HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/26/2019 - Regular
February 26, 2019
51
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of February 2019. Audio and video
recordings of this meeting will be held on file for a minimum of five (5) years in the office
of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
Before the meeting was called to order a moment of silence was
observed. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman North called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. The roll call was
taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Phil C. North; Supervisors George G. Assaid,
Martha B. Hooker, David F. Radford and P. Jason Peters
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Daniel R. O’Donnell, County Administrator; Richard
Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Rebecca Owens,
Assistant County Administrator; Peter Lubeck, Senior
Assistant County Attorney; Amy Whittaker, Public
Information Officer and Deborah C. Jacks, Chief Deputy
Clerk to the Board
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. Peter Lubeck, Senior Assistant County Attorney, asked the Board to
remove item I.5 - Resolution requesting acceptance of Leighburn Drive of Buckland
South into the Virginia Department of Transportation System be removed from the
agenda as the County has not received the necessary document. There were no
objections.
February 26, 2019
52
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Recognition of the Roanoke County Sheriff's Department for
receiving accreditation from the American Correctional
Association (ACA) and the Commission on Accreditation for
Corrections (Eric Orange, Sheriff)
Sheriff Orange provided an overview. Introduced Denise Ory, Deputy
Sheriff-Sergeant; Holly Wertz, Office Support Specialist; Lespia Goins, Lieutenant-Civil
Division and Corey Price, Assistant to the Professional Standards Unit.
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
1. The petition of Skyway Towers to obtain a Special Use Permit for
a broadcasting tower (cell tower) approximately 199 feet in height
in an AR, Agricultural/Residential, District on approximately 4.00
acres, located near the 6700 block of Split Oak Road, Cave Spring
Magisterial District
Supervisor Assaid’s motion to approve the first reading and set the public
hearing and second reading for March 26, 2019, was seconded by Supervisor Peters
and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisor Assaid, Hooker, Radford, Peters, North
NAYS: None
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance appropriating funds in the amount of $187,000 from
County Capital Reserves for fiscal year 2018-2019 for the purpose
of providing funding for the County Facilities Assessment
(Christopher R. Bever, Director of Management and Budget; Rob
Light, Director of General Services)
Mr. Bever outlined the request for ordinance. There was no discussion.
Supervisor Assaid’s motion to approve the first reading and set the public
hearing and second reading for March 12, 2019, was seconded by Supervisor Hooker
and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisor Assaid, Hooker, Radford, Peters, North
NAYS: None
February 26, 2019
53
2. Ordinance amending sections of the Roanoke County Zoning
Ordinance dealing with sign regulations (Philip Thompson, Acting
Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the request for ordinance. There was no
discussion.
Supervisor Peters’ motion to approve the first reading and set the public
hearing and second reading for March 12, 2019, was seconded by Supervisor Radford
and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisor Assaid, Hooker, Radford, Peters, North
NAYS: None
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 022619-1 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM I- CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for February
26, 2019, designated as Item I - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 7 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes – November 7, 2018
2. Confirmation of appointment to the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission
3. Resolution requesting acceptance of Arrowhead Trail into the Virginia
Department of Transportation System
4. Resolution requesting acceptance of Lawson Lane of Belmont Section I into
the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System
5. Resolution requesting acceptance of Leighburn Drive of Buckland South into
the Virginia Department of Transportation System
6. Resolution requesting acceptance of Matthew Drive, Adam Drive and Spring
Grove Drive of Edgefield Subdivision into the Virginia Department of
Transportation Secondary System
7. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Edwin R. "Randy" Leach, Commonwealth's Attorney,
upon his retirement after more than thirty-three (33) years of service
February 26, 2019
54
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution and with item 5 removed,
seconded by Supervisor Assaid, the motion carried by the following roll call and
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, Radford, Peters, North
NAYS: None
A-022619-1.a
RESOLUTION 022619-1.b REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
ARROWHEAD TRAIL INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached VDOT Form AM-4.3, 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 representative for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised this Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Virginia
Department of Transportation’s Subdivision Street Requirements; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to add the street(s) described on the attached Additions
Form AM-4.3 to the secondary system of State highways, pursuant to §33.2-705 of the
Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, after receiving
a copy of this resolution and all outstanding fees and documents required of the
developer, whichever occurs last in time; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this Resolution be
forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Assaid, the motion was carried by the following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, Radford, Peters, North
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 022619-1.c REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
LAWSON LANE OF BELMONT SECTION I INTO THE VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM
February 26, 2019
55
WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached VDOT Form AM-4.3, 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 representative for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised this Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Virginia
Department of Transportation’s Subdivision Street Requirements; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to add the street(s) described on the attached Additions
Form AM-4.3 to the secondary system of State highways, pursuant to §33.2-705 of the
Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, after receiving
a copy of this resolution and all outstanding fees and documents required of the
developer, whichever occurs last in time; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this Resolution be
forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Assaid, the motion was carried by the following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, Radford, Peters, North
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 022619-1.d REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
MATTHEW DRIVE, ADAM DRIVE AND SPRING GROVE DRIVE
OF EDGEFIELD SUBDIVISION INTO THE VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached VDOT Form AM-4.3, 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 representative for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised this Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Virginia
Department of Transportation’s Subdivision Street Requirements; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to add the street(s) described on the attached Additions
Form AM-4.3 to the secondary system of State highways, pursuant to §33.2-705 of the
Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, after receiving
a copy of this resolution and all outstanding fees and documents required of the
developer, whichever occurs last in time; and
February 26, 2019
56
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded
to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Assaid, the motion was carried by the following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, Radford, Peters, North
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 022619-2.e EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO EDWIN R. “RANDY” LEACH, COMMONWEALTH’S
ATTORNEY, UPON HIS RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN
THIRTY-THREE (33) YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Mr. Leach was employed by Roanoke County on April 15, 1985; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Leach retired on February 1, 2019, after thirty-three (33) years
and ten (10) months of devoted, faithful and expert service to Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, during Mr. Leach’s tenure he has served as Chief Assistant
Commonwealth’s Attorney, Senior Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney, Assistant
Commonwealth’s Attorney and Commonwealth’s Attorney has served with
professionalism and dedication in providing services to the citizens of Roanoke County;
and
WHEREAS, Mr. Leach through his employment with Roanoke County, has been
instrumental in improving the quality of life and providing services to the citizens of
Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, throughout Mr. Leach’s tenure with Roanoke County, his
enthusiasm, dedication, and professionalism to his work, has earned the admiration and
respect of his colleagues throughout the Commonwealth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens
of Roanoke County to EDWIN R. LEACH for more than thirty-three (33)years of
capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy
and productive retirement.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Assaid, the motion was carried by the following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, Radford, Peters, North
NAYS: None
February 26, 2019
57
IN RE: CITIZENS’ COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
James P. Welch of 6255 Fairway Forest Drive thanked the Board for
hearing his request to pass a resolution for the Virginia Department of Transportation for
traffic calming in a section of Fairway Forest Drive. We live on a section between the
Salem County line and south of there is a straight stretch between two curved areas. It
has become accepted to be the “straight away on Fairway or Fairway ‘raceway.” We
agree with the Department of Transportation’s assessment that law enforcement cannot
solve the problem; that is not a sustainable way to control the traffic speed on that
stretch of road. He appreciates Mr. Radford suggesting that he make the presentation
and Mr. Caywood and Mr. Holladay for corresponding with him by email over the past
year or so. As a result, the County has done a speed study and it appears from the
study that folks are driving about ten (10) miles per hour faster than the twenty-five (25)
mile per hour speed limit on that section of road. This is the basis for his request. He
has submitted a full written statement to the Clerk and will be glad to answer any
questions that the Board may have.
Supervisor Radford thanked Mr. Welch for attending today’s meeting and
asked Mr. Welch how long had he lived in Fairway Forest. Mr. Welch responded since
2017. We are probably like the frog that you put in a pot of water when it is cold; people
just accept what has been and maybe they are seeing it differently than what people
have accustomed to in that area.
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Hooker moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion was seconded by Supervisors Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, Radford, Peters, North
NAYS: None
1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report
2. Outstanding Debt Report
3. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of
January 31, 2019
4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of January 31, 2019
5. Accounts Paid - January 31, 2019
6. Statement of Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and
Portfolio Policy as of January 31, 2019
7. Proclamation signed by the Chairman – Multiple Sclerosis
Education and Awareness Month
February 26, 2019
58
th
At 3:20 p.m. Chairman North recessed to the 4 floor for work session.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors the County
Administrator's Proposed Fiscal Year 2020 - 2029 Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) (Christopher R, Bever, Director of
Management and Budget)
Daniel R. O’Donnell, County Administrator provided an overview of the
work session and turned the meeting over to Mr. Bever, who provided a PowerPoint
presentation.
