralin and Mr. Bullington were present and introduced themselves as
the developers of the property. Mr. Fralin stated that he builds houses and Mr.
Bullington is a real estate lawyer, and he advised that they are partnering together on
the construction of this office park. He indicated that they would like a residential feel to
the development with a commercial aspect. He noted that Craig Balzer, Balzer and
Associates, was present at the meeting and has handled the design of the office park.
Mr. Bullington stated that his purpose in partnering with Mr. Fralin is to have ownership
of the building where he practices real estate law. He indicated that he currently leases
space on Starkey Road, but he would like to make this location a long-term home for his
practice.
Supervisor Wray requested information regarding the traffic exiting onto
Wentworth Road, the number of parking spaces required, and landscaping. Mr. Horne
advised that 57 spaces are required and they have provided for 58 spaces. He pointed
out the access onto Wentworth Road on the map, and stated that there will be a
standard VDOT entrance onto Route 419. With respect to lighting, Mr. Horne stated
that it will be a maximum of 12 feet and he noted that samples of the proposed lighting
were available for review. He indicated that the proposed lights are fully shielded and
have glass panels which can be interchanged with a solid shade to allow for any side
September 26, 2006
793
that is facing residential property to be replaced with a solid lens that blocks light in that
direction. In response to an inquiry from Supervisor Wray, Mr. Horne stated that the
bulb is fully concealed inside the fixture and the fixture also contains side shields.
There were no citizens present to speak on this item.
Supervisor McNamara stated that he is familiar with the site and he voiced
support for the proposed layout. He noted that it had been his intention to discuss some
minor concerns with respect to signage with the petitioner prior to the public hearing and
he indicated that he took responsibility for not having done so. He questioned what the
petitioner plans to do with respect to signage on the buildings. Mr. Fralin stated that
they are proposing signage that is architecturally in conformance with the building
design. He also noted that there had been discussions regarding lighting, and advised
that it is not imperative that the buildings be lit 24 hours per day. Mr. Horne advised that
the signage that has been discussed is a monument style that will be in keeping with the
architectural design of the building. Mr. Fralin stated that any signage placed directly on
the buildings would probably be based on the wishes of the tenants. Supervisor
McNamara noted that there is a lot of road frontage for these buildings which would
provide a significant amount of square footage available for signage based on the
County’s criteria for signs; he indicated that he would have concerns if multiple signs
were placed under the windows where tenants are located. He also stated that he
would prefer not to see “Building A” or “Building B” placed on the buildings. Mr. Horne
advised that the buildings are labeled on the site plan as “Building A” and “Building B”
September 26, 2006
794
for reference purposes, and they will be referenced by a street number on the door or
building. Supervisor McNamara voiced support for the monument sign which he feels is
more in keeping with the design. He noted that it is too late to amend the proffers, but
he asked that the petitioner take the concerns he has outlined into consideration. Mr.
Fralin advised that this request is acceptable.
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
Supervisor Altizer voiced support for the building design which contains
underground detention for stormwater.
Supervisor Wray stated that the underground detention area is a positive,
and he expressed appreciation to the petitioner for seeking input from the citizens
before presenting the petition for consideration by the Board.
ORDINANCE 092606-5 TO REZONE 1.26 ACRES FROM R-1 LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO C-1, OFFICE DISTRICT TO
CONSTRUCT TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS AT 2404 ELECTRIC ROAD,
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 22, 2006, and
the second reading and public hearing were held September 26, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on September 5, 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:
September 26, 2006
795
1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing
1.26 acre, as described herein, and located at 2404 Electric Road, (Tax Map Number
76.11-01-17.00) in the Low Density Residential District to the zoning classification C-1,
Office District, with conditions.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of R. Fralin Development
Corporation.
3. That the owner of the property, William Herbert Liles, II, has voluntarily
proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, hereby accepts:
i. The site will be developed in substantial conformance with the
Site Plan dated 8-29-06, titled “Wentworth Office Park”, prepared by Balzer and
Associates, Inc.
ii. The building will be developed in general conformance with the
Architectural Rendering dated 8-29-06, titled “Wentworth Office Park”, prepared
by Balzer and Associates, Inc.
iii. All parking lot lighting shall be post top fixtures no more than
12’ tall with fully concealed fixtures and arranged so glare is not cast onto the
adjoining properties.
iv. The dumpster shall be serviced between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.
and in accordance with the Roanoke County Noise Ordinance.
v. The proposed fencing shall be a minimum of 6 feet tall and the
side of the fence facing the adjoining properties shall be finished.
vi. The proposed sign shall be a monument style sign and shall be
designed to generally match the architecture and materials of the buildings.
vii. A minimum of 6 street trees and 35 shrubs will be planted along
the Rt. 419 Right of Way.
viii. A safety fence shall be installed along the perimeter of the
retaining wall.
