Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/11/2004 - Regular May 11, 2004 359 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 May 11, 2004 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day atthe Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of May, 2004. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Flora called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard C. Flora, Vice-Chairman Michael W. Altizer, Supervisors Joseph McNamara, Michael A. Wray MEMBERS ABSENT: Supervisor Joseph B. “Butch” Church STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Dan O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk to the Board; Teresa Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by Dr. George Anderson, Second Presbyterian Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: REQUEST TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS May 11, 2004 360 Mr. Mahoney added an item to the closed meeting pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 A (3) discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real property for public purposes, namely, parks and recreation purposes. IN RE: PROCLAMATION, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1.Proclamation declaring the week of May 16 through 22, 2004 as Business Appreciation Week in the County of Roanoke Doug Chittum, Director of Economic Development, introduced Robert A. Archer, President of the Virginia Chamber of Commerce; Beth Doughty, Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce (RRCOC); Victor Ianello, Board member of the RRCOC; Debbie Kavitz, Salem-Roanoke County Chamber of Commerce; Joe Cundiff, President of the Salem-Roanoke County Chamber of Commerce; and Anthony Conner, President of the Vinton Chamber of Commerce. Chairman Flora presented proclamations to the representatives from the four Chambers of Commerce and Mr. Chittum for the Economic Development Department. Also present was Melinda Cox, County Economic Development Specialist. 2. Certificate of recognition to Allyson Fasnacht, Glenvar High School, for being named Co-Player of the Year for the Group A team by the Virginia High School Coaches Association Chairman Flora presented the certificate to Allyson Fasnacht who was accompanied by her mother. Also present were Curtis Hicks, Principal of Glenvar High School and Brian Harvey, Coach. May 11, 2004 361 IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING 1. Public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding proposed amendments to the fiscal year 2003-2004 budget in accordance with Section 15.2-2507, Code of Virginia. (John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator) Mr. Chambliss advised that the Code of Virginia requires a public hearing at any time that an appropriation of monies exceeds $500,000. He advised that there is a new business item before the Board requesting $1,820,000 to cover the current year expenses for the Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT) to administer the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA). $1,000,000 is revenue from the state for mandated cases which is approximately 56% of the costs and the $820,000 is the County’s match for mandated cases and expenses for non-mandated cases and co- pays. Mr. Chambliss advised that in 1992, the State implemented the CSA to become the funding source for youth with special needs and their families which had previously been funded by the schools, Juvenile Court, and Social Services. The plan uses a collaborative team process to consider the identified needs of the child including special education for the schools, foster care for Social Services, and youth with charges before the Juvenile Court to reduce duplicating or conflicting services and to seek cost effective means of educating or treating the child. As children with needs are identified, they are assigned a case manager who serves as the child’s advocate and May 11, 2004 362 presents the needs to the Family Assessment and Planning Team (FAPT). An attempt is made to place the child in the least restrictive environment and to accomplish this through the schools, home or community before going outside the community for a more expensive placement. A number of the children have behavioral or mental health issues and they try to deal with these on a non-residential basis through counseling or specialized treatments. However, in some situations, the child has to be placed in a residential treatment program where they can receive a multitude of services. Mr. Chambliss advised that the State’s intention was that the agencies would work together through this collaborative effort and not give counteracting treatments to young children. However, this effort has also identified more young people needing services and competition among the facilities has increased the costs instead of decreasing them as anticipated. For some of the residential placements, the costs are approaching $200,000 per year per child while services provided in the home or community cost much less. Mr. Chambliss referred to a listing which was distributed with the agenda of the 146 cases involving youths who were treated through the end of March, 2004. This