Supervisor Hooker asked when the Dry Hollow Project would be
completed. Mr. Bever advised the right-of-way phase is planned for 2022 and
construction is expected to begin fiscal year 2023. He said he was not sure how long it
would take to complete.
Chairman North asked for clarification the County does not have a storm
water maintenance fee, which Mr. Bever confirmed. Chairman North stated we are
spending a lot of money from the general revenues that come from real estate; Mr.
Bever confirmed adding that we spending operating for drainage crews and planning
work. Mr. Bever added we spend money from the capital budget, most of that was cash
funded, to support stormwater projects. Chairman North said since we had received a
lot of rain recently he asked if that would add to our stormwater costs. Mr. Bever said it
does because it causes damage to our infrastructure and it keeps our storm water
crews very busy. Chairman North asked if most of the cities in the area charge
stormwater fees. Mr. Bever responded the cities of Roanoke and Lynchburg do, he
advised since we provide similar services as the cities we look and see what they are
doing, but he added most of the Counties do not. Chairman North asked if it was
correct to say this was an unfunded mandate. Mr. Bever said that was correct.
Richard L. Caywood, Assistant County Administrator stated we had the
same type of permit system as the City of Roanoke because of our developed areas.
He said the more rural localities do not have the same requirements. Chairman North
said stormwater projects figures can jump around since it can be weather related; which
Mr. Bever confirmed. Chairman North stated there was a lot of attention and no funding
mechanism under this current revenue stream. Mr. Bever said our best management
practices are used to leverage storm water local assistance funds and added one
million of the seven million in funding was from that.
Chairman North asked if the project in the Hunt Ridge area was funded by
the County or did we receive any State or Federal assistance? He also asked how
much the total project cost was and if it was complete. Staff stated the project was
completed but did not have the project cost figures available at this time.
February 26, 2019
59
Mr. Bever stated one change staff was proposing to the CIP was to the
Fallowater Lane Extension. He reviewed the funding for this project and stated the
funds were coming from the State but the funds will need to be appropriated, but no
County funds would be used.
Mr. O’Donnell advised staff went to the Economic Development Authority
(EDA) Board last week to see if they would agree to appropriate the funds for the
Broadband project for the next two years. He said they agreed and that he would like to
publicly thank the EDA Board for their cooperation.
Chairman North asked if Broadband would help parts of the area of the
county where it is needed and he also asked about the status of the Woodhaven
Project. Mr. O’Donnell advised staff is continuing to work on Broadband and will keep
the Board informed and updated. He also provided an update on the Woodhaven
project.
Chairman North said regarding the Fire Rescue Station Diesel Exhaust
Removal System, he would like to see this completed sooner rather than later. He
stated he understood this was a concern for Fire and Rescue. Mr. Bever stated the
Diesel Exhaust Removal Systems are needed at each Station and they are budgeted
for the out years, but if we were going to do a renovation to a station this would be
included in the improvements. He explained now it is just listed as a statement of
priority.
Chairman North said he would support installing the systems a little at
time to get this done. Chief Simon said he was going to create a committee to work on
some different options to get this done. He recommended doing a test with the first
station and said he was going to try and research if there was state funding or grants
available.
Mr. Bever stated there was one change to the Services Capital
Maintenance Program. He said there was a savings of $40,000 from a completed
project that has been closed out. Mr. Bever explained this money will be transferred to
the General Services Capital Maintenance Program now and then use the General
Government transfer to the project in the CIP and said it was a saving of $40,000. He
said with regards to the Vinton Fire Rescue Station we did identify $30,000 annually that
would go into the General Services budget.
Mr. Bever stated that Chairman North asked staff to do some analysis
regarding the Hollins Library. He said he distributed Budget Memo #4 addressing this
item to the Board and discussed proposed CIP and potential project revisions. Mr.
Bever said Chairman North asked staff if this project could be accelerated. Mr. Bever
said it could and reviewed what would need to be done to get it accomplished.
Chairman North asked what the current size of the facility was and if it was the same
size of Glenvar. Mr. O’Donnell advised new library designs were changing rapidly and
there is a potential for a smaller facility. Chairman North stated if it was smaller it would
cost less. He said this was a just a placeholder right now and things could change in a
number of ways and he would like to see it moved up but said if there was some other
February 26, 2019
60
or greater need he was open to consider this in some other context of other items that
might come out of the assessment study. Mr. Bever added this could be addressed
again in the next session. Chairman North said he hopes to have more support on this
just for the benefit of perception, he recommends putting 10 million in 2029 with an
asterisk subject to unidentified project to be determined. Chairman said he does not
want to mislead anyone and think we are not going to use the funds. Mr. Bever said
staff could put a note in the funding table.
Chairman North asked the Board what their thoughts were on this issue. It
was the consensus of the Board to move the Hollins Library forward. Supervisor Peters
stated most are concerned with this year and the items\\projects were going to be moved
around a lot until 2029.
Supervisor Assaid commented that fiscal 2020 won’t even fall within our
Policy, which is unfortunate.
Mr. Bever said staff would make the change and include it in the first part
of the Ordinance and will revisit it next year.
Supervisor Assaid asked if staff had received any official documents from
the County Schools. Mr. Bever advised he had not. Chairman North noted Board
Members and staff had gone on tours of their facilities and Schools have come to some
of our facilities for tours. He said it has been good to go see things together and maybe
these things will change for most of these are placeholders at this point in the time. He
added that Schools probably would like to get started on William Byrd.
Supervisor Assaid said the Board of Supervisors are the ones that
appropriate the funds; which does not meet our policy. Chairman North said we have
shared our opinions with them and they have shared theirs with us. Supervisor Assaid
reiterated this Board are the ones responsible.
Supervisor Assaid asked with regard to the Bent Mountain Library, he
wanted to know if it had been determined whether the Board can or cannot give the
$500,000 from the Pipe Line to a private entity. Mr. Caywood said no we cannot and
said due to constraints from the agreement, which staff has reviewed. Supervisor
Assaid then asked if we had the $500,000 worth of work that needed to be done and
should it be in a reserve account where they are doing some kind of maintenance
program.
Chairman North stated it sounded like you would have to start the project
to get the money.
Mr. O’Donnell stated we would have to make a formal request. Once the
request was approved then we can appropriate the money in the budget.
Supervisor Assaid inquired regarding the cash versus bond, that the
money the Schools were using were for the CIP projects only because they receive
other cash they get from year-end surplus that is used for miscellaneous things. Mr.
Bever confirmed this is correct.
Chairman North said we are one of the few counties in the area that have
such a sound funding formula for the schools both on operational and capital and also
February 26, 2019
61
allows them to retain their reserves to use for major, minor capital and security. He
asked if we get a report from the schools so the Board can see what they are going to
do with the surplus money at the end of the year for informational purposes. He asked
when the Board could find this out and asked if there was a lag in getting the
information. He said he was just trying to understand because as we get further along
and face the headwinds of a recession in late 2020 and early 2021 that he keeps
reading about in the Wall Street Journal, just having this information readily available
would help us all be more financially prudent moving forward. Chairman North said all
the items discussed tonight beyond 2020 are all subject to change and could change
due to future financial risk factors.
Rebecca Owens, Assistant County Administrator stated County and the
Schools use the same auditors and normally the County and School Boards year-end
review from the Auditors are completed at the same time, but this year they did not. She
said staff will be providing that information at the March 12, 2019 Board Meeting and
said no action would be needed on the item but it would be provided for information
only.
Supervisor Assaid said this Board received a “Needs” list with safety and
security items on it from the School Board back in December. He added that in January
a new project for a synthetic turf field and rubberized track was approved, but it was not
on the needs list from December and said this Board was not controlling anything, he
said they can use it anyway they want to and not even address the safety and security
needs. Supervisor Assaid further stated it doesn’t matter how much money someone
gets, it matters that it is being properly utilized because we can’t continue going down
the road were the $10 million every year works really well for us and as long as it is
used on the needs of both the County facilities and School facilities, but when you get
into the developing projects for political gain he thinks that’s where the dangers come.
Supervisor Assaid added that when the School Board comes to this Board and says
they have a $20 million project that they want to do that not really addressing the needs
its addressing the want and not the need. We already saw the project for $13 million
dollars and then we receive information showing more than double that and it shows
new construction and a complete gutting of a facility based on the square footage cost.
He asked if that was addressing the needs and asked if the Board was addressing the
needs of the County facilities without the want side. He added the $10 million every
year is not going to be enough and the schools say we are not giving them enough
money for their own capital side. He indicated that would be true if it were to meet their
wants and also address their needs and it would be the same thing with the County
facilities.