4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
Beginning at a point at the southeasterly intersection of the right-of-way line of
Electric Road (VA Route 419) and the right-of-way line of Wentworth Road, being the
northwesterly corner of a 1.26 acres tract; thence continuing along the southerly right-
of-way line of Wentworth Road N 85º 04’00” E, 310.65 feet to a point at the most
northerly corner of Lot 4, Sugar Loaf East, Section 1, Block 1 (Plat Book 7, Page 20);
thence leaving said right–of-way line and continuing along the westerly line of said Lot 4
S 13º18’ 00” E. 131.00 feet to a point at the northeasterly corner of Lot 3 of said Sugar
Loaf East; thence along the northerly line of Lot 3, Lot 2 & Lot 1 of said Sugar Loaf East
S 64º 33’ 00” W, 286.64 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of Electric Road;
thence leaving the line of Sugar Loaf East and continuing along the easterly right-of-way
line of Electric Road N 33º 41’ 00” W, 27.85 feet to a point; thence N 18º 02’ 00” W,
211.16 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 1.26 acres as shown on survey entitled
“Plat Showing Property of William Herbert Liles, II & Rose Crocker Liles” dated May 4,
September 26, 2006
796
1989 recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia in
Deed Book 1304, Page 1364.
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
4. Second reading of an ordinance to vacate, quit-claim and release
a 15’ width drainage easement and a variable width waterline
easement dedicated in Plat Book 28, Page 128, and to accept
dedication of a new 15’ width drainage easement and new
variable width waterline easement over property currently owned
by R. Fralin Development Corporation located in the Hanging
Rock Terrace Subdivision, Catawba Magisterial District. (Tarek
Moneir, Deputy Director of Development Services)
O-092606-6
Mr. Moneir advised that this ordinance will vacate a parcel of land used as
a drainage utility easement in the Hanging Rock Terrace Subdivision. He stated that
the petitioner is also requesting that the County accept a similar 15’ width drainage and
utility easement. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Army Corps of
Engineers have requested the petitioner to realign the roadway to ensure the protection
September 26, 2006
797
of an adjacent creek. He noted that the realignment of the roadway requires the
realignment of the public utilities.
Mr. Moneir reported that staff from the County and the Western Virginia
Water Authority (WVWA) have reviewed and support the request. He noted that the
petitioner will bear all costs associated with the vacation of this easement.
Sean Horn, Balzer and Associates, was present at the meeting to
represent the petitioner. He stated that he was available to answer any questions.
Supervisor Church inquired if there have been any changes since the first
reading. Mr. Moneir advised that there have been no changes.
There were no citizens present to speak on this item.
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 092606-6 TO VACATE, QUIT-CLAIM AND RELEASE A
FIFTEEN FOOT WIDTH DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND A VARIABLE
WIDTH WATERLINE EASEMENT DEDICATED IN PLAT BOOK 28,
PAGE 128, AND TO ACCEPT DEDICATION OF A NEW FIFTEEN FOOT
WIDTH DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND NEW VARIABLE WIDTH
WATERLINE EASEMENT OVER PROPERTY CURRENTLY OWNED BY
R. FRALIN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (TAX MAP NUMBERS
035.00-00-01-27.01 AND 35.04-07-15.00), LOCATED IN HANGING
ROCK TERRANCE SUBDIVISION IN THE CATAWBA 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 28, page 128, R. Fralin
Development Corporation, as owner of the property designated on the Roanoke County
September 26, 2006
798
Land Records as Tax Map No. 35.04-07-15.00, conveyed to the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, a fifteen (15’) foot width drainage easement and a variable
width waterline easement as depicted on Exhibits “A-1” & “A-2”, “EASEMENT
VACATION SKETCH FOR R. FRALIN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SHOWING
THE VACATION OF PUBLIC WATER LINE EASEMENTS AND A 15’ PUBLIC
DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON “REVISED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA”
HANGING ROCK TERRACE, SECTION 2, PLAT BOOK 30, PAGE 12O, CATAWBA
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA”, prepared by Balzer and
Associates, dated August 30, 2006.
WHEREAS, R. Fralin Development Corporation is the current owner of Section 1
and Section 2, Hanging Rock Terrace Subdivision, and the subject property is located
adjacent to Conners Run, a dedicated public right-of-way in the Catawba Magisterial
District, and is now designated upon the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map
Nos. 35.04-07-15 and 35.00-01-27; and,
WHEREAS, the Petitioner, R. Fralin Development Corporation, as the current
owner of these properties, has requested that the Board of Supervisors vacate, quit-
claim and release the above-described existing fifteen (15’) foot width drainage
easement and variable width waterline easement and accept the dedication of a new
fifteen (15’) foot width drainage easement and variable width waterline easement (as
shown on Exhibits A-1, A-2, B-1 and B-2 attached hereto); and,
WHEREAS, this vacation will not involve any cost to the County and the affected
County departments have raised no objection; and,
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 September 12, 2006, and a
second reading and public hearing were held on September 26, 2006.