listing shows the type of treatment programs and the analyzed costs. He requested that the public hearing be held at this time. There were no citizens present to speak at the public hearing. May 11, 2004 363 IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to appropriate funding in the amount of $1,820,000 for the Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT) to cover the cost of mandated services for youth with special needs. (John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator) A-051104-1 Mr. Chambliss advised that $1,820,000 is being requested for funding for the CPMT with $1,000,000 as the State’s share for mandated cases and $820,000 from the unappropriated balance for the County’s matching share. The majority of children served in the County come through the school system and Social Services Program. Most of those referred by Court Services are funded by other sources such as Crime Control grants and specialized grants. When children are referred to the CPMT, the appropriateness of the treatment is reviewed, utilization reviews are completed and every attempt is made to retain the child in the community and home to minimize the costs. Funds for fiscal year 2004-2005 have been included in the budget but the monies being requested at this time are necessary to complete the current fiscal year. Supervisor McNamara advised that the Board has allocated a larger amount for this item in the 2005 budget, and he did not recall an additional appropriation being made in past years. Mr. Chambliss advised that an additional appropriation is necessary this year because of several cases where the costs were above $100,000. He further explained that in previous years, some funds were available to start the new May 11, 2004 364 fiscal year because some of the children did not stay in their placements the entire year. There has also been an increase in the number of young people who have been placed in the foster care program, particularly in the therapeutic foster care program. He referred to a statement made several months ago by Dr. McCrary, Director of Social Services, that there were 35 young children in foster care ten years ago and today, there are over 105. Three years ago, a supplemental appropriation was requested but since then, they have been able to break even. Supervisor Wray advised that for mandated cases, the state pays 56% and the County 34% and inquired if Mr. Chambliss thought these percentages would change. Mr. Chambliss advised that this is calculated by a formula that has been in place since the early 1990’s and he does not see it changing. Supervisor Wray asked if this was sufficient to handle the cases. Mr. Chambliss advised that most of the cases are mandated and they have $125,000 for non-mandated cases which is essentially a 50/50 match. If they choose to treat non-mandated cases above that level, the local share is 100%. In non-mandated cases, the County uses the support enforcement guidelines that the State has established for parental co-payments and attempts to get the families involved in the treatment process. Supervisor Flora advised that the Board has appropriated approximately $3,000,000 for the CPMT program which is part of the CSA established by former Governor Wilder in the 1980’s. The comment was made at that time that this program will become a “gorilla” in the future and Supervisor Flora advised that the gorilla has May 11, 2004 365 grown up. It is very expensive to place children in programs where there are very few facilities nationwide that can handle the treatment. Since the County provides premier services, some people move to the County to take advantage of these programs. He inquired if the $1,000,000 in the 2005 budget is intended to replace the $820,000 being requested at this time. Mr. Chambliss advised that the $820,000 is the increased level for the current year and the $1,000,000 included an $180,000 increase for next fiscal year in anticipation that the case load will continue to increase. Supervisor Flora stated that the $1,000,000 is funding for the next fiscal year and the $820,000 from the unappropriated fund balance will only be replaced if there is money left over at the end of the year. Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the staff recommendation (authorize the appropriation of $1,820,000 in new money to the CPMT for FY 2003–04. Of this amount, $1,000,000 would be new State revenues and $820,000 would be taken from the unappropriated balance of the general fund for the local share). The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of ordinance granting tax exemption of property owned by The Salvation Army and used for its charitable, May 11, 2004 366 educational, and recreational purposes on a non-profit basis. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) Mr. Mahoney advised that this is the first reading of an ordinance to grant a real estate tax exemption to The Salvation Army for a thrift store at 5511 Williamson Road. He reported that a representative of The Salvation Army was present and available to respond to questions. The second reading and public hearing are scheduled for May 25. Mr. Mahoney advised that several years ago, the State constitution was amended to change the procedures for tax exempt requests. In the past, the Board would hold a public hearing, adopt a resolution of support and forward it to the General Assembly (GA) which would then adopt a specific legislative action to grant the tax exemption in one of several designated areas. As a result of the State constitutional amendment and legislation adopted by the 2003 and 2004 GA, that power has been delegated to local governments. If the governing body desires to grant an application for tax exemption, a public hearing has to be held and an ordinance adopted after considering the factors set out in Section 58.1-3651 B, a copy of which Mr. Mahoney provided to the Board with the agenda. Mr. Mahoney advised that he had also provided the Board with a draft ordinance, a map showing the location of the thrift store, and correspondence from The Salvation Army responding to staff’s inquiries. He also attached some information from the Commissioner of the Revenue’s office, which monitors this type of activity, and May 11, 2004 367 information from the Internal Revenue Service for federal income tax purposes. Instead of including the full independent auditor’s report, he included the one-page clean audit report. He advised that if the Board wishes to see the full audit, he will make it available Mr. Mahoney advised that there is an agreement in the draft ordinance whereby the organization would pay a service fee in lieu of real estate taxes. Beginning in 1986 or 1987, previous Boards have required the applicant for a tax exemption to agree to pay a service fee that would equal 20% of their real estate taxes. The legislation that authorized service fees is fairly restrictive and there are some tax exempt organizations where a service fee cannot be imposed, such as churches or property owned by the state. The County entered into the first service fee agreements with Friendship Manor, McVitty Homes, and Richfields, and later entered into service fee agreements with Lutheran Family Services, DePaul Family Services, Edinburg Square Foundation, and Shenandoah Homes. The total assessed value of these properties is approximately $6.6 million; the real estate taxes would be approximately $746,000; and the service fees generate revenues of $49,000 annually. The assessed value of the property at 5511 Williamson Road is approximately $374,000 and the real estate taxes are $4,192. Mr. Mahoney advised that he was explaining the situation completely since this is a new procedure for the County and there are some policy implications that the Board may want to consider. Since the Board has the responsibility now for decisions on these applications, he inquired how they wanted to handle future May 11, 2004 368 applications and if they want to continue the service fee approach on a case-by-case basis. Supervisor McNamara inquired if the GA routinely granted tax exemption status to 501(c) companies. Mr. Mahoney advised that the GA granted tax exemptions by designations only when the local governing body adopted a resolution of support. There are a few instances where the local government would not adopt a resolution but the GA adopted legislation declaring tax exempt status. Although an organization has to have 501(c) status to qualify for a tax exemption, there were many instances where local governments would not support the application and tax exempt status was not granted. Supervisor Altizer inquired whether the tax exemption is granted for a specific location or does it include other locations for the same organization. Mr. Mahoney advised that the exemption is location specific and if an organization moved or sold their property, they would have to go through the process again. However, he is not aware of any situation where an organization with multiple facilities was granted a tax exemption for one location and not another. Supervisor Wray inquired if the exemption is granted and the organization leases their property or changes the use of the site, would it affect the status of the tax exemption. Mr. Mahoney advised that the sub-lease or lease would have to be consistent with the charitable purposes and intent of the organization and if it is a non- qualifying entity, the organization could lose the tax exemption for that portion leased or May 11, 2004 369 possibly the entire facility. He advised that there has been a precedent set in the law for allocating the tax exemption on a proportionate basis if a non-qualifying entity uses a portion of the property. One of the key inquiries in the application is whether any portion of the property will be leased to a non-qualifying entity. Supervisor McNamara advised that if an organization owns their building, they can apply for tax exempt status. If they rent from another organization, they cannot apply for tax exempt status for that portion of the rental. Mr. Mahoney agreed that this was correct. Mr. Mahoney advised that staff has discussed this with The Salvation Army for several months and staff is recommending that the tax exempt status be made effective as of January 1, 2005. Supervisor McNamara requested that Mr. Mahoney and staff draft a general policy with guidelines for the Board to be consistent regarding future requests for tax exempt status. He suggested that the draft policy be discussed at a work session. Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for May 25, 2004. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church May 11, 2004 370 IN RE: APPOINTMENTS 1. Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission Chairman Flora announced that pursuant to the closed session held on April 27, 2004, Mr. Dean Martin’s name has been placed on the consent agenda for confirmation at today’s meeting. Mr. Martin will complete the unexpired three-year term of the late Mr. Eddy, and serve an additional three-year term. His term will expire June . 30, 2007. Supervisor Wray introduced Mr. Martin who was present 2. Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Supervisor Flora confirmed with the Clerk that the CAC is still an active committee. 3. Total Action Against Poverty (TAP) Board of Directors Supervisor Flora requested that the Clerk contact Ms. Stoke to determine if she would be willing to serve an additional two-year term. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-051104-2; R-051104-2.b; R-051104-2.c Supervisor Wray moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church May 11, 2004 371 RESOLUTION 051104-2 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM K - 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 May 11, 2004, designated as Item K - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 5, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes – April 21 and 27, 2004 2. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission, Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission, and Social Services Advisory Board 3. Request to accept Meadow Springs Circle, a portion of Spring Grove Drive and a portion of Fountain Lane into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System 4. Request to accept Montague Way into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System 5. Acceptance of the donation of certain real estate for entrance improvements to the Vinton Business Center, Vinton Magisterial District, from Richard Limroth and Kelly B. Limroth 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 Wray to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church RESOLUTION 051104-2.b REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF MEADOW SPRINGS CIRCLE, A PORTION OF SPRING GROVE DRIVE, AND A PORTION OF FOUNTAIN LANE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM. WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Addition Form SR-5(A), fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and May 11, 2004 372 WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999 for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §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 resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Vote Moved by: Supervisor Wray Seconded by None Required Yeas: Supervisors, McNamara, Wray, Altizer, Flora Nays: None Absent: Supervisor Church RESOLUTION 051104-2.c REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF MONTAGUE WAY INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the street described on the attached Addition Form SR-5(A), fully incorporated herein by reference are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999 for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department’s Subdivision Street Requirements, and May 11, 2004 373 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 resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Moved by: Supervisor Wray Seconded by None Required Yeas: Supervisors, McNamara, Wray, Altizer, Flora Nays: None Absent: Supervisor Church IN RE: REQUEST FOR WORK SESSION Supervisor McNamara requested that staff schedule a work session in June or July to provide the Board with an update on Explore Park. Supervisor Flora suggested that the work session could be held at Explore Park to get a hands-on visual perspective. IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Wray moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Future Capital Projects May 11, 2004 374 IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor McNamara: (1) He advised that beginning in the fall 2004, the meals tax in Roanoke County will be 9 cents per dollar. He asked that staff do a comparison of meals tax by state to determine if Virginia is unique or if this amount of tax is common across the country. (2) He advised that when the State budget data is complete, the County will receive additional revenues and asked how the County and school budgets will be changed. Mr. Hodge advised that the information on the school budget will be released on Wednesday, May 12, and he expects a report from the School Superintendent on Monday, May 17. On the government side, there will be a $30,000 increase in 599 money for the Police Department. Staff will meet with the schools next week to determine the impact on revenue allocation. He anticipates that the final review and adoption of the budget will be at the June 8 Board meeting. Supervisor Flora: He advised that the School Board plans to have their recommendations on the budget by May 24. The