Chairman North said he looked forward to future discussion on this item,
but needed to move on.
Chairman North stated in 2023 there are funds allocated to Parks and
Recreation for the second part of moving out of Kessler Mill. He asked what the plan on
this item was and asked if staff was looking at land and if the schools had something we
February 26, 2019
62
might look at. Staff provided an update of what the current standing was and said there
were some options but we would have to identify funding to be able to move forward,
but we could discuss this prior to 2023 if the Board chose to do so.
Chairman North said he did not want to miss an opportunity if something
came up.
The work session was held from 3:36 p.m. until 4:41 p.m.
Chairman North called the meeting back into open session at 7:00 p.m.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
1. Resolution approving an amendment to the Roanoke County
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment would change
the future land use designation of four (4) parcels south of
Colonial Avenue, between 4904 Colonial Avenue and 4920
Colonial Avenue, from Neighborhood Conservation to Transition;
Cave Spring Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Acting
Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the request for resolution.
Chairman North opened and closed the public hearing with the following
citizens to speak:
Nancy Spillman of 4904 Colonial Avenue stated this was one of the
original parcels that had been considered for the transition. We feel that even by taking
the 4920 into transition, it just creates a snowball effect for us other resident.
Eventually, should someone else in that section decide they would like to sell their
property, it only opens up the possibility for adding more transition in that area? Where
would you end up drawing the line as to where you would continue to keep making
transition? If the property on that side of the road, most of the properties are an acre
plus and there is a good possibility that transition would go all the way to the
roundabout. We feel there is not a need for a buffer in that area. Since we currently
have the Verizon building; it serves as a buffer now between the impact of the high
intensity and we are asking you to consider not allowing this to be changed from
neighborhood conservation to transition.
February 26, 2019
63
Jennings Bird of 5909 Lost Mountain Road in the Back Creek area. His
concern here is traffic. The concept plan for this rezoning is very well done, but it raises
certain questions. For example, it is a medical office, substantial square footage on two
floors without any designation of how many physicians, physician assistants, nurse
practitioners as well as staff working in this building. He notes there is some 50 some
parking spaces, which is a lot of parking for a low-key medical office. It makes him
wonder what kind of traffic, and how much traffic. He mentions this because it bears on
the traffic study done by Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). There is no
indication as to how much daily usage this facility might generate as opposed to a more
typical medical facility. He has traveled that road thousands of times in the more than
fifty (50) years that he has lived where he now lives. This is a common way and one of
his reasons is to avoid the Cave Spring intersection. Thousands of people use this to
cut across to avoid that intersection, particularly in the peak evening house. His
concern is not only can people turn to get into this facility, but people then trying to get
out. We are going to have a real problem. So, he just wanted to raise that question. In
his opinion, Colonial Avenue does not adequately handle the traffic is now has. The
section from Rt. 419 to Rt. 221 needs further improvement beyond what was done in
the facility of North Cross School, so it ill safety handle what is currently on that street
as well as potential additional loads from that facility. He is not saying to deny it, he
simply wants to make the Board aware of these ramifications of the concept plan as it
submitted
There was no additional discussion.
RESOLUTION 022619-2 ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA,
CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF
THREE PROPERTIES LOCATED ON COLONIAL AVENUE (IN
THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT) FROM
NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION TO TRANSITION
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-2233 of the Code of Virginia requires that the Planning
Commission of every jurisdiction shall prepare and recommend a Comprehensive Plan
for the physical development of their jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-2230 of the Code of Virginia requires that the Planning
Commission shall review the Comprehensive Plan at least once every five years to
determine whether it is advisable to amend the plan; and
WHEREAS, it is proposed that the Comprehensive Plan be amended, changing
the future land use designation of three (3) parcels south of Colonial Avenue from
Neighborhood Conservation to Transition. The three properties, all of which are located
in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, are:
1. 0 Colonial Avenue (Tax Map No. 086.08-02-22.02-0000); and
2. 0 Colonial Avenue (Tax Map No. 086.08-02-22.01-0000); and
February 26, 2019
64
3. 4920 Colonial Avenue (Tax Map No. 086.08-02-22.00-0000).
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on February 5, 2019, after posting,
advertisement and notices as required by Section 15.2-2225 and Section 15.2-2204 of
the Code of Virginia.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Roanoke as follows:
1. The Board approves amending the Comprehensive Plan, changing the future
land use designation of the following parcels from Neighborhood
Conservation to Transition:
a. 0 Colonial Avenue (Tax Map No. 086.08-02-22.02-0000); and
b. 0 Colonial Avenue (Tax Map No. 086.08-02-22.01-0000); and
c. 4920 Colonial Avenue (Tax Map No. 086.08-02-22.00-0000).
2. Pursuant to Section 15.2-2225 of the Code of Virginia, the Secretary of the
Planning Commission certified this Resolution to the Board of Supervisors by
providing a copy of it to the Clerk to the Board.
3. Pursuant to Section 15.2-2225 of the Code of Virginia, the Secretary of the
Planning Commission posted this Resolution on the Commission’s website.
On motion of Supervisor Assaid to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Peters, the motion was carried by the following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, Radford, Peters, North
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1. The petition of Balzer and Associates, Inc. to rezone
approximately 1.17 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential,
District to C-1, Low Intensity Commercial, District for a medical
office, located at 4920 Colonial Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial
District (Philip Thompson, Acting Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the request for rezoning.
Supervisor Assaid commented that the elevations are showing two (2)
stories and the application says two stories, but two (2) stories in terminology with the
Building Code is different and two (2) stories of the Zoning Ordinance. It would be two
(2) stories above grade plane. He noticed there were dormers on the elevations. Is
there a floor at the dormers? When you say two (2) stories, Building Code is actually
two (2) stories above. Mr. Thompson responded from the front side it would be and the
rear side it would not be. Supervisor Assaid asked if the dormers would be dummy
dormers with Mr. Thompson responding in the affirmative.
February 26, 2019
65
Supervisor Radford stated he noticed in the report concerning the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) study and the attachment 4, the graph about the
no left hand turn on this side and a left hand turn on the right side of the graph. Can
you fill him in? How did they come up with not doing a left-hand turn? Mr. Thompson
responded they are not saying that don’t have to do. The way he understands it, the
analysis indicates that a left hand turn by the chart would have to happen. The way
they explained it is when you are getting your permit from VDOT, while they look at this
chart, but there are other considerations with the entrance permit that does into
consideration as to whether or not a left hand turn land is constructed or not. This is
part of their permit from VDOT; if so required to put a left turn lane in, they will have to
do so.
Supervisor Assaid asked Mr. Thompson to go back to PowerPoint Slide 4
that shows the overall site plan. Supervisor Assaid asked Mr. Thompson to tell him
where the discharge point is for stormwater? Mr. Thompson advised the discharge
point is the ditch; Supervisor Assaid asked which side of the property? Ben Crew with
Balzer and Associates, Acting Agent, on behalf of this request. To answer the question,
they will discharge along Colonial Avenue. The stormwater management onsite is
anticipated to be underground and so will discharge to the same location that water is
currently flowing today, which is a State requirement as far as they cannot take water
from one location and put water to another location. When they get to the civil site plan
portion of the project, we will discharge along Colonial Avenue.
Supervisor Assaid asked if it is to the right of the entrance or the left of the
entrance. Mr. Crew advised the underground stormwater management facility is
anticipated to be under the front parking lot area. So, that discharge would go out to the
ditch line along Colonial Avenue. So, there will be large pipes to hold the stormwater
and that discharge would go out to the ditch line along Colonial Avenue. For discussion
purposes let’s take it from the parking lot perpendicular out to Colonial Avenue. It will
discharge to the roadside ditch that is there. The ditch will be looked at to see if it
needs to be improved and make sure we are meeting the requirements of VDOT.
Currently, that ditch line flows to the right as you look at on the screen. We would most
likely install a culvert pipe under our entrance and continue to discharge that water plan
right and that is the main direction that the water is flowing at this point.
Supervisor North asked with regard to the exterior lighting, 14 foot high on
light poles. How tall is the buffer going to be around that; what kind of trees are you
planting there. Mr. Crew stated there is two-layering of trees, interior parking lot trees
and then you will have landscape buffer trees on two sides of the property that are
adjacent to residential. It will be a combination of evergreen scrubs, deciduous trees
meeting minimum caliper and height requirement in accordance with Roanoke County’s
landscape ordinance. A 14 foot pole, the trees are probably starting out at ten (10) to
twelve (12) feet tall at planting. Supervisor North stated so there will not be any light
pollution into any residential areas on either side; has a light analysis been done.