2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of
Roanoke County, the subject real estate (portions of public drainage easement and
waterline easement) 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 (15’) foot width drainage easement and variable width
waterline easement across property of R. Fralin Development Corporation in Section 1
and Section 2, Hanging Rock Terrace subdivision, located adjacent to Conners Run
right-of-way in the Catawba Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, designated
“EXISTING 15’ PUBLIC D.E. AS SHOWN ON ‘HANGING ROCK TERRACE’
as
SECTION 1, P.B. 28, PG.128 TO BE VACATED and EXISTING 13.5 PUBLIC W.L.E.
& PORTION OF 20’ PUBLIC W.L.E. AS SHOWN ON ‘HANGING ROCK TERRACE’
SECTION 1, P.B. 28, PG. 128, TO BE VACATED”
on Exhibits A-1 & A-2 attached
hereto, is hereby authorized and approved.
September 26, 2006
799
4. That, subject to the following conditions, the acceptance of a new fifteen
(15’) foot drainage easement and variable width water line easement across property of
R. Fralin Development Corporation, Sections 1 & 2, Hanging Rock Terrace subdivision,
located adjacent to Conners Run public right-of-way in the Catawba Magisterial District
“NEW 15’ PUBLIC D.E. AS SHOWN ON
of the County of Roanoke, designated as
‘HANGING ROCK TERRACE’ SECTION 2, P.B. 30, PG. 120 and NEW 13.5 PUBLIC
W.L.E. & PORTION OF 20’ PUBLIC W.L.E. AS SHOWN ON ‘HANGING ROCK
TERRACE’ SECTION 2, P.B. 30, PG 120”
on Exhibits B-1 & B-2, attached hereto, is
hereby authorized and approved.
5. That Petitioner, R. Fralin Development Corporation shall be responsible
for all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to, all costs
associated with the establishment of an easements, 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, and dedication of new
easements, 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 Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray
NAYS: None
5. Second reading of an ordinance amending Section 5-29. “Same-
Impoundment” of Article II. “Dogs, Cats and Other Animals” of
Chapter 5. “Animals and Fowl” to increase the daily impoundment
fee charged by Roanoke County from $8.75 to $10.00 per day per
animal and to increase the pickup fee for the first offense from
$20.00 to $25.00. (John M. Chambliss, Assistant County
Administrator)
O-092606-7
September 26, 2006
800
Mr. Chambliss advised that as reported during the first reading of this
ordinance, the Roanoke Valley Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA)
provides the animal shelter services that support the law enforcement efforts for the City
of Roanoke, Roanoke County, the Town of Vinton, and Botetourt County. Over the
course of the past few years as the operating expenses of the SPCA have increased,
the per diem costs for boarding animals have increased from approximately $8.75 to
$10.00 per day. He indicated that the other localities have already increased their
boarding fees, which are the costs that are passed on to the owners when the animal is
retrieved.
Mr. Chambliss advised that the second portion of the ordinance addresses
the fee for the first pickup that is paid by an animal’s owner when the animal is retrieved
from the shelter. The request is to increase the fee from $20 to $25 in order to conform
to the fees currently charged by Roanoke City and the Town of Vinton. He noted that
the fees for subsequent pickups will remain the same and are in line with the fees
charged by the other localities. Mr. Chambliss stated that the County currently pays
approximately $198,000 per year in expenses related to the animal shelter, and the cost
is increasing for the current fiscal year to approximately $212,000. He noted that the
additional income generated by the fee increase will help to offset this increase in costs.
There were no citizens present to speak on this item.
Supervisor Wray inquired if there had been any changes since the first
reading. Mr. Chambliss advised that the first reading was held on August 8; however,
September 26, 2006
801
the language for the increase in the first pickup fee was included in the board report but
not in the ordinance. He stated that this amendment was re-advertised in order to
communicate both of the fee changes, and this represents the only change since the
first reading. Supervisor Wray noted that this matter was discussed more extensively at
the first reading.
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 092606-7 AMENDING SECTION 5-29. “SAME-
IMPOUNDMENT” OF ARTICLE II. “DOGS, CATS AND OTHER
ANIMALS” OF CHAPTER 5. “ANIMALS AND FOWL” TO INCREASE
THE DAILY IMPOUNDMENT FEE CHARGED BY ROANOKE COUNTY
FROM $8.75 TO $10.00 PER DAY PER ANIMAL AND TO INCREASE
THE PICKUP FEE FOR THE FIRST OFFENSE FROM $20.00 TO $25.00
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,
Inc. provides housing, care, disposal, and adoption services for animals for several local
governments in the Roanoke Valley; and
WHEREAS, operating costs for the RVSPCA are offset by charging the
participating localities a per animal per diem fee to provide these services; and
WHEREAS, the RVSPCA has increased its fee from $8.75 to $10.00 per day per
animal causing a deficit in the amount budgeted by the Police Department to cover
costs associated with its use of the RVSPCA facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County as follows:
1. That Section 5-29. Same-Impoundment be, and hereby is, amended to
read and provide as follows:
Article II. Dogs, Cats and Other Animals.