Board of Supervisors may wish to meet with the School Board on May 25. Supervisor Wray : (1) He requested that the two public meetings to be held by VDOT on the I-73 corridor change be advertised on RVTV Channel 3. These meetings will be held on June 1 at Holiday Inn Tanglewood, and June 2 at the Clarion Airport Hotel. Both meetings are from 4:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. for citizens to express their opinions. May 11, 2004 375 SupervisorAltizer: (1) He advised that the recent employee picnic at Explore Park was a great undertaking and was well organized. He hopes that it will be become an annual event and commended all of the employees who organized the event. IN RE: WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session to review Slate Hill rezoning information. (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator; Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) The work session was held from 4:13 p.m. until 5:20 p.m. County staff present included Elmer Hodge, County Administrator; Janet Scheid, Chief Planner; Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; Aaron Hofberg, GIS Technician; and Anthony Ford, Traffic Engineer. Mr. Hodge advised that Hunter Smith, petitioner, and Richard Jones, architect, were present. He introduced staff from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) which included Richard Caywood, Salem District Engineer; Jeff Echols, Salem Resident Engineer; and Susan Hammond, Assistant Resident Engineer. Mr. Hodge advised that the Slate Hill project is not ready for rezoning or construction because there are too many unanswered questions, long-term impacts and negatives to the plan as proposed. The project should be delayed until all of the issues are well defined. He reminded those present that the issues will be the same for development under the current or proposed zoning and the same for residential as for commercial. Mr. Hodge advised that this project can work but changes will have to be May 11, 2004 376 made for it to succeed. He advised that the major issues involve transportation and slope and that Mr. Hofberg’s virtual tour and Mr. Ford’s power point presentation will illustrate staff concerns. He recommended that the Board defer action on the Slate Hill th project at the May 25 meeting until the developer addresses these issues. If that is not acceptable to the developer, his recommendation would be denial of the request for rezoning. Mr. Hofberg presented a virtual tour of the project. Mr. Ford made a power point presentation. He advised that the applicant indicated that staff had met on this project for years and he described the following timeline for staff work on this project which was begun in 2004: (1) February 19, 2004 – County staff initially met with applicant, Mattern & Craig, and VDOT; (2) March 29 – Traffic impact study submitted; many questions, April 12 met again to discuss; (3) April 16 – Revised study submitted; and (4) VDOT has addressed written comments (April 23); addressed by Mattern & Craig (May 4). Mr. Ford advised that the scope of the traffic study submitted included an access point on Route 419, which is referred to as the Rocking Chair entrance, and two access points on Route 220, the signal light at Valley Avenue and the southern Lowe’s entrance. He advised that according to a 2003 County Police Department report, Route 419 Electric Road is the #1 crash location in the County; that 17% of all crashes in the County are on 419; that 44% of the crashes on 419 are in the Ogden, Elm View, and Franklin Road area; and that 31% of the crashes on 419 occur between 3:00 p.m. and May 11, 2004 377 6:00 p.m. He indicated that staff would like to see documentation of the access agreement between the applicant and Lowe’s and that VDOT would have to re-examine Lowe’s access permit if the land use or type of access changed. He advised that the 1995 VDOT access permit letter does not say that access is approved but that access can be obtained for a single, proposed restaurant on 419. The 1995 letter is irrelevant because in 2004, there is more traffic on Route 419, and there will be more site- generated traffic from this much-larger development. Mr. Ford advised that there are concerns that the adjoining R3 zoned property behind Lowe’s,currently owned by Slate Hill, LLC, may have access to the internal private road that will be provided for the development. If there are plans to connect this property to the internal roadway, that information must be provided and trips generated by that property would have to be included in the current study unless there are proffers restricting access to the private roadway. Mr. Ford addressed issues in the traffic impact study submitted by Mattern & Craig which included trip generation numbers, level of service criteria for unsignalized intersections (i.e., Route 419 access points) and signalized intersections (i.e., Route 220 access points), installation of a signal on Electric Road, utilizing an existing signalized intersection (i.e., light at Wendy’s), and traffic mitigation measures. Mr. Ford advised that the County received a letter today from attorneys representing the owners of properties adjacent to