February 26, 2019
66
Mr. Crew responded in the negative stating Roanoke County has a very strict and
straight-forward lighting policy and that policy states at the property line you cannot
exceed ½ foot candle. So, when you are looking at the lighting, it has to be full cut-off
and it will be facing down. We also have the photometric requirements. The 14 foot
height is from the Colonial Avenue Design Guidelines. You can go higher in C-1; but
we brought it down to that lower level to try and be accommodating and sensitive to the
adjacent property owners. Supervisor North commented what you are planting will
probably grow quickly. Supervisor North asked about additional traffic because of 54-
car space facility that is going to ramp up in time. Is there no turning lanes to be done
to Colonial Avenue? Mr. Crew stated with regard to parking, the parking that they have
shown is the minimum parking that is required for this size of a building based on
medical office use. What they have shown is the required number for this facility. With
regard to traffic, we submitted a traffic study as part of the rezoning. It outlines sight
generated traffic, the background traffic of Colonial Avenue and really digs into
specifically what is the traffic generated by the specific use. So, with that, we have a
medical office of 11,500 sq. ft. and so we have outlined the AM peak trips the PM peak
trip and the total daily trips. Specifically in relation to the left turn lane that is shown, if
you look at the nomengram that has an AM and PM box, the PM does not warrant a left
turn lane and if you are looking at the AM, it does. What this chart is based on 5% of
the volume coming down Colonial Avenue and is turning left into the sight. We are
much, much lower than that, but this is the available chart that we need to use. This is
the chart we have to use, but they will have additional conversations with VDOT when
they get to the point during site plans.
Supervisor Radford ask if they have enough room to put a left-hand turn
there. Mr. Crew responding within the existing pavement now, no. If a left-hand turn
lane in required, they would need to extend shoulders and do work to Colonial Avenue
to accommodate that. Supervisor Radford stated he used to live there and the reason
he is asking is because it is really tight there. He just wanted to be sure that the
applicant was aware if it needed to be done.
Supervisor North then inquired about the setting sun regarding this
project. Is there a blindness when you come down Colonial and turn left into the facility?
Mr. Crew advised Colonial Avenue runs east to west. Supervisor North stated it may
create a blind spot and maybe a lane would be better, especially in the afternoon.
Chairman North opened and closed the public hearing with the following
citizens to speak:
February 26, 2019
67
Nancy Spillman of 4904 Colonial Ave stated when she was looking up
information, she noticed there has been a change to the concept plan. What it was
originally showing was a medical building and now it is showing a building. She has a
lot of concern that this might be something other than a medical building and something
we don’t want be developed in this area. There have been adverse impacts to our
property. Parking lots, even though they say there is going to have a drainage system,
it is still going to allow a lot of water to run over into her property. She advised they
have already spent almost $20,000 on drainage issues trying to keep the water from
coming into her house and ponding in her backyard. A bern would not help this. We
tried it ourselves and it did not work. The problems with automobiles and fluids that
come off of cars could also possibly come onto her property. They currently have some
beautiful maple trees along our property line and they would be damaged by the digging
up of the roots, because that is the side they are planning on putting up the driveway.
Also, the additional noise, our backyard is now their safe haven from Colonial Avenue.
So, allowing this to become commercial, you will have delivery trucks coming, trash
pick-up, employees and visitors opening and closing doors and locking cars. Also, trash
would be increased. We already have a lot that comes over from Kroger, but this would
just be more trash with these office buildings. Also, Colonial Avenue cannot support
this additional traffic problem with this section. If you ever come down Colonial, the
intersection of Merriman and the entrance to the Kroger parking lot. It is already unsafe
and even putting in a turn lane is not going to help, because that is going to be the
same thing they have now with the turn lane at the Kroger parking lot. People will turn
in front of you and also, there is already existing complexes within a five (5) mile radius
of this area. Just on Rt. 419 between Oak Grove and Colonial Avenue there are twelve
(12) already in existence that have for lease or for sale property. There is the Allstate
building that already has available space, Roanoke Orthopedic building that is empty
and there is already property on Brambleton Avenue and Starkey Road that are already
zoned commercial. Rezoning would not have to be done. So, she could keep going on
and on with reasons why she does not want this property to be rezoned. Please
consider leaving it as residential.
Randy Waddell of 4785 Sunnyside Drive stated he lives directly behind
the property that is being rezoned to build a medical office. He does not feel it is the
right thing to do. He knows people have already touched on traffic, but they were
talking about the light poles being 14 feet, which is certainly going to light up his
backyard. A six foot tree is not going to cover that for quite some time, if it lives. What
kind of plans do they have if it brings a lot of light into his yard; what do we do then. He
feels it is a monstrous building, 11,500 square feet is not a small building and it is being
left open for any use. He feels it should be limited use; not sure how to word all this.
He does not feel it should be left there for a free for all. He enjoys his night life in his
back yard at night and really don’t want that compromised. He knows a lot of his
neighbors feel the same way. He knows someone has already spoken on the traffic
and everything else. He reiterated it is a monstrous building.
February 26, 2019
68
He believes it is just too big for the site and with that many parking spaces next to his
property he does not feel is the right thing to do.
Mr. Crew stated for clarity they had shown the initial building as a medical
office building and to make sure there was no confusion from a staff side, it was
changed to an office building. It is the same types of uses in C-1. With regard to storm
water quality, the State has certain requirements that you have to meet during your site
plan review. The County will not permit them to construct the facility unless they meet
those requirements. With regard to the existing trees, it was discussed in the Planning
Commission meeting, we have not performed a full topographic and improvement
survey yet, but if we find that those trees are right on the property line and want to keep
some of these, we can certainly look at maintaining those trees and limiting some of the
grading around it. If there is an opportunity to maintain some of those along the
property line, they would be interested in doing that. Additionally, the current property
owner, Mr. Kazemi and his wife are both physicians. She is interesting in using this
building for her practice. She is a medical physician and wants to use as a sleep
center. It will not be a 24-hour use. There is a real need in the medical community.
Carillion is the only group that is doing sleep-study center right now. Lewis Gales does
not do it. They looked along the Rt. 419 corridor, but they want to own their own
building and either the space is too large or they don’t want a lease.
Supervisor Radford asked if they covered the 14 foot lights and the
spread. Mr. Crew reiterated the pole height is 14 ft. with full cutoff fixtures on top of the
pole. So, with a full cutoff fixture, they are shielded and they will need to provide a
photometric study to Roanoke County for approval that indicates that they are not
throwing any light to other properties. We are providing a screening fence and
additional landscaping along the exterior of the property, but there is a strict cutoff line
at the property line and has to be measured as such.
Supervisor Radford then asked if the building is just office and we are
doing a traffic study, is the traffic not going to be less intense with an office versus a
medical office. Mr. Crew responded it may be.
Supervisor North stated his concern is regarding the gentleman that just
spoke about his back yard. He would be concerned if he lived there. He feels some
study needs to be given to that; he knows what the codes say, but one question he
might have is he getting any light today from the adjacent facility. If his house is the one
in the cul-de-sac directly behind the back of your lot. He would like to hear Mr. Crew
say they are going to plant trees that are going to be 14 ft. within a year’s time. There
are trees that can grow very quickly. Mr. Crew stated part of the design is that each one
of these levels is going to be stepped into the hillside. The grade that is there now is
going to be decreased most likely with their proposed development. It is going to sit into
the hillside a little bit more. They are going to plant trees that most likely will grow 18-34
inches a year. They have tried to provide the best plan that they can understanding
those around the project.
February 26, 2019
69
Supervisor North wanted to know how you could have a sleep center and
not have anyone come in the evening. Mr. Crew stated that this physician is part of
study that was started ten years ago and you don’t go anywhere now. They provide you
with a vest that goes over top and you take it home.
Supervisor Assaid stated the stormwater that is being conveyed by
subsurface pipes or does it flow across the parking lot into some sort of drop in. Mr.
Crew stated they will catch it in each parking lot and it will be conveyed underground.
Supervisor Assaid stated so it would be curb and gutter, which Mr. Crew responded in
the affirmative. Another concern that Supervisor Assaid stated related to trash. If you
live anywhere around a commercial site, you have vendor coming in to empty the trash
and it looks like this will be a full-size dumpster that will be there. He thinks the Board
should limit the time that they can come and pick up the trash. Additionally, at the
bottom of the plan, he thinks it is adjacent to the gentleman that spoke last. The types
of trees are shown as evergreens. Mr. Crew stated the trees in the buffer are
deciduous trees and evergreen shrubs. Supervisor Assaid responded by that does not
mask the light after fall. Mr. Crew stated the pole lights are going to be in front of the
landscaping and the barrier is 25 feet wide. They are going to have back shields on the
lights. Supervisor Assaid stated he knows they are limited to a half a foot candle, but
half a foot candle is light. Supervisor Assaid asked Mr. Thompson if there would be any
“heartburn” with changing those out to two rows of 12 ft. staggered Leyland Cypresses
or something like that. Mr. Thompson advised the dilemma is this is a rezoning, so
they are proffering the proffered uses. It’s conformance with the concept plan that they
are showing. The way to get to this, if they are agreeable, during the site plan review
process we will make note of and hold discussions with them to put into place.