Sec. 5-29. Same--Impoundment.
(a) It shall be the duty of the community service officer or other officer to cause any
dog found running at large in violation of section 5-28 or any dog or cat creating an
animal nuisance in the presence of the officer as defined by section 5-21 to be caught
September 26, 2006
802
and confined in the county animal shelter. Every reasonable effort shall be made on the
part of the community service officer or other officer to determine the ownership of an
animal so confined if the animal has an identifying collar, tag, license or tattooed
identification or electronic implant and to notify the owner of its whereabouts. Such
officer shall make a reasonable effort within forty-eight (48) hours of the animal's
confinement to notify any owner who may be readily identified of such confinement.
(b) A dog or cat or other domestic animal confined under this section or other lawful
authority may be claimed by the rightful owner after displaying proof of ownership, a
current dog or cat license and proof of current rabies inoculation of the animal. No dog
or cat shall be released to any person claiming ownership, unless such license and
proof have been displayed.
(c) An owner claiming his animal pursuant to subsection (b) above shall be required to
pay the actual expense incurred by the county in keeping the animal confined. Such
payment shall be made to the custodial officer at the time of the release of the animal. It
shall be the duty of the custodial officer to furnish the owner with a written receipt for
such payment, in a form and manner approved by the board of supervisors. Such officer
shall keep a carbon copy of all such receipts in a bound book, which shall be turned
over to the county treasurer when the book is filled and shall be subject to audit by
representatives of the board of supervisors whenever requested. In the event any
domestic animal confined at county expense is sold, an amount equal to the actual
expense incurred by the county in keeping the animal confined shall be deducted from
the sale proceeds as funds payable pursuant to this subsection. Any funds collected
pursuant to this subsection shall be remitted to the police department's animal
impoundment account. No payment made under this subsection shall relieve the owner
from prosecution for violating section 5-28.
(d) Any animal confined pursuant to this section shall be kept for a period of not less
than five (5) days, commencing on the day immediately following the day such animal is
initially confined, unless sooner claimed by its rightful owner or such owner has
surrendered all property rights in such animal, before it may be disposed of. Any animal
whose identity may be readily identified shall be kept for an additional period of five (5)
days or a total of ten (10) days, before it may be disposed of or delivered to an
individual for adoption and payment of all required fees.
(e) A pickup fee of twenty dollars ($20.00) twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for the first
offense, thirty-five dollars ($35.00) for the second offense, and fifty dollars ($50.00) for
the third offense shall be imposed in addition to the normal board fee of ten dollars
($10.00) eight and three quarters dollars ($8.75) per day when any dog or cat or
domestic animal is claimed by its owner or custodian. All such fees shall constitute a
civil debt owning to the county and may be enforced against such owner or custodian by
civil warrant, suit or action at law or other legal proceeding.
(f) Feral dogs or cats not bearing identification which exhibits behavior that poses a
risk of physical injury to any person confining the animal will be confined for a period of
September 26, 2006
803
not less than three (3) day before being euthanized in accordance with Section 3.1-
796.96 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage.
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
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Church: He stated that when rezoning issues come before the
Board, the decisions are not taken lightly. He indicated that the Board must evaluate
issues such as protection of slopes, ridgelines, etc., and he noted that it is a delicate
balance that must be maintained. He encouraged petitioners to work with surrounding
neighbors throughout the process to address concerns.
Supervisor Wray: (1) He requested that Mr. Hodge provide him with a
report regarding the complaint he received concerning trash collection in the early hours
of the morning. (2) He stated that last night he presented a proclamation from the City
of Salem, Roanoke County, and the Town of Vinton for Family Dinner Day. He
indicated that deserving children were recognized and the program regarding
communication was very beneficial. (3) He stated that on Sunday, October 1, he will be
presenting a proclamation declaring October 1 through 7 as Mental Illness Awareness
Week.
804
September 26, 2006
IN RE:
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Wray adjourned the meeting at 7:58 p.m., to Tuesday, October
10,2006 at 12:00 p.m. for the purpose of a joint meeting with the City of Roanoke and
the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission, 5204 Bernard Drive, SW, Roanoke,
Virginia, 4th floor training room
Submitted by:
fJb)OJJ aj~Afll
Diane S. Ctiilders, CMC
Clerk to the Board
Approved by:
,
~~ Q. lA).r.A>AJ
Michael A. Wray ~~ry
Chairman