Route 419 and in the vicinity of the May 11, 2004 378 zoning petition stating that their frontage road is a private easement and the applicant would not have access to the road. Mr. Hodge advised that staff is suggesting several proffers for this project based on the Clearbrook Overlay District zoning and these suggestions were sent to the petitioner today. Ms. Scheid advised that the Board referred this petition to staff for further review because they had specific concerns that were not addressed in the proffers already submitted by the petitioner. The Board had concerns about the building materials, access, location of building, slopes, retaining walls, landscaping, storm water management and site amenities. She advised that the part of the site that is zoned R3 and C1 are the areas that are being requested to be rezoned, and a portion of the site is currently zoned C2 and is not a part of the rezoning request. Any proffers would apply only to the R3 and C1 sections of the property. Ms. Scheid advised that the following draft proffers are being suggested by County staff: SLOPES 1. A geo-technical report from a certified geo-technical engineer shall be required to verify slope stability and stabilization methods, and design values for retaining structures. 2. A “slope maintenance bond” shall be required for a 10-year term to insure the continued safety and maintenance of all slopes, retaining walls and private roads. BUILDINGS 1. Height: Building height shall not exceed 45 feet (as measured per the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance) unless a minimum of 50% of the required parking for that building is underground. Then building height shall not exceed 60 feet. 2. Size: Building footprint shall not exceed 15,000 square feet. In addition, no building shall exceed the maximum size building used in the Traffic Impact Study by more than 10%. 3. Materials: Acceptable building finishes include brick, wood, vinyl or composite wood substitute, glass, stucco or exterior insulated finish system (EIFS), split-face colored concrete block, stone or cast stone. May 11, 2004 379 4. Roof: Articulated roofline on all sides of the building shall be required. Acceptable roof materials include standing seam metal, copper, composite slate tile or asphalt shingles. 5. Building Colors: Tan, brown, gray, beige, brick red ROAD 1. Curb and gutter shall be required for the road throughout the entire site. 2. Plant mix asphalt shall be required. 3. Roadway typical section shall be a minimum 11-foot travel lanes, with VDOT standard CG-6 curb and gutter, minimum 26-feet from curb to curb. Maximum road grade shall be 15%. There shall be no on-street parking allowed. 4. Minimum 5-foot wide sidewalks shall be installed on at least one side of all internal streets throughout the site providing access between buildings. ACCESS 1. Access from petitioner’s property to the private access road (tax map #77.20) in front of the Wendy’s restaurant shall be prohibited and blocked with a physical and/or landscaping barrier. 2. The property zoned R3 behind Lowe’s shall not be connected to the internal road system of the Slate Hill project. (Has not been included in the Traffic Impact Study). 3. Petitioner shall make all necessary improvements to Electric Road (Route 419), Valley Avenue and Franklin Road (Route 220) as required by the traffic impact study and by VDOT. RIDGELINE 1. No building height shall extend beyond the 1384 elevation mark and all building elevations shall be shown on the site plan. UTILITIES 1. All utilities shall be underground. 2. Where possible, all utilities shall share a common trench. RETAINING WALLS 1. Height: Maximum of 10 feet. 2. Distance in between walls: Minimum of 4 feet. 3. Color and Texture: Tan, brown, gray, beige. Walls shall be textured. 4. Landscaping: One medium size (5-10 feet @ maturity) shrub for every 10 feet of linear wall. Shrubs shall be a mix of deciduous and evergreen. Shrubs may be grouped together. 5. A Professional Engineer shall design all retaining walls. LANDSCAPING 1. A tree survey shall be required to delineate all remaining trees on the site. 2. No tree shall be removed until tree survey is approved and a site plan is approved. For each tree removed henceforth, there shall be a one-for-one replacement of trees. Minimum size of replacement trees is 2 1/2-inch caliper. May 11, 2004 380 3. Trees shall be planted along the private entrance road every 30 feet, minimum 2½- inch caliper, 50% native species. Flowering species that are street and urban conditions tolerant shall be utilized. SITE LIGHTING 1. No freestanding light pole, including fixture, shall be more than 22 feet above grade. All exterior lights, including security lighting, shall be down-lit or shielded so as not to direct glare onto adjoining streets or properties. The intensity at adjoining streets or properties shall not exceed 0.5-foot candles. 2. All street lighting shall be a decorative type of pole and fixture. SIGNAGE 1. No more than three (3) business signs shall be permitted for each business. 2. Restricted signs: The following signs shall be prohibited: Off-premise signs, portable signs, temporary signs, changeable copy signs, roof signs and pole signs. 