Supervisor Hooker stated the way it works is that we can offer our
concerns, they offer the proffers. So, some of this can be mitigated during site plan. Mr.
Crew stated on behalf of the owner, they do not have a problem with adding the
additional evergreens.
Supervisor Peters stated Supervisor Assaid brought up the issue with
emptying the trash, don’t we already have something in place. Mr. Thompson
responded that the noise ordinance would cover.
ORDINANCE 022619-3 TO REZONE 1.17+/- ACRES FROM R-1
(LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT TO C-1 (LOW
INTENSITY COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT LOCATED AT 4920
COLONIAL AVENUE IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, upon the petition of Balzer and Associates, Inc., as agent to the
property owner, to rezone approximately 1.17 acres from R-1 (Low Density Residential)
to C-1 (Low Intensity Commercial) with proffered conditions, located at 4920 Colonial
Avenue to develop a two-story, 11,500 square foot office building for medical use; and
February 26, 2019
70
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on February 5, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the petition;
and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 22, 2019, and
the second reading and public hearing were held on February 26, 2019; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. The Board approves the rezoning requested by petition of Balzer and
Associates, Inc. on behalf of the owner to rezone three parcels located at
4920 Colonial Avenue (Tax Map No. 086.08-02-22.00-0000, and Tax Map
Nos. 086.08-02-22.01-0000 and 086.08-02-22.02-0000) from R-1 to C-1 for
an 11,500 square foot office building for medical use.
2. The Board accepts the voluntary proffered conditions offered by the petitioner
as:
a. Concept Plan Conformance. The proffer of substantial conformance
with the “New Colonial Medical Office Building-Development Plan”
prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc. dated December 14, 2018,
subject to any changes required by the County of Roanoke during the
site plan review process; and
b. Building Design. The owner hereby proffers substantial conformance
with the “new Colonial Medical Office Building” prepared by Motter &
Meadow Architects dated December 14, 2018.
3. The Board further finds that the proffered conditions:
a. Have a reasonable relation to the rezoning;
b. Are in conformity with the comprehensive plan;
c. Are clearly understood and enforceable; and
d. Do not require or allow a design or standards that are less restrictive
than are now covered under the County’s current development
regulations.
4. The Board finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the purpose
and intent of the County’s Comprehensive Plan and good zoning practice,
and will not be a substantial detriment to the community.
5. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final
passage. 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 Assaid to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Hooker, the motion was carried by the following roll call and recorded vote:
February 26, 2019
71
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, Radford, Peters, North
NAYS: None
2. The petition of Rhonda S. Conner to obtain a Special Use Permit
in a R-1S, Low Density Residential, District with a special use
permit to acquire a multiple dog permit on 4.68 acres, located at
6185 Bent Mountain Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District
(Philip Thompson, Acting Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the request for special use permit. He
notes that the Planning Commission added a condition on the breeding of dogs, which
staff does not support as a difficult condition to enforce for many reasons. Staff
suggests that if the Board does recommend approval they would only deal with the first
condition.
Chairman North opened and closed the public hearing with no citizens to
speak on this issue.
Supervisor Assaid stated that the applicant had stated they would have
one litter per year, so why would we want to remove as a condition. Supervisor Hooker
stated because it is hard to enforce; even though she is saying that is her intention it is
hard to enforce.
Supervisor Peters stated the Board had already put a limitation on five
dogs so if she had multiple litters, she is still limited to five. Supervisor Assaid stated
but there can be more than one dog with a litter.
Supervisor Hooker restated that is it very difficult to monitor and she has
already said she would not do more than one. She understands his point, the dogs can
be kept for four months, and then they would need to find other homes.
ORDINANCE 022619-4 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN
AN R-1S (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT TO ALLOW
FOR A MULTIPLE USE DOG PERMIT ON 4.68 ACRES,
LOCATED AT 6185 BENT MOUNTAIN ROAD, WINDSOR HILLS
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the owner, Rhonda Conner, has requested a Special Use Permit for
a multiple dog permit on less than 5 acres in an R-1S (Low Density Residential) District
in order to have five (5) dogs; and
WHEREAS, Section 30-82-4 contains Use and Design Standards associated
with a multiple dog permit, while the Zoning Ordinance defines multiple dogs as four or
more with other restrictions; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on February 5, 2019; and
February 26, 2019
72
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the special use
permit with two conditions: that the maximum number of dogs shall be limited to five and
that the breeding of dogs shall be limited to one litter per year; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 22, 2019, and
the second reading and public hearing were held on February 26, 2019; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. The Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to allow multiple
dogs by the owner of 6185 Bent Mountain Road (Tax Map. No. 096.01-03-
36.00-0000) in the Windsor Hills District is in conformance with the goals and
objectives of the R-1 Low Density Residential zoning district, and there
appears to be no negative impact associated with this request.
2. The Board grants this special use permit subject to the following conditions:
a. The maximum number of dogs shall be limited to five dogs.
3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its final passage. 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 Radford to adopt the ordinance, seconded by
Supervisor Hooker, the motion was carried by the following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Hooker, Radford, Peters, North
NAYS: Supervisor Assaid
3. The petition of the Economic Development Authority of Roanoke
County et al to amend the master plan for the Center for Research
and Technology and to remove the proffered condition on
properties totaling approximately 480.21 acres zoned PTD,
Planned Technology District, located on Glenmary Drive and
Corporate Circle, Catawba Magisterial District (Philip Thompson,
Acting Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the request.
Supervisor Hooker stated she had visited with staff and feels comfortable
with what is going on. Supervisor Hooker stated she has heard from several of the
citizens and she understands the concerns of Glenvar Heights and it is a well-
established neighborhood an up to this point have had a very good relationship.
February 26, 2019
73
To provide assurance to the residents that this rezoning maintains the same protections
and high quality development standards that were originally established for CRT. For
many years, the County has maintained an excellent working relationship with citizens
and neighbors to advance appropriate and compatible development within the CRT and
we expect this process to continue and encourage effective communication in the
development process. To this end, she wants to address three concerns that have
been brought to her attention. Number one, attached to the rezoning is the Master Plan
that specifies allowable development areas and access points within the park. As noted
on the plan, access is not shown or allowed to Glenvar Heights Blvd. and she would like
to provide an assurance that it is not feasible or desirable to ever connect the CRT to
adjoining neighborhoods. The current existing access is the only planned method of
serving businesses that locate within the park. Any deviation from the Master Plan
would require a rezoning process and approval by the Board of Supervisors. Number
two, development in the area previously referred to as the Lone Eagle District is
significantly constrained by topography. It is a beautiful piece of property, but it is very
limiting. Development costs and existing transmission line bisecting the property are
recognized that potential development in this area will be challenging and we will work
to ensure that any project considered in the future is compatible with adjoining
properties. The CRT Master Plan identifies a 300 ft. buffer along the eastern border
adjacent to the Glenvar Heights neighborhood and this buffer shall be maintained as a
zoning condition for the park. Number 3, in an attempt to honor a history of productive
communication, we will maintain effective outreach and communication with the
surrounding neighborhood as to any future development within the park. This is a
practice that was established early on in the development of the CRT and will continue
into the future.
Chairman North opened and closed the public hearing with the following
citizens to speak:
Charles L. Landis of 5268 Glenvar Heights Blvd stated he is a contiguous
property owner to this park. He wanted to mention in case you are not aware, with
regard to the standards and the permitting uses of this property he and his neighbor,
Dave Shelor, were the design team for this project. We spent many days and months
working with Hill and Associates to develop this Master Plan. Originally, the standards
and the permitted uses were in the proffers and not on the master plan, but at this point,
we decided and worked with the County rather than have a separate set of proffers, we
would put all of the proffers on the Master Plan itself. What you see is standards and
permitted used are the proffers that we once had as a separate document. He does not
have anything new to add except to thank Ms. Hooker for her cooperative and work with
them and to thank the Board and Administration and particularly Jill Loope for the way
you handled this particular transaction.
February 26, 2019
74
It was done in a very professional way. David Shelor and he were called in and fully
briefed on what the intent was and we are in full agreement with that. We always want
to work with the County. He will go farther and state, although it is not on the agenda,
their desire is to bring in new business to that park and other commercial properties in
Roanoke County. Even though it is not covered here, there was a piece of property that
was sold in this park and we believe that the business is a good business. It will not be
detrimental to the community. Once the business is completed, it will provide a good
source of commercial revenue for the County and he would hope that we can have
further developments like this throughout the County; redevelopment all along the Rt.
419 strip as well as other economic developments throughout the County. As you may
or may not know, it seems that we are still stuck on about 13% of our total County
revenue coming from the commercial side. He just wanted to make everybody aware
that if that ratio is not changed in the future, (he sees his former student is aware,
(Supervisor Radford indicated that Mr. Landis was his government teacher at Andrew
Lewis), we need to make every effort together to try and increase that percentage
because realistically speaking if we don’t, the homeowners in Roanoke County will pay
the price because in order to provide for basic services only, plus a reasonable cost of
living increase for our employees, we are going to have to increase the real estate taxes
on our homeowners.
Dave Shelor of 5502 Glenvar Heights Blvd stated that he really cannot
add anything to what Mr. Landis (Charlie) said and wanted to thank Ms. Hooker
because she had expressed what they were concerned about very well, is part of public
record and he is satisfied.
ORDINANCE 022619-5 AMENDING THE MASTER PLAN FOR
THE CENTER FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY (CRT) TO
ADD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND TO REMOVE AN
EXISTING PROFFERED CONDITION ON PROPERTY LOCATED
IN THE CATAWBA DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority (EDA) and the other property
owners within the Center for Research and Technology (CRT) are requesting to remove
the proffered condition from the properties totaling 480.21 acres and to amend the
master plan; and
WHEREAS, the only proffered condition on these properties incorporates the
Development Guidelines and Protective Covenants to the zoning of the properties; and
WHEREAS, removal of the proffered condition would separate the zoning of the
property controlled by the Master Plan and Planned Technology District zoning
requirements from the private covenants controlled by the property owners in CRT; and
WHEREAS, the amendments to the CRT Master Plan would add development
standards (permitted uses, height, lighting, minimum front setbacks, lot overage,
subdivision, and signage) to the conceptual rendering of the Master Plan; and
February 26, 2019
75
WHEREAS, the overall layout of CRT including the road network, potential lots,
and buffers remains the same; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this request on
February 5, 2019 where no citizens spoke; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment
of the Master Plan and the removal of the proffered conditions; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 18, 2019,
and the second reading and public hearing were held on February 26, 2019; 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:
6. The petition of the Economic Development Authority, et al. is approved which
shall:
a. Remove the proffered condition dated March 9, 2007; and
b. Amend the Master Plan.
7. The Board finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the purpose
and intent of the County’s Comprehensive Plan and good zoning practice,
and will not be a substantial detriment to the community.
8. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final
passage. 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 Hooker to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Peters, the motion was carried by the following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, Radford, Peters, North
NAYS: None
Chairman North called for a ten minute break at 8:20 p.m. The meeting
was called back into session at 8:30 pm
4. The petition of Venture Storage Group, LLC to obtain a Special
Use Permit in a C-2, High Intensity Commercial, District to
construct a mini warehouse storage facility on 3.10 acres, located
near the 4400 block of South Peak Boulevard, Cave Spring
Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Acting Director of
Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the request.
February 26, 2019
76
Supervisor Assaid stated that Mr. Thompson indicated there would not be
any rental trucks at the site, but does that also include rental for outdoor storage
vehicles, trailers, motor homes. He thinks there are 63 parking spaced that goes with
this site. Is that something they can do if they decide to put a fence up? Mr. Thompson
responded there are a couple of issues and spoke with Mr. Murphy (Zoning
Administrator) today. One of them was fencing; they are not proposing fencing at this
time. So, there is conformance with it being approved and there is a conformance
requirement and they don’t show fencing would that keep it. We had that discussion
and there is also use and design standards associated with a mini-warehouse. So, it
states that no security fencing, security gate or other obstruction to vehicle access. So,
this standard would keep putting a fence from happening. Also, you are also not
allowed to have any of that fencing in the front-yard setback. No security fencing
restricting access and should not be in the front yard setback. So for this site, it would
be hard to do. Next, they talked about the rental of vehicles and would that be included
in this use. We have a separate use, automobile renting and leasing, is a use in our
zoning ordinance and that is a by right use in C-2. So, they are saying that they are not
going to do that, but there is nothing to stop that from happening.
Supervisor Radford stated he is the one that asked about the proforma.
On page 4 of your staff report, where you have economic development and the
comments, what he is trying to understand is what is the guiding document with this
site? You showed us just a minute ago, the 2004 and 2010. What document guides
the use and the conformity? Mr. Thompson stated in the report, they are talking about
the history of the development. The 2004 zoning does not apply to this property. It
applies to the Hilton Garden Inn and upward. This use still requires a special use
permit. It is a special use for a particular reason in C-2, because there are sites that are
appropriate for this use that are zed C-2 and there might be sites that are not
appropriate. Is this use appropriate in this zoning district at a particular location? The
second question is does the overall design and intensity adequate or appropriate for
that location as well. When you look at Section 30-19 and evaluating a special use
permit, those things are in there. Does it meet the purposes of the zoning ordinance
that is stated? So these are the things that you are looking at along with information
that you want to take in. Is it an appropriate use for this location and is it designed in
scale and size as appropriate as well. Supervisor Radford stated our economic
development says the project is not consistent and it points to the proforma that was
submitted for the CDA. Then the applicant has written in reply that the proforma does
allow changes. So who is right and who is wrong? We might have to find that out as
the night goes on. There is a conflict.
February 26, 2019
77
Mr. Thompson responded what they do when they get an application, as you are well
aware, we route it through agencies who provide comments. So, he is not going to say
someone’s comments are right or wrong, he is just telling the Board here are the
comments they submitted. You can evaluate that on your own and how much weight
and merit you give each comment. He added that it is also accurate to say, “What was
the intent of the CDA when it was originally formed, but also think the applicants are
truly right as well because there was a provision that talks about changing market
conditions.
Supervisor Hooker stated when she was looking through the staff report
and she looked at Exhibit A, the proffered out uses and so when she is looking at them,
it asks for each zoning category and when you go to the second page of those proffered
out uses it has under commercial specifically mini-warehouse. So, explain to her that
this is part of the history of the development, but it doesn’t necessary apply to now. Mr.
Thompson responded it does not apply to this piece of property. The question becomes
when this went through a rezoning, there were certain uses that were proffered, one of
those being a mini-warehouse. This property is adjacent to that and is going through
the public hearing process. So the question is, do you think this is appropriate for this
property as part of this development given the history of the overall development. He
also thinks the Board to weigh their argument is they would love to have a different use,
but over the years they have found from a market standpoint, that site has been vacant
for quite a while.
John Prillaman represented the petitioner spoke on the project.
Supervisor Hooker stated one of the summary points that she received
was that age is an attracter for certain restaurants. Mr. Prillaman stated with a 49.5
median age, restaurants would be a detractor.
Supervisor Hookers asked Mr. Thompson that it is her understanding
there is an agreement from Texas Roadhouse that may put some limitations on what
kind of business could be built and if a restaurant maybe some limitations that it could
not compete. In what ways is it not allowed to compete? Mr. Thompson stated he is
not familiar with the agreement with Texas Roadhouse and the property owner.
Supervisor Hooker added she was under the impression that there were some
limitations on what could come into that parcel that could not directly compete with
Texas Roadhouse. The applicant would need to answer. Is it like restaurants or no
sale of alcohol, is there some other agreement.
Mr. Prillaman stated it is his understanding that it is the type of restaurant.
Mr. Craig Penny, General Counsel with Smith Packet, stated when they entered into the
contract with Texas Roadhouse, there was discussion about shared parking and other
uses on this parcel that you are considering tonight. There were certain articulated
restaurants that we cannot develop, which are a Chili’s Bar and Grill, a Cheddar’s
Restaurant and any other full-service restaurant featuring steaks, ribs.
February 26, 2019
78
This is a recorded document. It then goes on to say any restaurant containing more
than 200 seats unless we build additional parking offsite. Then there were a number of
other uses, adult bookstores, and any use selling drug paraphernalia. Supervisor
Hooker asked about alcohol and Mr. Penny advised alcohol was not an issue.