3. Signage shall complement the buildings’ architectural style. Materials such as exposed standard concrete block, metal or brightly colored siding shall not be allowed. Colors shall be in the range acceptable for buildings. 4. All freestanding signs shall be monument type, shall not exceed 10 feet in height or 12 feet in width and signs shall be channel lit, ground lit or top lit with shielded lamps placed so as to not cast light onto the path of traffic or adjoining properties. 5. All signs shall be complemented, accented and enhanced by landscaping. PARKING 1. All parking in excess of Roanoke County standards shall be constructed of . pervious pavements. Gravel shall not be allowed STORM WATER MANAGEMENT 1. Only one outfall may discharge into the concrete culvert within the VDOT right-of- way. The outfall shall be through a level spreader and have a 25 foot riparian buffer as a separation between the discharge point and the concrete culvert. 2. All drainage ways shall be piped. No drainage ditches shall be permitted. 3. Detention Requirements: 10 year post development equal to or less than 2 year pre-development and 25 year post equal to or less than 2 year pre-development. The Board members agreed to ask Mr. Caywood for his comments. Mr. Caywood advised that VDOT takes no position on land use decisions. One critical assumption in the traffic study is that the traffic will split in the Lowe’s parking lot and citizens will use two entrances instead of one. They question if this is a valid assumption and if Lowe’s will allow that. The other key elements that are missing from May 11, 2004 381 the study are: (1) an analysis of the impact of the additional traffic on Route 419 S and Route 220 S and how traffic will move overall in the area; and (2) the ramp from 419 to 220 which makes it a very challenging area and no analysis has taken place. Until the key features such as what will actually be built, the road network and access points are determined, Mr. Caywood advised that VDOT cannot make any recommendations and they are far from the point where they could approve entrance permits. Another issue that was not addressed in the traffic study is that if there is a significant change in the existing access at Lowe’s, VDOT by code is permitted to re-examine that access permit. Supervisor Altizer inquired of Mr. Echols if this development and Lowe’s were being done at the same time, would the exits at Lowe’s be the same. Mr. Echols advised that when Lowe’s was being developed, the traffic study which included the City side of Route 220 where some commercial development was occurring, did forecast some roads on both sides of Route 220. It did not anticipate any development behind Lowe’s. Mr. Echols advised that some changes could have been made since Lowe’s had a certain amount of frontage to deal with in their development. The Route 419 corridor at Tanglewood and the Route 220 corridor from Route 419 to Hunting Hills are heavily traveled and both of the lights at Lowe’s and Hunting Hills Wal-Mart already have backup in the lanes. There are almost no points on Route 220 where access can be provided without creating more congestion. Supervisor Altizer inquired if Lowe’s would have to agree for the traffic to use the second Lowe’s exit to Route 220 as assumed in the traffic study. Mr. Caywood advised that the assumption in the traffic May 11, 2004 382 study is that traffic would divert through Lowe’s and make a right-turn only onto Route 220 instead of using the signal. This could be done if it is not prohibited by Lowe’s but VDOT questions if this is a valid assumption. Supervisor Altizer advised that this is another question that needs clarification. Mr. Hodge inquired of VDOT and County staff would the requirements for access or storm water management and slope requirements lessen if the petitioner moves forward with residential zoning. Mr. Caywood advised that from VDOT’s perspective, it is a traffic issue of vehicles per hour, whether residential or commercial and they would require road improvements regardless of zoning. Mr. Covey advised that the petitioner would have to comply with the County’s storm water management and soil and erosion control ordinances with any project. Supervisor Wray inquired about what will be required for access in and out of the project. Mr. Caywood advised that the developer is responsible for the design of the project and VDOT is responsible for analyzing that design and advising about the impact on traffic. Mr. Caywood advised that VDOT could respond to revisions in the traffic study within two weeks unless significant changes are included in the revisions. Supervisor Wray asked the petition for his comments if he desired to speak. Mr. Hunter Smith advised that they just received the suggested proffers and heard staff’s comments today. They have a number of people working on this project, they have accomplished a lot of the things discussed, and now that they know what information is needed, they will make it available. May 11, 2004 383 Supervisor Flora advised that a response from the petitioner would be th appropriate before the May 25 meeting. Mr. Hodge inquired if the information is not received and reviewed before the next Board meeting, would another work session be desirable since this is a significant project. Supervisor Flora advised that the decision to go forward or ask for a delay rests with the petitioner but he would not be opposed to another work session if necessary. 