Chairman North opened and closed the public hearing with the following
citizens to speak:
Jennings Bird of 5909 Lost Mountain Road in the Back Creek area of the
County. Mr. Thompson spoke well to the technical matters involved in this rezoning. As
a Roanoke County resident, he is speaking on his own behalf, but with the interests of
the County citizens in mind. Let’s deal with reality here, the devastation of Slade Hill by
Jim Smith was a colossal mistake and he thinks we are well aware of that and that is
why this matter is being discussed today. A multitude of steep slopes requiring
extensive grading and excavation and retaining walls, the access road from Rt. 419 had
to be rebuilt more than once to be acceptable, the water supply system was problematic
as is sewage problems, they have had two blowouts on the retaining wall, there were
years without significant landscaping to buffer those massive retaining walls. Gradually,
they are beginning to solve some of these problems. The initial grandiose scheme
sounded pretty good; upscale hotels, unique upscale restaurants, first class office
facilities, boutique retail shops and parking garages as needed. Tonight there has been
no mention of anything other than surface parking. The developers backed away from
their promotion that they can solve the problem of parking by putting it either
underground or at least under the buildings such as Carillion has done at their
Biomedical Research Facility. It is noted that their initial proposals did not include
residences. Look at where we are now. We have a continued eyesore with one hotel,
one chain restaurant, condos on top of the mountain that stick up like mushrooms. The
condos were brought in retrospectively to bail out a failing financial boondoggle. It was
not part of the original concept. You can always sell a view and they did. They have
also reserved a pad on the other side on top where they can build another condo
building. Where are the upscale restaurants? Where are the first class offices, etc.?
The original developer has bailed out of the area and gone to Charleston, South
Carolina, leaving his son to bail out the mess. There are a number of letters in your file
in support of the project. Most of them are signed by the same man, Hunter Smith, the
original developer’s son. These letters amount to one person saying please grant this
application so I can sell this property to this group of people. He submits the only
possible, real benefit to Roanoke County and its citizens generally is it is consistent with
the zoning ordinance guidelines and the proposed tax revenue. The horrible esthetic
effect of this building, well depicted in the Roanoke Times recently as you approach the
property far outweigh any tax benefit that this County may receive. All the problems
mentioned tonight and the history of this property were fully foreseeable when Mr. Smith
proposed the project, yet he forged ahead and now he is gone and is asking you to
solve the problem. He submitted that is not the Board’s job and that this application
should be denied.
February 26, 2019
79
James Cowan stated he is with Cowan Perry PC located at 1328 Third
Street, SW and representing some property owners and business owners who have
some concerns about impact of this application; proprietary of a warehouse at this
proposed location, specifically. Thank you for the opportunity to share these concerns
with the Board, which he had an opportunity to provide at the Planning Commission
recently. This site, this special use permit application (SUP) as you have heard already
is positioned somewhat differently than our typical private SUP because of its tie-in to
this Community Development Authority (CDA). The Authority was organized by the
County for the purpose of financing, funding, operating, maintaining, and putting in
infrastructure to allow the development of this site and to raise the funds necessary.
For this reason, this Board should insure that any activities on that site meet the goals
and vision and be evaluated against what was described to the County and what you
were sold when the CDA was approved. In all due respect to the applicant, we doubt
that is it consistent with those things. We understand that while there is much
information before you, questioning the market, the likely success, you all are not in the
business of picking winners or losers or getting into people’s competitive marketplace.
We tend to agree with some of that analysis, but let’s set that aside. If we do that, who
should we listen to? He would suggest your own Economic Development Office. Your
staff, despite all the things you have heard and having all that information, do not
recommend moving forward this project and recommend this use at this specific
location. They voted correctly that it is inconsistent with things out there. If your
professional development staff aren’t ready to abandon the plan and promise of South
Peak and trying to find an appropriate tenant for this site and neither should you be in a
rush to do so. The parking is a shared lot. When you look at the use and the map,
what is the zoning ordinance that requires an SUP for this? The staff did a good job of
explaining. Can you mitigate the impacts of the use? There is a requirement for an
SUP, because we know that this use maybe isn’t consistent. Maybe it could be put
somewhere it is more visible or grading or those types of things make it not so
dominate. Here we have the exact opposition. This is not a low profile location
screened by topography or site elements. It is making use of the topography to be a
living, giant billboard. It is a very large building sitting on the top of the hill and it is
attractive for that because the sheer mass and scale of this 100,000 sq. foot building
sits there as a giant advertisement. Is that really what we want as we go down and look
at the 419 Gateway. Your ordinance 3019-1 tells you to look at those things. Can you
minimize the adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood? He has not heard
anybody talking about minimizing that impact. He has heard that we have not found a
user yet that fits so let us do this use, but we really don’t have something that fits in
there and does that with little to no vegetation. There is little job creation benefit. There
is some real estate tax, but we are not talking about job creation. Even the restaurant
next door employees 50 to 100 jobs depending on the time of year; significant food and
beverage tax. It took some years to get the Texas Roadhouse; he would submit that it
is worth it. There is a high cost; both here and down the road in abandoning the goals
February 26, 2019
80
and the desired uses that were spelled out for South Peak and respectfully ask that you
consider those in determining whether or not a SUP is appropriate at this site and this is
the appropriate location for that type of use.
Supervisor Hooker stated she had some commentary and would like to
give her thoughts. She advised she thought there was good dialog tonight and
appreciates what the petitioner is attempting to do and that is to do business in
Roanoke County and we are appreciative of that. She also appreciated the
commentary of some of the concerns and they were well taken and appreciated. She
advised she sees this parcel as being a destination parcel; this is something that people
have to want to get to in order to be maximized. It is a destination parcel; people are
not going to be driving by and decide to stop. They have to want to go there and
because of that it is special. The whole landscape there has potential to really be
special and she wants us to stay true to that original ideal for that property. The scale is
overwhelming and the idea of this being more like a billboard struck a nerve for her
personally. She sees it as being a permanent billboard and she is not sure that she
feels confident that it is not the original purpose or original goal for this property. She
agrees that it probably more appropriate for a light industrial. The Planning Commission
was probably right on point and so for that reason, she will not be supporting the
petition.
Supervisor Peters stated as someone who served on the Planning
Commission for a number of years with Ms. Hooker and a short time with Mr. Radford,
one of the things we did was do a rezoning up there. We took our trips up there. We
met with the developer back before the hotel or Texas Roadhouse appeared on the
scene. One of the things that has struck him through that was we had a lot of
community input on what they wanted to see there and what they wanted that vision on
the hill to look like long term. To fast forward to 2016, this Board along with the
Planning Commission began a conversation about Rt. 419, the whole corridor, and what
we want this to look like. We have the Bio-Medical Center right down the street. We
have a great opportunity to really expand this part of Roanoke County as time moves on
and he is excited about that. He does not feel this will fit into what we are looking to do
long term and he guesses something the last gentleman said, he is not prepared to
abandon his goals. When we talked to the citizens, they told us what they wanted to
see there. There was a promise made by that developer of what this was going to look
like, whether he has abandoned us and gone to Charleston, SC, is not our problem.
We want to stay true to what they are trying to develop on that site along with the
Tanglewood Mall area. He is optimistic and storage buildings may be the hot trend, but
will it be long term. He does not believe it will be. For those reasons, he cannot support
the petition.
February 26, 2019
81
Supervisor Radford stated he was going to approach from a different
angle. He is a developer and also in the mid 1970’s, his family developed mini-
warehouses in Salem on Apperson Drive. One of his summertime jobs was managing a
mini-warehouse and it was very helpful to our family and recovery at a time when we
needed it. 2008 we all lived through it, everything changed. Market conditions for retail,
office park, subdivisions all came to a halt. He let go 15 people in his company. They
went from building 30 homes a year to zilch. So, he understands what the Smith’s are
going through. Even though Mr. Smith isn’t here physically living here, he still owns the
property. He still wants to do something with it. We are in partnership with the Smith’s
through the CDA. As he reads through the documents and Mr. Mahoney on August 24,
2010, wrote a comment, “realistically and practically the ultimate performance of a CDA
could create issues for the County; a failed CDA would negatively affect the County’s
future bond credit rating. This would occur with the County seeks to sell future bonds or
during a routine evaluation for the ratings agencies.” So, Mr. Mahoney is making a
statement in this document that we are tied with the success of South Peak. So,
tonight, before us, like Mr. Prillaman said, Venture Storage is coming to us as a willing
and able partner. They want to buy the property and make it a success. In the staff
report, just as Mr. Thompson reiterated, he puts all the facts down there and then it is
for us to decide. He sees all positive stuff, other than the economic development
comments that says the project is inconsistent, but yet, when we have the 2010
document, which this property does not apply to in terms of zoning for that proffered out
use we talked about earlier, it is permissible. So, he understands the competition
wanting to through disruptions on it. He particularly like the architecture of the building
and thinks they can make it blend in. It looks big, but for right now, it is a good use for
the land in what he sees.