2. Work session to discuss the naming of the following Roanoke County facilities: The work session was held from 5:35 p.m. until 5:42 p.m. Mr. Hodge advised that at the last meeting, the Board requested a work session to consider naming two County buildings. a) Former Salem Office Supply Building (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services) Ms. Green advised that the former Salem Office Supply Building is currently being renovated by the County for use as office space for the Sheriff’s Office and the Court Services Unit, a division of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. She suggested the following names for the building: (1) Roanoke County Court Services Building, (2) Roanoke County Courthouse Office Building (3) Main Street Office Building and (4) Snyder Branch Creek Building for the creek which flows beneath the building. It was the consensus of the Board that the building be named “Roanoke County Court Services Building”. May 11, 2004 384 b) Driver training center (Ray Lavinder, Chief of Police) Chief Lavinder advised that the new Driver Training Center will open on June 17, 2004. This is a joint regional project between the County and Roanoke City Police Departments. Staff is recommending that the center be named the Laurel Mountain Police Driving Center. It was the consensus of the Board that the building be named “Laurel Mountain Police Driving Center”. c) Work session to discuss the potential participation of Roanoke County in the regional Grow America Fund. (Doug Chittum, Director of Economic Development) The work session was held from 5:42 p.m. until 5:50 p.m. Mr. Hodge advised that Wayne Strickland, Executive Director, Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission (RVARC), has been encouraging the County to participate in this small business loan program. He asked Mr. Chittum to review the program for the Board. Mr. Chittum advised that staff has reviewed this information. He reported that part of the regional economic development strategy is to provide more capital for businesses. The RVARC has been in discussions with the National Development Council (NDC), a forty-year old institution providing technical and consulting services to urban and rural areas, to form a regional loan program to assist local businesses with growth and expansion. The NDC would leverage the County’s requested $100,000 contribution to generate $400,000 in matching funds to be loaned to businesses. Staff would not be involved in the administration of the program in any way but the County May 11, 2004 385 would be responsible for a management fee. If all of the localities participate, the County’s share of the management fee per year would be $25,000 which is payable whether or not a loan is granted. Mr. Chittum advised that Roanoke City and Franklin County have decided to participate; the Town of Vinton is waiting to see what the County decides; the City of Salem has not made a commitment; and Botetourt County has declined to participate. It was the consensus of the Board that the County would not participate this year but the program could be considered for funding during the budget process next year. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING At 4:01 p.m., Supervisor McNamara moved to go into closed meeting followed by the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (30) discussion of the terms or scope of a public contract where discussion in open session would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the County, namely the Operating Agreement with the City of Roanoke and the Western Virginia Water Authority, and the Consent Order with the Department of Environmental Quality; and Section 2.2-3711 A (3) discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real property for public purposes, namely, parks and recreation purposes. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church May 11, 2004 386 The closed meeting was held from 5:52 p.m. until 6:31 p.m. IN RE: ABSENCE Supervisor McNamara left the closed meeting at 6:12 p.m. IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R-051104-3 At 6:31 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 Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisors Church, McNamara RESOLUTION 051104-3 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 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 Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None May 11, 2004 387 ABSENT: Supervisors Church, McNamara IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Flora moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:32 p.m. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote with Supervisors Church and McNamara absent. Submitted by: Approved by: ________________________ ________________________ Brenda J. Holton Richard C. Flora Deputy Clerk to the Board Chairman May 11, 2004 388 This page intentionally left blank.