Supervisor North stated he is not going to repeat everything everyone else
said, but most concerting is that this is tough to have some place sit vacant for so long.
Thanks to the gentleman from Thalheimers who articulated his search efforts as well as
comments on the marketplace today. They are all worth noting to take away and think
about. He personally does not think we are going to get anything anytime soon. We
are facing headwinds of recession at the end of next year or 2021. He hopes he is
wrong, but anyone who reads the Wall Street Journal, every now and again, sees
evidence of it coming; a correction is in the making. Maybe that won’t happen and he
hopes it doesn’t, but he believes the site as proposed is too big and agree with the
Planning Commission. He has spoken with the Hollins representative, Mr. Bowers, and
from the pictures he has seen is just too large for this site. He would like to issue a
challenge for Roanoke County to continue efforts to mitigate or find another business to
go up there.
February 26, 2019
82
However, he would also like to suggest that if there are other sites available in the area
of Roanoke County that we try to show the Venture Group these sites, because we are
open for business in Roanoke County and we want to increase our tax base and that is
what makes it so tough for him to have to say that sadly we are not going to do that this
evening. If the size was mitigated to a small footprint, then that might be a different
view that he would have.
ORDINANCE 022619-6 DENYING THE GRANTING OF A
SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN A C-2 (HIGH INTENSITY
COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT TO CONSTRUCT A MINI
WAREHOUSE STORAGE FACILITY ON 3.10 ACRES, LOCATED
NEAR THE 4400 BLOCK OF SOUTH PEAK BOULEVARD IN
THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, in 2004 the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors rezoned
approximately 30 acres of the South Peak Development (then called Slate Hill) from
C02C, R-3, and C-1 to C-2C. As part of the rezoning, there were a set of proffers that
addressed uses, slopes, buildings, roads, access, ridgeline, utilities, retaining walls,
landscaping, site lighting, signage, parking and storm water management. Also included
with the application was a set of exhibits showing the general road and development
pattern for South Peak (Ordinance 062204-11 and exhibits attached); and
WHEREAS, in 2010, Roanoke County formed the South Peak Community
Development Authority (CDA) to assist in financing the infrastructure, improvements
and services in connection with the development of the land into a mixed-use
development proposed to include commercial, retail and residential component; and
WHEREAS, in 2012, the South Peak Condominium Project and Estates at South
Peak rezoning was approved. In 2014, construction was completed for the South Peak
Hilton Garden Inn. This property is zoned C-2C and was subject to the 2004 proffers. In
2016, the construction of the Texas Roadhouse restaurant was completed; and
WHEREAS, three separate parcels are included as part of this special use permit
request. All of the parcels are currently owned by McNeil Properties, LLC with Venture
Storage Group, LLC as the contract purchaser. The properties were not part of the 2004
rezoning request but are adjacent to those properties and are part of the same overall
development. Until this project request, staff is unaware of any development plans
associated with South Peak that have included a mini-warehouse/indoor self-storage
use; and
WHEREAS, the submitted concept plan by Venture Storage Group, LLC shows a
three story building approximately 105,000 square feet in size; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on February 5, 2019, and subsequently denied the request, with a 4-1 vote
of denial; and
February 26, 2019
83
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 18, 2018,
and the second reading and public hearing were held on February 26, 2019; 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, that
the Board hereby DENIES the applicant’s request for a special use permit to allow
construction of a mini-warehouse storage facility on 3.10 acres zoned C-2 (high
intensity commercial district), located near the 4400 block of South Peak Boulevard
(Tax Map Nos. 077.20-01-21.00-0000, 077.20-01-22.00-0000, and 077.20-01-24.00-
0000) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District.
On motion of Supervisor Assaid to deny the motion (in which he incorporated
findings made by Planning Commissioner Mahoney on February 5, 2019, and further
found that the applicant’s proposed use is inconsistent with good zoning practice
because it does not facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious
community), seconded by Supervisor Hooker, the motion was carried by the following
roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, Peters, North
NAYS: Supervisor Radford
5. The petition of Virginia Class Action Softball Club to rezone
approximately 11.03 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential,
District to C-2, High Intensity Commercial, District for a
commercial outdoor sports and recreation facility, located at 4774
Pioneer Drive, Vinton Magisterial District (Philip Thompson,
Acting Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the petition.
Ben Crew from Balzer and Associates introduced two members of the
“Scrappers” Board who were in attendance. He advised the “Scrappers” were looking
for a home.
Supervisor Radford asked if it was in the floor way or flood plain? Mr.
Crew responded with both and that the petitioner is aware.
Supervisor North asked about time limits and lighting. Is there going to be
an issue with lights staying on after 10:00 p.m. Mr. Crew stated the applicant would
follow all the noise ordinances and there is no intent to go past 10:00 p.m. This
property falls under the same requirements, even though the polls are taller, we have to
meet the requirement at the property line. Supervisor North asked if you had enough
space for parking. Mr. Crew advised they can accommodate 128 spaces and feel that
is enough.
Chairman North opened and closed the public hearing with no citizens to
speak on this item.
February 26, 2019
84
Supervisor Peters commented it is the highest and best use for this
property. It is not going to be built on. It is in the flood plain. He has spoken with Mr.
Ellis and discussed Pioneer Lane and is going to ask staff to have the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) stop maintaining the road and abandon that
property. He believes it will be of good benefit to the community. He did not want to
see Glade Creek used because it is not the best road through there. Secondly, the
flooding issue could present a problem.
ORDINANCE 022619-7 REZONING 11.03+/- ACRES FROM R-1
(LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT TO C-2 (HIGH
INTENSITY COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT FOR A COMMERCIAL
OUTDOOR SPORTS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITY
LOCATED AT 4774 PIONEER DRIVE IN THE VINTON
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, upon the petition of Virginia Class Action Softball Club to rezone
approximately 11.03 acres from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to C-2 (High Intensity
Commercial) with a proffered condition, located at 4774 Pioneer Drive; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 5, 2019
and recommended approval of this application; and
WHEREAS, first reading of this ordinance was held on January 22, 2019, and the
second reading and public hearing were held on February 26, 2019; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. The Board approves the rezoning requested by petition of Virginia Class
Action Softball Club to rezone the parcel located at 4774 Pioneer Drive (Tax
Map No. 040.02-01-02.00-0000) from R-1 to C-2.
2. The Board accepts the voluntary proffered condition of general conformance
with the “Scrappers Softball Fields-Development Plan” prepared by Balzer
and Associates, Inc. dated January 30, 2019, subject to any changes required
by the County of Roanoke during the site plan review process.
3. The Board further finds that the proffered conditions:
a. Have a reasonable relation to the rezoning;
b. Are in conformity with the comprehensive plan;
c. Are clearly understood and enforceable; and
d. Do not require or allow a design or standards that are less restrictive
than are now covered under the County’s current development
regulations.
February 26, 2019
85
4. The Board finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the purpose
and intent of the County’s Comprehensive Plan and good zoning practice,
and will not be a substantial detriment to the community.
5. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final
passage. 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 Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
North, the motion was carried by the following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, Radford, Peters, North
NAYS: None
Supervisor Peters then directed staff to start the process to vacate
Pioneer Lane.
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Hooker thanked those who attended her announcement that
she is running for reelection; she appreciated it so much. Looking forward to the next
few months of the campaign.
Supervisor North commented that Roanoke County staff and others have
submitted three projects on behalf of the County and staff to the Roanoke Valley-
Alleghany Regional Commission. These three projects will help them have some work
this summer, the Regional Career and Technical Education Center Study request, the
Roanoke County Housing Gap study and the last one is the Transportation Study to
measure truck diversion from Interstate 81 onto potential rail to help the trucks move by
another mode. The goal there is to quantify what that might be. Last, but not least, he
has been asked to remind folks on April 8, 2019, from 8:30 until 12:30, the blue Ridge
Sales Summit 2019 will be hosted at the Vinton War Memorial. It will include key note
speakers and session on social media for small business, branding your business and
entrepreneurialship, cyber security for business, succession planning and E-Virginia,
Virginia’s E-procurement marketplace. No fee, but advance registration is required at
salessummit.eventbrite.com or you may email, remain.gohar@sbsd.virignia.gov.
Registration is 8:30 until 9 and there will be breakout sessions 1 and 2 at 10:30 and
11:20 and refreshments and networking afterwards. If you have any questions, please
contact those folks
86 February 26, 2019
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman North adjourned the meeting at 9: 54 p.m.
• itted by: Approved by:
* / A I , t,;, , C _ n 0-'6'64
f Ie: •rah C. J. hiI C. North
Chief Deputy to the Board Chairman